Providing for Further Consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 393, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005

PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 393, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 -- (House of Representatives - March 25, 2004)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 574 and ask for its immediate consideration.

-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on the Budget reported out a budget that failed to address one of the most critical problems facing our Nation, and that is our national debt. I offered an amendment in committee that would have included the pay-go rules in that budget, pay-go on both revenue and spending legislation. It was defeated, sadly, on a straight party-line vote. Not one single Republican supported it, not even those who had previously and publicly said that they supported extending pay-go to both revenue and spending.

Yesterday I brought the same amendment to the Committee on Rules; and, again, the majority voted against the extension of the pay-go rules. And in doing so, they denied this House the opportunity to debate one of the most successful budget enforcement mechanisms that we have at our disposal.

Today we are over $7 trillion in debt. By the chairman's own numbers, we will be over $10.4 trillion in debt by the year 2009. Pay-go would allow us to rein in control over our debt and our deficits. Pay-go would mandate that we actually pay for the legislation that we pass. Pay-go would force the Congress to recognize that there are fiscal consequences to our actions. That is a wake-up call that we desperately need because, lately, Congress has been pretending that there are no consequences. We have been spending more than we have. We have been cutting taxes with abandon. We have squandered a $256 billion surplus like it was monopoly money. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a get-out-of-debt-free card, we cannot pass go, and we cannot collect $7 trillion.

Now, our surpluses are gone and our deficits are predicted to be $521 billion, a $700 billion reversal in just 3 short years. That is not a surprise. We have been living far beyond our means, and a deficit explosion was the inevitable result.

The surprise is that some folks still do not believe it is a problem, and it is the unwillingness of these few people to acknowledge this problem that is preventing the rest of us from fixing the problem.

Our colleagues in the Senate get it. They see that a $521 billion deficit does matter. They realize that it is not a good idea to finance tax cuts and spending increases by letting places like China, Japan, and the OPEC nations buy almost $800 billion of our debt. They understand that their voters did not send them here to come up with fancy budget tricks that amount to little more than shell games and smoke and mirrors. Our colleagues in the Senate voted by a bipartisan majority to include an amendment identical to mine in their budget resolution: pay-go on both tax and spending legislation. The House needs to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, we need to hold ourselves to the same budgeting standards that we hold every family in this country. Whether we are increasing spending or decreasing revenue, we need to pay for it. We need to pay as we go.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on this fiscally irresponsible rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Budget had a very extensive markup session; I think we had roll call votes on something like 25 particular items to add to the budget in particular areas. So we had a vigorous debate on that.

Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules, there was again vigorous debate on the amendments that were offered.
It has always been the tradition when we deal with the budget document, which I might add is the broad blueprint for our appropriation process that is coming up later on, but it has always been the tradition when we do the budget document that the amendments that we make in order are full substitutes.

The gentleman spoke about his concern of the pay-go issue, and one of the substitutes that we made in order, the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget substitute, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), has precisely that issue within the substitute. So we will have a vigorous debate on that. The Committee on Rules made in order 40 minutes for each of those substitutes. I might add that three of the substitutes that we made in order come from the other side of the aisle, and one of those substitutes comes from our side of the aisle.

So we will, I think, have a vigorous debate on the issue that the previous speaker just brought up, and I think it will be a healthy debate; and then we will let the will of the House make that determination.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the gentleman from Washington, my friend, that, first of all, the Blue Dog budget has the pay-go provision in it. It would just make for a much more vigorous and a much more honest debate if we could, in fact, debate the very simple and basic idea that we pay for our bills; we do not just pass bills, we pay for them.

The fact of the matter is there is not one of us on either side of this aisle that could go back home and make that argument to our constituents where we would not understand that. They are not interested in the political inside-the-beltway mumbo jumbo; they know that we need to pay our bills, pay as we go, and that should be before this House to debate.

-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-

Amendment to H. Con. Res. 393, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Thompson of California
At the end of title IV, add the following new section:

SEC. __. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE HOUSE.

(a) POINT OF ORDER.-It shall not be in order in the House to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit for any of the following periods:

(1) The first year covered by the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
(2) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
(3) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the first 5 fiscal years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.

(b) DIRECT-SPENDING LEGISLATION.-
(1) DEFINITION.-For purposes of this section and except as provided in paragraph (2), the term "direct-spending legislation" means any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that affects direct spending as that term is defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

(2) EXCLUSION.-For purposes of this section, the terms "direct-spending legislation" and "revenue legislation" do not include-
(A) any concurrent resolution on the budget; or
(B) any provision of legislation that affects the full funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
(C) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.-For purposes of this section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the House.