Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor President Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan once said, ``We in government should learn to look at our country with the eyes of an entrepreneur, seeing possibilities where others see only problems.'' It is that spirit that brought me and many others into the public service profession. I am proud to have cast my first presidential vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Fortunately for this country and the world, a majority of my fellow citizens agreed.

Ronald Reagan served as a beacon of hope and inspiration. His vision of a stronger, optimistic America inspired me to action. In 1980 I was a young student at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa and I jumped right into grassroots politics on my campus. I was selected to attend the Republican National Convention that summer and was one of the youngest delegates there.

Iowans are proud of our connection to President Reagan. WOC, a Davenport radio station in my district, gave Ronald Reagan his first job out of college and he lived in Iowa for several years.

Ronald Reagan made the future something to charge toward rather than fear. His philosophy was based on a brilliant truth: He knew without a doubt that having faith in Americans would create the best America.

The Reagan Revolution is still the foundation for my core beliefs: The American people make better decisions about their daily life than the government can for them. Keeping America secure is job one. Peace is best achieved when you negotiate from a position of strength.

I keep a plaque on my desk with a quote from Ronald Reagan. It reads ``There's no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.''

Today, I join my colleagues, thousands of Iowans and millions of Americans in giving credit to Ronald Reagan for renewing our nation and for changing the world forever with his leadership and ideals.

Thank you, Mr. President for reminding us why we should be proud to be Americans and for making us feel safe when nothing in the world seemed safe. Above all, thank you for your humor, optimism and for believing the best in us. We will never forget you.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was detained and was not able to cast my vote on Rollcall #195, passage of H. Con. Res. 424, Honoring past and current members of the Armed Forces of the United States and encouraging Americans to wear red poppies on Memorial Day. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 649, I call up the conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. Con. Res. 95.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank members of the Committee on the Budget on both sides of the aisle that have worked throughout the process this year. I wish to thank my ranking member and friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

We will embark today on a vigorous debate. I have a feeling that we will differ quite a lot on the policy and the issues before us faced in the budget, but we do so in a cheerful manner, one that is with full respect; and I have enormous respect for my very able friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

I also want to thank our staff. Rich Meade and the entire Committee on the Budget staff, they have worked very, very diligently on the majority side; and Tom Kahn and the minority staff have also done that. They prepare Members, not only on the committee but throughout our conferences and caucuses, so we are prepared for this debate today and throughout the year, and they deserve our support as we move forward and our appreciation.

As we started crafting the budget this year, there was certainly really no lack of naysayers who said that getting a budget passed this year would probably be next to impossible. There were way too many challenges, people said, facing our country, too many conflicting interests, too much pressure because of the upcoming elections.

All of those things are certainly true. It is true we are dealing with a number of other challenging issues, such as the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the war against terrorism in general on a global basis.

But we will prevail as a Nation. Regardless of the debate that we have today on budgets and taxes and pay-as-you-go and the national debt, we will prevail as a Nation, because it is not about budgets in the end. It is not about taxes in the end. It is about an American spirit that will not die, because we believe in freedom, and that is freedom that is given to us as a little seed planted in our hearts when we are born and something that blossoms throughout our lives. We want to share that with the world, and we believe that by sharing it with the world, we will have a safer place in which to live.

I am also happy to report that we have prevailed, despite a myriad of critics who said it could not be done, that we would not even get a conference report agreement between the House and the Senate. We were able to do that. So today in the House we will complete the first step of what are some of our most fundamental duties.

I am extremely proud of this budget and what it stands for. I would like to particularly thank our leadership, our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); our deputy whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor); and our whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt); as well as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce). All of the leadership team worked hard, standing our ground for the budget principles that we knew must be done.

And what was that must-do list for this year's budget? Clearly, this budget had to provide for the defense and homeland security of our Nation. That is job one. There is no excuse not to complete the most important job that this country requires of a Nation in order for it to be free, and that is the defense of our country.

Second, this budget had to continue to support a program of economic growth for our country, as well as continue our commitment to a host of critical domestic programs, such as veterans benefits, education, health care, and prescription drugs for seniors. And we had to do all of this while reining in our spending and working to reduce the deficits we incurred while responding to extraordinary circumstances over the past few years.

Getting a consensus on what was exactly right or correct was not easy. It has been very difficult. Every single person has their own idea of what a perfect budget would look like. This is not a perfect budget, and I dare say my friends on the other side will remind me of that time and time again today; but it is what is doable at a time of extreme circumstances in our Nation's history.

I have heard people say at time of war we ought to do this; at time of economic challenge we ought to do that; we ought to fund priorities. All of those are true. But we have never faced all of them at the exact same time: to have a downturn in the economy, be faced with two wars, a global response to terrorism, the most unbelievable tragic event of terrorism facing our Nation. All of this happening at the exact same time is something that has never happened to our Nation.

So these are extraordinary circumstances and we will respond. Let me tell you the guiding principles of this budget of how we are going to respond.

First is strength. We are free as a Nation as long as we are able to defend our freedom at home and abroad. And so the first principle is strength.

Second is growth. We must continue to grow. Our policies are helping to boost the economy. We do not want to grow government. We want to grow the earning capacity of people. We want to grow the ability to create jobs. We want to grow the entrepreneurial spirit in our country. That is what we want to grow. And we have already seen, the last 6 months have been the fastest growth in 20 years as a result of the policies put forward by our President and by this Congress. And we believe that must continue.

Business investment is up. Unemployment is falling, and it is lower now than it was on average for the 1970s, the 1980s or the 1990s. And most important, we are seeing jobs being created.

More Americans are working today than at any time in American history; 1.1 million jobs have been created over the last 8 months alone. So to remain the most prosperous superpower, our economy must be able to continue to grow.

Finally, opportunity. Strength, growth and, finally, opportunity. America's continued greatness comes from the unlimited opportunities that our American freedom provides. We are all for that. And we must continue to encourage those opportunities for a better life for every American citizen. Government certainly has a role in that.

Those were the guiding principles of our budget that we passed here in the House, and they remain the guiding principles as we work through this conference agreement.

I also want to talk to you about a few principles with regard to this budget that were included in the final conference agreement. First, there will be no tax increase. And let me be clear: If you vote ``yes'' on this budget, you are saying we do not need a tax increase. We do not want an automatic tax increase to happen, and we do not believe that this is a time for Americans to dig deeper in their pockets in order to deal with challenges we should be facing here in Washington.

Tax increases should not be the solution. And so if you vote ``no'' on this budget, be aware you are voting to automatically allow tax increases to occur this year.

That is what this budget will do. It will prevent an automatic tax increase. So by voting against it, an automatic tax increase will occur.

Second, on spending, our constituents have told us time and time again that we have got to rein in spending. We have got to control the waste, fraud and abuse in Washington. And certainly that is often in the eye of the beholder; but we believe that it is time to go through our departments, through our categories and look at ways to rein in spending. We cannot begin to address reducing the budget deficit without holding the current rate of spending growth.

This is what our spending growth has looked like in the past few years, a lot of growth. Most of that from necessary demands, but we cannot sustain that spending growth. So we have looked for ways to control spending throughout the budget. This budget calls for holding the line on nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary spending. For the first time, this Congress, certainly in my tenure here and I daresay in the tenure of all Members of this body, this will be the first opportunity for you to vote to freeze or hold the line on nonsecurity spending in Congress.

Let us talk about the war. The President did not, when he submitted his budget back in February, contemplate the true cost of war because they were unknown at that time. Our budget has taken that into account.

We know, without question, that there will be costs for the ongoing war and that this budget will have an effect as a result. Do we know the exact amount? No. That is not known right now to the Congress, to the Defense Department, to the President.

We can speculate, and we have put into this budget a placeholder that says $50 billion, based on the estimate that we have for this year, is an appropriate figure to begin planning for the 2005 costs of the war.

And thank goodness we did that, because right after we passed our budget, we found out that at least $25 billion will be necessary to fund the ongoing conflict during 2005. So it is not with precision that we know this amount, but it is something we need to plan for in this, and this budget accomplishes that.

This budget does all of this, if we follow it, to get us back to balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. We have to start somewhere.

There will be people who come to the floor today who say, you know, this is only a 1-year budget. Well, yeah, that is what we always pass. Last year we passed a budget; it had a lot of years on it, but we only followed it for a year. Then we renegotiated it this year. We will to the same next year and the year after. In fact, every year I have been here we have gone year to year to year with regard to taxes, spending, rules, appropriations, all of the different issues that face us today.

And so we are coming forward to present to you today a 1-year budget. It complies with the Budget Act. You will see 5 years' worth of projections for the amounts of money, but this is a 1-year budget. And we believe if we can get this right and if we can hold the House and the other body and the President to this plan, it puts us on a path to not only controlling the deficit, but getting us back to a balanced budget.

This budget is the first step in accomplishing that but it only works if we stick to it. This is our next major challenge, I daresay, to begin to get past all of the excuses of the last few years, although they are appropriate, certainly important rationale for how we have gotten here.

But we need to move forward. This allows us to do that today. So we need to vote ``yes'' in order to move this plan forward. But let me be clear: If you vote no, as I said before, you vote for an automatic tax increase, you vote to cut veterans' spending because we increased veterans' spending here over the President's amount by $1.2 billion; you are not supporting the troops to the tune of $50 billion contemplating the war costs.

Sure, you can say we will vote for the appropriations bill, but this plans for it in a budget. And I also suggest, you are not doing what you need to do to plan for defense and homeland security of our Nation.

This puts us on a track to fiscal responsibility. It meet our needs and the strengths of our country and growth for the economy and opportunity for the future. And I ask my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just respond quickly and say, and I forgot this part, we are reducing the budget deficit by $100 billion. So I understand there is concern out there. We are taking $100 billion off the top as a result of this budget because we are planning our work and we are sticking to our plan, and it is a good plan.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

It is my understanding. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a very valued member of the committees.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time and let the other side catch up a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and then I will let them continue.

But I want people to listen. Listen. We have got half the speakers on that side saying, worry about the deficit and debt, and the other half coming like the gentleman from Minnesota saying we are not spending enough, we are not spending enough, we are not spending enough. So is it the deficit or is it spending? My goodness, my colleagues need to get their message straight.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to

respond to the gentleman that that is why our budget reduces the deficit next year, $100 billion alone, and that is without raising taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a very valued member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for the purpose of a colloquy between myself and the gentleman from Texas, and ask the gentleman to summarize.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, that provision is still in the budget. We worked to preserve that. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on that. The provision in the Senate-passed budget resolution concerning the farm payment limitation is not included in the conference version. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and his continued efforts in this regard.

The gentleman is correct and I appreciate his leadership on this issue and work to ensure that we keep the promises of the Farm Bill. The provision in the Senate passed budget resolution concerning farm payment limitations is not included in this conference version. Any major changes to farm payment limits or any other agricultural policies should be addressed by the Agriculture Committee which has jurisdiction over these issues.

While the House passed budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 393, included $371 million over five years in reconciliation instructions for the Agriculture Committee, these instructions, which were never intended to reduce critical farm commodity support programs, are not included in the conference agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a very valued Member and the vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It is often asked at a time, is America better off than it was 4 years ago? Is it better off at all?

Well, it is.

Homeland security. Since 2000, we have greatly strengthened our homeland security, in part because of the budgets that we have passed to make sure that our homeland is protected through strength. We have created the Department of Homeland Security and more than doubled the funding for homeland security since September 11. With the improved resources, we have increased presence in key ports, the Bio Watch program now on many large U.S. cities, and over 500,000 first responders have been trained. America's homeland security is better off.

Defense. Over the past 3 years, we have made great strides in correcting the defense deficit done in the early 1990s, including increasing the Department of Defense's annual budget by over $110 billion to prosecute the global war on terrorism, greatly improving the military quality of life. Our defense is better off than it was 4 years ago, and it is better off under this budget.

Our economy. The economy is growing now in 2004, the best in 20 years, not on the verge of a recession the way it was when President Clinton left office. Real gross domestic product growth is at its highest pace in 20 years. Payroll employment is growing strongly now. We have had 1.1 million jobs added to this economy just since last August. Manufacturing jobs are increasing, the unemployment rate is falling, and housing markets are the strongest in 20 years. The economy is much better off than it was 4 years ago and it will be better if we continue the policies of this budget.

Our budget is the blueprint that allows these policies to continue, and we will all be better off if we adopt that budget here today. We need to adopt it to provide the strength of this country, the growth for our economy, and the

opportunity for our future. And we can do it without a tax increase and reduce the deficit by over $100 billion next year alone. That is what this budget accomplishes. The other side offers nothing but fear and trying to talk down the economy and trying to scare people about our future. That is not an agenda. Fear and anger is not an agenda.

The agenda we need to adopt today is a positive one of strength, growth, and opportunity for our future; and we can do it if we adopt this conference report on the budget. I ask for the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

It is hard to believe that the Democrats are coming to the floor today and trying to spread fear and make sure that people feel that they are not better off. They ask the question, Are you better off than 4 years ago? They hope you are not. Republicans not only hope you are, but will work to make sure you are.

The Democrats have no plan to balance the budget. All they offer from their nominee is higher taxes and bigger government. The seniors, for the first time since the Medicare plan was put into place in 1965, have choices as a result of a Republican Congress and President Bush.

Students have received two times the increase of education funding since Republicans took office, three times for special education alone.

We have more workers working in this country than at any time in American history.

We had the strongest growth in the last 6 months. In the last 20 years we have not seen this kind of growth.

Interest rates are at the lowest ever.

The other side has stopped an energy plan going on now 6 years, and now they stand at the gas pump and wring their hands and wonder why gas prices are as high as they are.

Democrats hope you are not better off. Republicans will work to make sure you are better off.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me, through the Speaker, make it very clear to the people who are watching around the United States and around the world that maintaining the credit of the United States is one of the most important leadership and governing principles that must be adhered to.

I certainly understand why there will be Members who come to the floor who want to shake the markets, who want to suggest to people that maybe our credit is not good, who want to talk down the economy, want to provide some fear in the marketplace about what exactly will happen to our debt, but I just want to make it very clear that that will not be the principle of the governing party and the majority. There has never been a doubt that the United States will pay its debts when they are due. We have never defaulted on our loans, regardless of who was the party in control.

As a result, our creditworthiness is second to none. We have a very low borrowing cost, and as a result, we waste very little tax dollars on interest now, particularly compared to historic highs.

Without increasing the debt limit in a timely manner, the Department of Treasury would have to jump through a myriad of hoops to reallocate funds to ensure debts are paid. This is a completely unnecessary and ridiculous waste of their resources, and it is an unnecessary signal to the markets.

So there will be people who come to the floor, and they unfortunately did it all day today. I heard friends of mine from the other side who came to the floor today with hope in their voice that the economy was going to get worse, that the marketplace was going to be shaken, that there was going to be negativity out there about the economy. They may want to talk it down. They may want to try and scare people about the future, but as I say and make it clear, our country has never defaulted. We will not at this time.

No one is trying to hide anything. I mean, my gosh, it is 8 o'clock on the East Coast. My constituents are watching, 7 o'clock in Iowa and in Texas. I believe that makes it Mountain Time; it is 6 o'clock, and 5 o'clock in California. No one is hiding. We are all here talking about the debt. So no one is hiding.

The Gephardt rule, as it is called, kind of an interesting name, does not hide anything. It makes it very clear that when we pass a budget, we extend the debt in order to cover that fiscal policy; and I want to make that sure to our marketplace and to the people that are watching. Our credit is secure; The full faith and credit of the United States is secure.

So while tonight, for approximately an hour, we will hear negativity, we will hear talking down the economy, we will hear hoping that things get worse, let me just suggest to my colleagues that things are actually getting a little better, and that is good news.

We are better off than we were 4 years ago. That will continue as we continue to climb out of the Clinton recession that was inherited in the year 2000.

We did exactly the right thing at the right time to get the economy back on its feet, and we have seen the strongest growth in our economy over 20 years as a result. People are going back to work. There are now more people working in our country than at any time in American history.

Sure, more people need to go back to work. Sure, we want to create more jobs. Yes, we want more entrepreneurs, but please do not allow those who are talking down the economy, wringing their hands, hoping people will be negative, we believe, toward the future, for probably some political purpose.

Do not allow that to shake your confidence in the United States, because what we are doing here is far more important than the unfortunate politics that seem to be taking over the floor these days as we move closer and closer to November.

So maintaining our credit has always been first and foremost for a fiscal policy, and we will do that again as a governing majority.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just ask the question: What is your solution?

It is an interesting speech. So does that mean we do not increase the debt limit? I understand that the other side does not want me to comment on the fact that someone is talking down the economy or talking about fiscal calamity or things like that to scare the marketplace, but the gentleman said all those things. I assume the gentleman means, do not pass a debt limit, or maybe the gentleman has another solution.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

I would continue to yield to the gentleman if he has a solution as to what we should do.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, so the Blue Dog budget is your solution?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and to correct the record, I would just get the Congressional Record out and show all of the votes and show the bipartisan support for a number of spending bills over the last 10 years, huge bipartisan support for all 13 appropriations bills, for the emergency supplementals, for the war with Iraq, to support our troops, which press release after press release after press release goes out claiming credit for the spending on the other side.

My guess is even the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) probably has put out one or two of those press releases, as most Members do.

Having said that, this is not the same as a family budget during periods of relative calm where dad and mom are working and there is no particular problem within the family. What we have here is a situation where the roof collapsed and where dad lost his job, and what you are telling that family is they cannot go borrow money?

Everybody knows in an emergency situation like that, when a family faces that kind of financial difficulty, one of their options has to be to be able to go borrow money.

Let us review the bidding here. We had a balanced budget on September 10, 2001. Remember those good old days. We had a balanced budget. Everybody took credit for it. Trust me, it was not just the Republican side of the aisle that took credit for it. I remember all sorts of credit that was being taken.

But what did that balanced budget get us? Did it protect our country that day? Did it keep us out of a recession? Did it make sure that we had good intelligence about what was coming the very next day? No, it did not. We had a deficit for our defense, we had a deficit for our intelligence, we had a deficit in homeland security, we had a deficit for growth in our economy. And, yes, we had a balanced budget, but we were running deficits all across the board in a number of areas. That was the legacy that Bill Clinton, the President, left us after he left office. That was the legacy of deficits even though, yes, the books balanced.

Well, the Soviet Union had a balanced budget, and it did not mean they were doing very well with regard to their future.

A balanced budget is an important indicator, and it is one that the gentleman and I support, but it is not the only indicator, particularly when we know within 24 hours of celebrating a balanced budget on September 10, we were hit with one of the worst attacks this country has ever seen, and where that was a gut punch to the economy that took us just till now to recover, and we are still recovering and hope to continue to recover.

That is the exact wrong time to ask those people who are working hard for more tax money. Instead, it is time to limit spending, which is exactly what our budget did. Unfortunately, the other side, in a number of budgets, offered a different approach. Most of them offered spending increases. Yours did not, but all of them offered major tax increases at a time that we felt was not the right time for our economic situation.

It was not the time to ask those families, those small businesses, those parents with children, those married couples, to dig deeper in their pockets, but rather we should find the fortitude here to freeze the budget; and that is exactly what we are going to propose in the budget as it comes to the floor. We believe that it takes more than just rhetoric to solve this problem.

I understand the other side of the aisle has the right to come to the floor and to offer motions to instruct. But again the solution is not found within this motion. The solution is found within a budget that gets majority support and actually does the job of controlling spending, growing the economy, and protecting our country. That is the reason we have chosen the budget that we have; and we believe, as a result, we will get back on good footing and get back to a balanced budget in near time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman.

I would say, yes, we did adjust our plan and the gentleman voted for it. We had a stimulus plan in 2002 that was bipartisan that the gentleman joined in. We did adjust in order to not only deal with September 11, but to deal with the economic gut punch that the already inherited recession that we received took as a result of the downturn in the economy caused by September 11.

There have been adjustments in the game plan throughout these budgets, and the gentleman has supported some of those.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say to the gentleman from Texas, and we have, as the gentleman from Ohio said, been on the same side of the issues over the years often, thankfully more often than it appears sometimes we have been against each other of late. And I am not sure it is necessarily against each other as much as it is a difference of opinion, particularly with regard to the benefit of taxes at this point in time in our economic situation.

And I want to provide some information at this point. We really do believe that the tax relief that we have passed is beginning to work, and certainly it is in combination with a good fiscal policy, with a good Fed policy, low interest rates, a number of things that are helping us. But let me just go through these.

I think it is important to understand that the tax cuts are working. They are working. Allowing people to keep their money and to spend that money on their own behalf we believe is a much wiser way of proceeding than to take that money to spend it in Washington, and the result of that we believe are some of these numbers: real gross domestic product growth is at its highest pace in 20 years, 20 years since we have seen this high a growth in the gross domestic product. Over the last 6 months of 2000, real GDP growth was at a rate less than 1 percent. So that is why we talk about the fact that we had a growth deficit. The economy was not growing. We had to get that moving. Even before September 11, we recognized that. And after September 11, we made adjustments because we knew the gut punch the economy took was something that no one was prepared for and we had to make fiscal adjustments, which we did and even received bipartisan support for.

Net household income reached a record high at the end of 2003, which was $2.5 trillion higher than at the end of 2000. Housing markets are the strongest in 20 years. The unemployment rate is now falling down .7 percentage points from June of last year to April of this year. In contrast, 4 years ago, January 2000 to 2001, the unemployment rate rose during that period of time by three-tenths of a percentage point. Payroll unemployment is growing strongly now, over 1.1 million jobs just over the last 8 months, up by 867,000 over the first 4 months of this year. And as I said, we have the most people working in this country that we have ever had in our history.

Manufacturing jobs are increasing. Manufacturing industrial production is growing strongly. Real disposable income. Unemployment insurance claims are falling. All of the signals are there to suggest that not only is the tax relief package working, that Americans are going back to work, that their economy that they have to deal with around their kitchen table is finally working, and when their budgets work, when their economies work, when their families are prosperous, when they are working, when they are making an income, when they are paying taxes as a result of that growth in their income and having a job, it impacts the receipts that are coming in here. And we know that that is happening because we have already heard Treasury suggest that the receipts that are coming in are making our fiscal situation much better.

Will that in and of itself be enough? No. We are not betting that growth alone will balance the budget. No one is ever suggesting that, and that is why we believe we have to protect the country. That is going to cost money. And, thankfully, I believe we stand in a bipartisan support most of the time for those kinds of prospects and projects in homeland security and national defense. But it also means holding the line in those other areas; and that is why, as the gentleman from Ohio said, we do believe in pay-as-you-go, particularly for those new entitlements, particularly for those automatic spending programs that have not had the kind of oversight that they have needed over the years.

Our budget is going to provide that. We are not only going to do this without a tax increase, but we are going to start to go through and weed the garden, looking for waste, fraud, and abuse in those areas of mandatory spending. We are going to go through and look for ways for us to cut out wasteful programs within our appropriation accounts and freeze those nondefense and nonhomeland security accounts. We are going to do the tough work that that requires.

We hope that Members on the other side will join us; but my guess, different than the chorus that we have heard tonight, which I commend my friend from Texas for bringing to our attention, but different than the chorus we are hearing tonight, which is concern about that spending; it will be different. My guess is most of the amendments that we hear about during the appropriation season coming up in June and July will be about increasing spending. My guess is that we will hear about the fact that children are not getting enough money and that seniors are not getting enough money and that States are not getting enough money and that health programs are not getting enough money. My guess is that that is the chorus that we will hear. It will be the unfortunate and consistent wringing of hands that Washington is not spending enough money.

And when we see more discipline from both sides, but particularly from my friends on the other side, with all my friends, not just the gentleman from Texas, who usually joins us with that kind of fiscal restraint, but when I see that kind of restraint from all my friends on the other side of the aisle, it will be easier for us to come to bipartisan agreement with regard to the budget. If all we ever hang our hats on do not allow the tax cuts to be made permanent, do not allow for the predictability of these tax relief packages, do not allow this fiscal policy to work, do not allow for these jobs to be created, then I think it is going to be much more difficult for the two sides to come together and to come to an agreement. And with that we will have to have a vote. We will have to have a budget. The majority will rule. Sometimes we will win; sometimes we will not. But right now we have the votes, we believe, in order to continue to steer a course back toward a balanced budget, but to do it in a way that respects the need to protect our country, to make sure that we are able to prosecute successfully the wars that we are involved in, to make sure that we can get our economy back on its feet and growing again, and that we can create opportunities far into the future for our kids and our grandkids. Those are things that we hope to be able to accomplish in this budget.

The interesting thing I would just say in closing is that the Blue Dog

budget that the gentleman from Tennessee is advocating raises the debt ceiling. It is kind of interesting that it is not without its flaws. It raises the debt ceiling. In fact, over the period of time of the budget, almost as much, not quite as much, but almost as much as the budget that we will be presenting here on the floor hopefully by the end of this week, the interesting thing about it is that the debt ceiling will go up under the exact budget that the gentleman from Tennessee was advocating.

I respect the fact that the budget came forward, but it is one thing to say that our budget will require the debt ceiling to be increased. It is another thing to look inward and to say, guess what, we are doing the exact same thing. And why? Because the choices are pretty tough at this particular time. We have got to make sure that we fund our defense and homeland security. We have to make sure that we fund those important programs such as making sure that our seniors have a prescription drug benefit. And we have to make sure that at that same time we are able to keep the economy growing and providing opportunities for the future. If we assume those few things, there are very few choices left except to raise taxes; and as I say, that is where there is a departure on both sides.

We will not raise taxes. That is not what we are going to do in this budget. That is not what we are advocating at this time in our economic history. And that is the reason that we oppose this particular motion to instruct. We believe that we should manage our economy, which includes our debt ceiling, in a responsible way. And we believe our budget does that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, as those who have followed previous debates on the administration's proposed overtime rule changes may know, my position is clear. I have voted a number of times to uphold overtime protection for workers in Iowa and across the United States. In the future, I will continue my commitment to Iowa's workers.

However, today's motion to instruct introduced by the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, is nothing more than.a twisted procedural gimmick. The ridiculous motion would instruct conferees to act on a bill that was signed into law months ago. There are no conferees to instruct.

I will keep standing up for Iowa's working families as we consider this matter in the future, but those debates should be real and meaningful. As such I will vote yes on the motion to table.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have been doing a little research over on this side. Again for the third time in a row, the minority rushes to the floor with a breathless motion on fiscal catastrophe, as it was announced, and how if we vote for tax cuts without paying for them, all sorts of red ink will be used on charts all over America. My goodness, you had to almost ruin a printer to print all that red ink on that poster. It is fascinating to me that someone who would be so concerned, so breathlessly concerned about the fiscal catastrophe that awaits the United States if, in fact, you vote for taxes without paying for them would, as I have discovered in roll call No. 144, which was just voted on here, let us see, May 5, where the gentleman who just spoke voted for just such a proposition. He voted for tax cuts without paying for them. And now he rushes down here to the floor saying it is an important principle of fiscal sanity to pay as you go.

I know another principle and that is actions speak louder than words. In this instance, the actions of the gentleman voting not only on May 5, and that is what I was doing some more research on, not only on May 5 did he do that and joined 109 Democratic colleagues doing the exact same thing, wringing their hands at home, decrying tax cuts, trying to talk down the economy and telling how tax cuts are the bane of our existence and yet put out the same press release that day voting in favor of tax cuts and how that was so important to families and small businesses and I am sure the word ``farmer'' may have even been used in the gentleman's press release.

Then I discovered that on April 28, in a roll call vote, No. 138, I see yet again the gentleman from North Dakota voted in favor of tax cuts without paying for them. Once again I wonder, paying as you go, if that is such an important principle, why would the gentleman's actions, not his words, his words, of course, are we should pay for these things. We are facing a fiscal catastrophe, the gentleman just said. Yet he comes to the floor and votes not once but twice, and I am just wondering how the gentleman will vote tomorrow on tax cuts to make sure that we do not have a tax increase at the end of this year for the 10 percent bracket, the bill that I believe is going to be on the floor tomorrow. I wonder if the gentleman is going to vote for making sure that that tax is not increased on his farmers and small businesspeople. Many of them probably are similar to mine in my small towns and my small counties in Iowa. My guess is that he is not only going to vote the way he did the other two times in favor of cutting taxes without paying for them twice before, but I would bet he is going to do it tomorrow.

And I know why. Because the gentleman is going to argue that that is good for the economy, and he is right; and that it is good for those small business people, and he is right; and that it actually does create jobs, and he is right; and that it is unfair to tax families with children, to have an automatic snap-back tax increase at the end of the year, and he would be correct; and that it is unfair to penalize people who are married; and he would be correct. And so again the puzzlement occurs to this gentleman and so many others why it is that he says on one day pay as you go, but come to the floor on the next day and say, but I really did not mean it for those tax bills that I am in favor of that help my constituents. And it would suggest to me that maybe there is a new saying and it is, ``Do as I say, not as I do.''

So we have a situation here yet again, the third time that the exact same motion comes to the floor, and I am wondering if this is not for political purposes that you would on one instance say you have to pay for them and on another instance vote for those exact same tax relief bills as they come to the floor.

The economy is just now finally starting to come off the ground from where it has been, starting to create jobs, starting to see that jobless rate come down and people go back to work. And I know that there are many of my friends on the other side that are just desperately hanging on to any possible bad news about the economy because they know they are losing that issue politically for the fall election, and so they are desperately holding on to the last vestiges of that issue.

But I would suggest that what is good for our economy and our constituents now is to not have an automatic tax increase, that it does in itself pay for itself with the increase of economic development that is happening in our country. In fact, this year alone, CBO projected a $35 billion increase from one year to the next, paying for those tax cuts with the economic growth.

Oh, a lot of red has come to the floor. Another big red chart has come to the floor. Let us see how the gentleman who is about to speak voted. I can do that research pretty quickly. Oh, interesting, the gentleman from Virginia with another chart on the floor with a lot of red voted in favor of those same tax bills, not paying for them but voting for them, and I will bet I can find a press release telling his constituents how important those tax cuts were as we face this fall's election.

I have a suspicion that this is a political vote, and I would encourage my colleagues to treat it as such.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I only have one question. Why would he vote

to cut taxes on one day without paying for them and then come to the floor with a motion the very next day saying he does not have to pay for those taxes?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I do not recall the gentleman from Virginia standing with me on that Nussle-Cardin plan. I appreciate the rendition of history, but I wish he would have voted for that bill as well. I do not think any of the Members on the floor here today voted for that. It would have been a beautiful thing.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I do not, Mr. Speaker. Let us do some checking on that.

Mr. Speaker, there were so few who did, it would have stuck out like a sore thumb. That was not one of my finest hours, I would have to say.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am looking here. I do not see ``McDermott'' anywhere on the list.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me start by saying that I am sure, because I know the gentleman from Illinois to be a very honorable Member and friend, and I am sure all of those facts that he just cited were true about 1997 and the economy of the 1990s. Let us just assume for a moment that they are. It was peacetime. I mean, does the gentleman think there is a difference between the 1990s and the period of the 2000s since what happened when we inherited the Clinton recession of 2000 and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon of 2001, and the war with Afghanistan and now Iraq? Does the gentleman think there is just a little bit of difference between the 1990s and this next century that we are in? Maybe just a little. Maybe just a smidgen, it might be different.

And even though we found all sorts of spending priorities during the 1990s, education and the environment that the gentleman talked about, it is interesting that during those 1990s, we did not seem to find the priority of national defense or intelligence or homeland security, or a prescription drug benefit for seniors.

All of that time that President Clinton was working on all of these great policies of growing the size of government, taking more money out of the pockets of families with that huge tax increase of 1993, during all of that expansion of government, not once during that time could there be found the priorities of defense, intelligence, homeland security, and a drug benefit for seniors.

So I understand that there were different priorities back then. It was a different decade. We were at peace. We are now at war. This is not a time to raise taxes on the American family. We are just now coming out of a recession. This is not the time to raise taxes on business. We are now finally getting back on our feet; and it is not the time to say to people, we need more of your money. This is exactly the time, exactly the time to say that those tax cuts should be predictable, they should be permanent, people should be able to bank on them, they should be able to plan for their futures, they should be able to make decisions that affect their families and their small businesses and their farms without having the peril of somebody coming to the floor and suggesting now, for some reason, that we have to start paying for tax cuts, and then voting just the opposite when the actual tax cut comes to the floor for a vote.

It is interesting that on one hand they say we should pay for tax cuts and then the actual vote; and boy, I know they are kind of tricky, because just that vote, that specific vote on tax cuts, when that vote comes to the floor, they seem to be very interested in voting for that tax bill.

Let me just review some things, though, because I know my friends on the Democratic side are very interested in talking down the economy. They are interested in saying, those tax cuts have not worked. I want to tell my colleagues that the tax cuts have worked. Let us just review a few things.

Payroll employment increased by 288,000 jobs in April. We have the most people working in America at any time in our history, today. More people are working in America today than at any time in our history. Manufacturing employment increased by 37,000 jobs over the last 3 months alone. It was the best 3-month period since those boom days of the 1990s, since 1998; the best 3-month period since 1998. Unemployment was down to 5.6 percent in April from its high of 6.3 percent last June. Unemployment insurance claims have fallen to their lowest level in 3\1/2\ years since we inherited that Clinton recession of 2000.

Real growth in the economy, which is measured by our gross domestic product, was at 4.2 percent at an annual rate for the first quarter of 2004, following an 8.2 percent growth in the third quarter. It is the highest quarterly rate in over 2 decades, and the last 6 months have been the fastest growth in over 20 years. Manufacturing activity soared at the end of 2003 and into the beginning of 2004, registering its highest pace in 20 years.

So keep talking about the bad economy, keep using it as a political issue, keep trying to talk down the marketplace, keep trying to deliver all that bad news, because it is not here. People are going back to work. The economy is improving. People are making things. Because as my friend, the gentleman from Kansas, said, they have the money to spend. We are not taking it out here in Washington.

It is interesting that when Democrats come to the floor and they say pay as you go, guess what? They are not the ones willing to pay. When they say pay as you go, it means there is a tax increase buried some place, there is a secret tax plan that is available for anyone to look at, and it is called tax the rich. Well, hold on to your wallets, folks, because they think you are rich, and they are coming after you. And every single time they talk about taxing people, they are talking about taxing you. They are talking about taxing people who are married. They are talking about families with children. They are talking about small businesses that are creating the most jobs.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are concerned about when we say this is not the time to raise taxes and this is not the time to talk about paying as you go, because these tax relief packages that we have passed are getting the economy back on its feet and revenue, as a result, is coming into the Federal Government. We are receiving more revenue into the Federal Government than we are allowing people to keep in their pockets through these tax cuts that we are promoting on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is working. And the reason I know it is working is because 102 Democrats voted for them. They know, including the gentleman from North Dakota, who voted on April 28 to cut taxes without paying for them, because he knows, he knows what that means to the economy of North Dakota. He knows what it means to the economy of Iowa. He knows what it means to the economy of the United States. He knows where jobs are created. I know that because I have served with him every year he has served in the Congress, and I know the gentleman understands that that is how jobs are created. That is why he voted for these things.

I do not argue with the fact that he votes for them. What I am concerned about is that the leadership has forced the gentleman to come down here with a political issue. The last two gentlemen have failed in their attempts to try a political issue on the floor, and so now they roll out the gentleman from North Dakota.

But the gentleman from North Dakota, I know, is smarter than that, because on May 5 he voted to cut taxes without paying for them, because he knows that you do not have to pay for some of these tax cuts, because they generate economic activity. They generate that economic activity in farms and small businesses, putting people back to work; and as a result of those people back to work, they pay into the Federal Government in taxes as taxpayers, and the result is more revenue coming into the Federal Government. The gentleman knows that. That is why he votes consistently to reduce taxes.

I just wish that he would stop trying to tie our hands for the future; trying to tie our hands, just as the economy is

getting back on its feet, blaming tax cuts for all the red ink when we know because of two wars, when we know because of the gut-punch of 9- 11, when we know because of the bail-out of the economic crisis that occurred after the terrorists attacks, that we know because of huge increases for defense and homeland security, appropriately so, to protect the country, we have had to borrow money. We borrowed money deliberately, at a time with interest rates being very low, to do two important things: make sure that our country was protected and make sure that our economy could get back on its feet and start growing again.

Well, our country is protected and continues to be protected; and we will all do whatever it takes to make sure it continues to be protected. But we also have to make sure that it continues to grow, because while we can be secure in our border, we also have to be secure around the kitchen tables of North Dakota and Iowa and the rest of the country. We want to make sure those families who are faced with sometimes much more perplexing issues than what we face here in Congress, like how am I going to pay for college; and how am I going to pay for the health care bills; and how am I going to deal with clothing my kids when I have been out of work for a little while, those are important issues that they face, and we want to make sure they have all of the resources necessary in order to make those important decisions around their kitchen tables with their families.

The only way to do that is to continue the policy which has worked, which has gotten our economy back on its feet, and will continue to work if we allow it to do so, without being hamstrung by a special Senate rule that only stands in the way of making sure that those tax cuts can be predictable, that they can be permanent, and they can continue the job of making sure the economy grows.

Let us vote down this special rule that will only cause tax increases in the future, and let us support the underlying budget which controls spending, which grows the economy, and which makes sure our country is protected. That is the budget we need to pass. We do not need to have a Senate rule, a rule from the other body to tie our hands for tax reform, tax relief, tax simplification in the future. That is what the gentleman, unfortunately, and probably inadvertently, would accomplish if, in fact, this plan passed. He wants to continue to support tax cuts; so do we. We want the economy to continue to grow, and the only way to do that is to vote down this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed. The gentleman who offers the motion to instruct conferees says, gee, it would be nice if we had a rule that tax cuts had to be paid for. Well, that is not what the instruction says. The instruction says they should. It is not a, gee, it would be nice. The gentleman just voted for a tax cut that was not offset, was not paid for. In fact, he joined 109 Democratic colleagues who voted not to pay for tax cuts.

In fact, what is even more interesting is that the same gentleman, and I respect his position, because it is how I voted, so it is hard to complain when somebody joins you on a vote, I do not mean it that way, voted just last week with 101 other colleagues for the marriage penalty relief, without offsetting pay-as-you-go requirements.

So on the one hand, the gentleman is saying we ought to have a rule, we ought to have a rule around here that you pay for things. It is important to do that, because we are in a hole and you ought to stop digging.

I understand. We have heard that rhetoric a lot. Except, he says, do not apply it to me, is what the gentleman is saying. Instruct everybody else for other tax bills, but not the one I just voted for this week, or not the one I voted for last week. Let us have a pay-as-you-go rule, but let us not apply it to us right now because it is kind of politically popular to vote for this.

The difference is that on our side of the aisle we know and we agree with the gentleman that tax cuts often pay for themselves in a way that stimulates the economy, stimulates growth, puts people back to work, generates economic growth and development, and drives revenues into the Treasury to the tune of, this year, what we know already from what CBO says, is about $200 billion more revenue. Even with tax reduction, even with those tax cuts, $200 billion is what CBO estimates now. Just yesterday, in The Washington Post, it was revealed that that number is only going up, is what we are hearing.

So on the one hand, just 5 minutes ago the gentleman voted for tax relief without paying for it and now rushes to the floor with a rule that says but from now on and for everybody else, it is fair to, quote- unquote, pay for tax cuts.

I think we should be consistent; and just like in the past, we should consistently say that in this instance we should not tie our hands when it comes to creating jobs, when it comes to making sure that married people are not penalized, when it comes to not raising taxes on families with children, when it comes to AMT relief that people are being hit with now, this alternative minimum tax, that we should provide that kind of relief, and we should do it in a way that does the job now and gets the economy going, as opposed to putting some arbitrary rule on, which I would argue if you vote 5 minutes ago one way, and then come back here and say, well, really I did not mean that, which vote do you not mean? Is it the vote for tax relief, or is it the vote for the rule?

So I would hope that people do not tie our hands when it comes to this, what is called pay-as-you-go. When it comes to taxes, I have said it before and I will say it again, you may think the government pays for taxes. The only people in America who pay for taxes are taxpayers, and they are the people who deserve the relief, and what you are trying to do is cause automatic tax increases for this country by tying hands and by putting arbitrary rules in, and I do not believe that is the right thing to do for this economy. It is finally back on its feet, it is finally creating jobs, and we need to make sure that continues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to someone who exemplifies the meaning of public service. I want to join Kitty's

constituents in expressing my sadness on the retirement of Iowa State Senator Kitty Rehberg after 8 years of dedicated service to our State. Instead of spending several months each year in Des Moines, Senator Rehberg is choosing to spend more time in Rowley with her family, particularly her supportive husband, Frank, and their grandchildren.

I have known Kitty for many years, and have been proud to watch a former staff member achieve such a record of success. While working for me as a district representative in Iowa, she showed her dedication to my constituents. Once she was elected to the Iowa Senate, I watched her define the meaning of hard work on behalf of her constituents. People could agree or disagree with her on the issues, but no one could ever disagree that she worked hard every single day on her constituents' behalf.

For those who follow her in her seat, and for her colleagues she will not return to next year, they have a tough void to fill. Kitty has set the bar high on service to Iowa. If they are half as hard working as Kitty, Iowa will continue to benefit.

Below I have included Iowa Senate Resolution No. 153, which honors Senator Kitty Rehberg. I wish Kitty continued success and many, many quality hours with her family and friends. It is well deserved.

Iowa Senate Resolution No. 153

Whereas, Senator Kitty Rehberg is retiring from legislative

office after completing two terms in office as a State

Senator; and

Whereas, Senator Rehberg's distinguished career as a State

legislator has included service as the Chairperson of the

Small Business, Economic Development and Tourism Committee in

the Seventy-ninth General Assembly, as Chairperson of the

Economic Growth Committee in the Eightieth General Assembly,

and as Chairperson of the Education Appropriations

Subcommittee in the Seventy-seventh and Seventy-eighth

General Assemblies; and

Whereas, Senator Rehberg has also served as Vice

Chairperson of the Education Committee and on many other

standing committees throughout her 8 years of legislative

service and has been an influential and devoted legislator in

this state; and

Whereas, Senator Rehberg has been influential in the

passage of legislation in areas of economic and rural

development, and education, and has championed the interests

of her constituents; and

Whereas, Senator Rehberg has served honorably and has

unselfishly given of her time and efforts to further the

interests of the State of Iowa and to provide beneficial

programs for the citizens of Iowa: Now therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, That the Senate pay tribute to

Senator Kitty Rehberg for her devoted service to the Iowa

General Assembly and the citizens of this state and wish her

the very best in the years ahead; and be it further

Resolved, That an official copy of this Resolution be

prepared and presented to Senator Rehberg.

Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2004 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 501 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through April 9, 2004.

The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature.

The first table compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does now show budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered.

The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2008. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. A separate allocation for the Medicare program, as established under section 401(a)(3) of the budget resolution, is shown for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2013. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a).

The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2004 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. This table also compares the current level of total discretionary appropriations with the section 302(a) allocation for the Appropriations Committee. These comparisons are needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach either the section 302(a) allocation or the applicable section 302(b) suballocation.

The last table gives the current level for 2005 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 501 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 501 of the budget resolution, which creates a point or order against appropriations bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's motion to recommit.

I do, Mr. Speaker.

I make a point of order against the motion to recommit because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. A motion that would cause any increase in new budget authority will breach the allocation made under section 302(a) to the applicable committee and is not permitted under 302(f) of the act. This motion causes such an increase in new budget authority and, therefore, is not in order.

I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, my understanding is that the only difference between the motion to recommit that the gentleman just offered and we struck with a point of order and the one that he is now offering is the difference between the words ``forthwith'' and ``promptly.''

Is that the gentleman's understanding?

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, then, continuing to reserve the right to object, I would ask what the gentleman's changes are. Because my understanding is that the only difference is between ``forthwith'' and ``promptly.'' The first four pages are increases in spending to the level purported to be the level of the Senate, and then from page 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and on and on and on and on are increases in taxes, on and on from page 4 all the way, increasing taxes, not gas taxes, but all the way to page 174 are increases in taxes.

I would ask the gentleman, did he strike the tax increases from page 4 all the way to 174 in the motion to recommit?

Mr. Speaker, I will not object to the dispensing of the reading, but at this point I would like certainly to hear from the gentleman why it is that there are four pages of spending and then 170 pages of tax increases in this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 411 of H. Con. Res. 95, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record adjustments to the section 302(a) allocation to the House Committee on Transportation, set forth in H. Rept. 108-71, to reflect $3.777 billion in additional new budget authority for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

Section 411 authorizes the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust the appropriate budget aggregates and to increase the 302(a) allocation of new budget authority to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for fiscal year 2004 and for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to the extent such excess is offsets by a reduction in mandatory outlays form the Highway Trust Fund or an increase in receipts appropriated to such fund for the applicable fiscal year caused by such legislation or any previously enacted legislation.

As modified by the rule, H.R. 3550 makes additional receipts available to the Highway Trust Fund. Accordingly, I am increasing the 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by the above amount. With the adjustment, this bill is within the level assumed in the two periods applicable to the House; fiscal year 2004 and for the total of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 as required under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, with the House amendment thereto, insist on the House amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I join the gentleman when it comes to paying for things as we go. Every family, as the gentleman from California said, has to pay for things as they go. When they have a bill come in from the light company or from the gas company or from the city, from the city office, to pay for the water or the garbage collection, they have got to pay as they go. When we go to the grocery store and buy the milk and buy the bread and buy the eggs, we have got to pay as we go.

Spending should be paid as we go. There is no question about that. There is bipartisan agreement, I think, for that. Spending should be paid for. It is an important concept. And the gentleman spoke about the outrages of government on the spending side.

But the argument gets a little bit fuzzy when we start talking about the income side or the revenue side. The gentleman wants budget enforcement. He has got a partner over here in the Committee on the Budget chairman. I certainly want and expect that we will have budget enforcement and an opportunity for Members to vote on budget enforcement this year. In fact, we passed a bill out of the Committee on the Budget together with the budget that was for the purpose of enforcement. When we pass a spending plan, we ought to enforce it so that there are not increases in spending.

Unfortunately, the Spending Control Act that the gentleman supports and that I support and that I think we have bipartisan agreement on supporting has been murkied. There has been some murkiness applied to it. Because now, all of a sudden, people want to apply the same controls on spending over on

the tax cut side. And why do they want to do that? Because they do not support tax cuts, pure and simple.

If one comes to the floor today and they vote for this, it basically tells all of us that they do not support reducing the tax burden on Americans.

It would be one thing if for some reason the Federal Government was running out of taxes. I mean, if we came here today learning for the first time that the government was running out of money for some reason or another, that there were not taxes coming into the Federal Treasury, then I could see why people might be nervous and might say we ought to apply some kind of concern or more controls on the tax reform side of the debate. But, unfortunately, this is an arbitrary decision that comes in that sets yet again another 60-vote point of order on a Senate which already has the ability to enforce reduction in taxes with a 60- vote point of order, meaning that the way this bill or this rule would work is if they want to cut taxes in the Senate, they would have to get 60 votes to waive the rule that the gentleman is promoting today.

That is exactly what they would have to do if they wanted to pass a tax cut. So, instead of one vote, what the gentleman wants is two votes. Well, what is wrong with two votes?

The point of it is that why do we want to murky up the debate about controlling spending, about paying for things as we go by having yet another rule that comes in that will be gladly waived by everybody who wants to waive it, which has been cheerfully done time and time again not only in the other body but also in this body. Instead, what we should be doing is we should be controlling spending.

We passed a budget last week that controls that spending side, that says we should begin to pay as we go, but, unfortunately, what this motion does is it says that somehow the government should pay for taxes.

Think about that for a moment. We are coming up on April 15, a lot of people are going to be doing something very interesting about that point in time. They are going to be sending in a check to the Federal Government. And what does that do? It pays for taxes. So who pays for taxes in this country? The American people pay for taxes. How does the government pay for taxes? Seriously, think about that. How does the government pay for taxes? Does the government pay taxes? No. Each of us individually, I presume, pay taxes. I know I am going to be paying my fair share, and I am sure the gentleman from California and many other people who will come down here today will be paying for taxes. But does the government pay for taxes? No.

Now, if they come here today and they say they do not like the Tax Code, again I agree with them. The Tax Code is convoluted. Many of us on our side believe we ought to throw it out and start all over with a new Tax Code. If they say they want to close loopholes, they should vote for the budget when it comes back. Because loophole closing will be part of that for corporations or for anybody who is trying to take advantage of a loophole within the Tax Code.

So if they do not like the Tax Code, if they do not like loopholes that are in the Tax Code, if they want to control taxes, if they want to use taxes as a way to stimulate investment, stimulate savings, stimulate job creation in this country, then that is something that we should be doing.

But to pay for taxes, there is only one group that pays for taxes, and those are taxpayers. We have an income side, and we have an expense side. The expense side we should pay as we go, but the income side, how do we pay for income as we go? It does not make any sense.

So the entire debate today is not a debate about some responsible decision about paying for tax cuts. It is a direct attempt to eliminate any discussion this year of tax cuts. And if that is what they want to do, if they do not want to cut taxes on the job creators in this country, if they do not want to cut taxes on farmers, if they do not want to allow for married people who were penalized for many years to continue under a regime that allows them to finally not be penalized for their marriage, if they want to continue the tax relief that was provided to families with children, if they want to continue the tax relief to small businesses that create most of the jobs in this country, then they will come down here and say, no, no, no, they are just trying to prevent us from cutting taxes.

It sounds very responsible, ``pay-as-you-go.'' But remember who pays in this country: Taxpayers pay for taxes. The government does not pay for taxes. The government does not pay taxes.

One last thing that I want to say before I turn it back to my friend from California. As I was saying before, it would be one thing if the government was running out of money. If the debate today was, oh, my gosh, somehow tax cuts are irresponsible, because the government is running out of money. You allowed taxpayers to keep so much money that we are running out of money.

But here are the line items, and, since we are in the House, I will include this for the record, this revenue stream from the Congressional Budget Office, so that everyone can see this. But every single year under the budget, including tax relief, the amount of money that comes out here to Washington increases.

You might say to yourself, how is that possible? Do you mean to tell me if we pass tax relief, on the one hand, more money is coming in to the Federal Government? Is this done by magicians?

No, this is called an American economy that is now $11 trillion and growing, and when it grows and when it surges, when jobs are created and when people are working and when taxpayers pay taxes, and that is who pays for taxes, more money comes in to the Treasury.

Just listen to this: This year we estimate $1.8 trillion of taxes will be coming in to the Federal Government; next year it will be $2 trillion; then $2.2 trillion; then $2.35 trillion; then $2.475 trillion; then $2.6 trillion.

That is growing by about $150 billion a year, and that is a net figure. That is including us saying, taxpayers, keep your taxes; married people, keep those taxes you were being penalized; parents with children, keep that extra money for your kids. That includes us saying to small businesses, we do not want all that extra money, we want you to keep your jobs. That includes us saying to all those people, keep your taxes in your pocket. Do not send it out here in the first place, is what we are saying.

Every year more money comes in to the Federal Treasury. Not by Jim Nussle's account, not by any of us as Members, partisan or nonpartisan, but by the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office, which has the job of, in a nonpartisan way, looking at all of the statistics and giving us an idea of exactly how this is going to work.

People will come down here and say, do not believe figures 5 years from now. Just take this year to next, a $200 billion increase in taxes coming in to the Federal Treasury, and we are assuming as part of that that we want to reduce taxes.

Again, the whole point of this is, who pays for taxes? My friends on the other side come rushing down here today with a motion saying the government pays for taxes. That is wrong. There is only one entity in America that pays for taxes, and that is taxpayers. And as taxpayers, they constantly tell us, time and time again, we spend our money more wisely, you should worry about how you spend your money.

Taxes are doing just fine. We are sending more money every year, as I just explained, to the Federal Government. What you need to control is spending. You ought to pay-as-you-go for spending. You ought to make sure that you are paying for that increase in spending. That is where you ought to worry about that, and you ought to control spending in order to accomplish getting back to a balanced budget, which ours does.

Our budget that we passed last week, on a party line vote, unfortunately, does just that. It controls spending, it gets us back to a balanced budget, and it does it by reducing the tax burden on Americans, by a small amount, in order to allow them to keep that money and allow them to spend that money more wisely.

Taxes are paid by taxpayers. Taxes are not paid by the government.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the document referred to earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we buy and they pay. We buy and taxpayers pay. This is an attempt, in my view, to look for a tax increase. That is what this is about, increasing taxes.

We should not allow the Senate to impose a rule on the House. Sixty votes in the Senate just makes it harder to jump through yet another hoop in the Senate, and then I suppose one 60-vote hoop is more than enough. But we should not allow the Senate to impose those rules on the House.

If we are here to talk about rules of the other body, I could think of some good rules. How about a 51-vote rule for judges? We have got a lot of judges we need to appoint in this country. How about 51 votes? How about a new rule that says for voting on judges, it only takes 51 votes instead of 60?

How about a rule for the other body that says all bills shall be debated for not longer than 100 hours? That would be a pretty good rule. Not for the people watching C-SPAN necessarily, who would have to sit through a 100-hour debate, but do you not think one hour per senator would be enough to debate just about any bill? You would think so.

But, unfortunately, the way it works right now, it is unlimited. They could take up a bill and filibuster it for the rest of their lives, as long as they could stand on their feet.

So, there are a lot of rules that I would like to impose on the other body, if we wanted to talk about imposing rules.

I do not want to have the other body imposing rules on us. If we are serious about budget enforcement, we should pass a law, and that is the reason that we passed a very strong budget enforcement law on spending out of committee at the same time we passed the budget resolution.

That stronger bill is a bill that will be coming to the floor after we come back from the Easter recess, the district work period. It is not just a rule that can be waived, either by the House or by the other body, but it is a rule, it is a law, that is in statute, that actually helps us control spending. If you need to stiffen someone's spine, there is nothing like a law, rather than a rule, which have been traditionally and, unfortunately, waived.

It seems to me that, and parenthetically I would say to my good friend from South Carolina, we do not have a rule within the resolution with regard to spending, pay-as-you-go spending. The House did not pass a similar rule with regard to spending. But we do have a bill that we want to come to the floor after the district work period.

Again, the reason is because we believe on this side that spending is the concern, that is what you pay for, and that is what we should make sure we pay for, not reducing taxes to taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond.

The gentleman used an excellent example about his son; and the next time he has this allowance conversation with his son, because I have a son and I have this conversation once in a while as well, I want the gentleman to tell him that he actually does not get an allowance. He actually pays for an allowance. Is that not interesting? Do we think that would go over very well? I know it would not go over very well with my 13-year-old son. He would not understand how in the world he pays for an allowance. I pay his allowance. The gentleman from Hawaii pays his son's allowance. The taxpayers pay the Federal Government's allowance, called taxes. They pay. We buy, they pay. People should not have to pay for taxes when they have already been paid for by the taxpayers, and that is the whole discussion that we are having here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we borrow it because we keep spending. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) said, ``What happens? It is because we keep spending. We keep spending.''

I mean, the gentleman, I know he wants to respond, so let me just get in a couple of other jabs here, too, because he made some good points. But the gentleman said that, just like a family, if they reduce their income, they got to figure out how they are going to make ends meet. I agree with the gentleman.

The difference is, our income is not being reduced. Our income to the Federal Government, which comes from taxpayers who pay the taxes, and I know the gentleman knows that, but I am going to keep stressing it, they are paying more and more and more even with the tax relief that we have provided under this budget being made, as we say around here, permanent, which only means until the Senate figures out some cockamamie rule, as the gentleman from Florida said, that makes them all of a sudden snap back. They are only permanent until the Senate allows them to snap back under their rule.

So that is the problem we have got. We do not want another rule to make them just more difficult to be made permanent.

But, as the gentleman said, if there was less income coming in every year, the gentleman's points would be much stronger. But there is not less income. From this year to next year, first of all, $1.8 trillion. Next year, it will be $2 trillion. $200 billion more will come in next year than this year, even with the tax relief packaging made permanent.

So why do we keep borrowing? Because we keep spending. That is what this is all about. There are two sides of the ledger. There is an expense side and an income side. We do not pay for the income side. There is no reason for us to pay for the income side. Because that income side comes from taxpayers. The pay-as-you-go is from them.

The gentleman very eloquently said, when you are in a hole, stop digging. And my retort back to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is, when you are in a hole, stop digging in the pockets of taxpayers. That is the point that we are trying to make. They pay the taxes. Congress does not need a rule in order to have some kind of mechanism to pay for something we do not pay for.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, let me say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) there is not a Member on this side that is refusing to pay for the bill for the war. And if we want to roll out the record votes in not only this body but also the other body for who paid for our men and women over in the field, I will be glad to do that. Because there will be a very interesting name that is left off the list. He happens to be running for President right now.

The second thing the gentleman said is that we have to pay our bills, and we agree. Who gets the bill for taxes? Taxpayers get the bill for taxes. They pay the taxes. Nobody else.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is left.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from California, I have no other speakers; and I am prepared to close if the gentleman is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

There was a gentleman earlier who indicated that this may be the most

important, the most important vote in a congressional career. I have to say to the gentleman, I doubt it. This is a motion to instruct conferees. The conferees were just appointed, and it is what we refer to around here as a nonbinding resolution. Okay. I think we probably have had a few other votes that are more important than a nonbinding resolution to tell conferees to do something in the other body and apply a rule to our body, but I will play along just for the sake of the debate because I think it is an important debate, even though it may not be the most important vote.

Our friends on the other side have, as I said, during the budget they have learned the words of fiscal responsibility, but they have not yet learned the music. The words are real easy to say, When you are in a hole stop digging. Well, of course, when you are in a hole stop digging, but stop digging in the pockets of the American people for more of their money so that you can keep digging, which is exactly what they did.

They presented a budget alternative on the floor that kept digging, and what did they do in order to stop the digging? They were digging in the pockets of the American people for more of their money called taxes. Why do they do that? Because they know who pays taxes. We do not pay taxes. The Federal Government does not pay taxes. The Congress, as a body, pays taxes individually but not the Congress, the House of Representatives or the other body. The only people in this country that pay taxes are taxpayers, and so when we apply a pay-as-you-go and increase spending, guess who pays. We go and they pay. We buy and they pay. All the time, more spending, they pay.

The second thing the gentleman from other side said, well, you have got to pay your bills. We agree and we will be bringing a bill to the floor that says you should pay your bills. Now you should not have to bring a law to the floor that says pay your bills. I would agree with the gentlemen on the other side that have said we have lost that discipline and we need to get that back on the spending side. There is no question, and we will do that; and we will have a debate on spending and paying your bills, and we should have that debate. But who gets the tax bill?

When a bill is presented, you pay it. Who is presented the bill for taxes? The taxpayers, that is who pays. So by saying we should have pay-as-you-go for taxes, my colleagues are basically saying we want to take more money from the American people.

We have heard about children's allowances. I want my colleagues to apply this principle to their kids and actually go to them and say, guess what, Johnny, you did not know this, but you pay for your own allowance. I mean, that is not only a head scratcher for them, but if a family was faced with this, we have heard a lot about families and kitchen tables today. If a family found out that the amount of money they were bringing in was increasing, all right, every year, their income, what would they do in order to deal with the hole that they were in? They would tighten their belt, and this is exactly what we have done. They would not say, all of the sudden, let us pay for an increase in taxes by some offsetting income. That is a goofy rule.

You pay for taxes as a taxpayer, not as the government. The government pays for spending. That is where the rules should apply. Let us vote down this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson.) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.