[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 58 (Thursday, April 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3279-H3286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO SAME
DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON
RULES
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 190 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page H3280]]
H. Res. 190
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported on the
legislative day of April 10, 2003, providing for
consideration or disposition of a conference report to
accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95)
establishing the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2004 and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 190 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII
requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is
reported from the Committee on Rules against certain resolutions
reported from the Committee on Rules. The waiver authorized by this
resolution applies to any special rule reported on the legislative day
of April 10, 2003, providing for the consideration of or disposition of
a conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution, H. Con.
Res. 95, establishing the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2004, and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013.
Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleagues that adoption of this
resolution is made necessary because the work of the conferees on the
budget resolution has taken longer than anticipated. Fortunately,
however, the conference has now completed its work, and it is
imperative that the House consider the proposed conference report on
the budget before beginning its April district work period.
So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res.
190.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. I thank the
gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this undemocratic rule that
will impose martial law on this House. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this
assault on regular order is appalling. The conference report was filed
only a couple of hours ago, and here it is, hundreds of pages. Just a
few minutes ago, the Committee on Rules met and reported the conference
report to the floor.
I would only ask, have Members had the opportunity to read or review
this conference report? Were Members briefed on the details of this
conference report? How about an outline? Have they read the summary?
The answer, sadly, is no.
I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, this is not
the renaming of a post office we are working on tonight. This is not a
Sense of Congress resolution commending a football team. This is the
budget of the United States. This is a big deal, and we owe it to the
American people to treat it that way.
I know there are even Members on the other side of the aisle who have
grave concerns about hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for
the wealthy during a time of war, recession, and deficits. These are
important issues, and they deserve to be debated fully.
For anyone who may have questions about what exactly is going on
here, let me try to explain.
The majority has brought a rule before the House that forces Members
to consider the conference report on the budget resolution on the same
day as the report is filed. In other words, if this unfair rule is
approved, Members will be voting on the conference report without
having any chance to read and study the language.
{time} 2300
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle will undoubtedly say,
``This is basically the same budget we debated and voted on a few weeks
ago. Trust us, you do not need to see all the details,'' they will tell
us. I would only say to them that over the past few years I have seen
too many bills rewritten behind closed doors, too many important issues
decided by a handful of Members and their staffs, to take comfort in
their assurances.
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 mandates that a budget
resolution be in place by April 15. Today is April 10. I would be
delighted if someone could please tell me, what is the rush to complete
the conference report tonight. We will be here in session tomorrow
trying to finish the energy bill, as well as considering the conference
report for the supplemental appropriations bill.
Why can we not wait at least 1 day before we consider this bill?
I would be more than happy to work through the weekend if necessary
on a matter that is so important to our country's future. Even the
distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Budget conceded during the
Committee on Rules meeting just a few minutes ago that this process was
indefensible.
Mr. Speaker, I fear that the leadership just wants to get this over
with, to shove this mess through the House as quickly as possible
before anyone has a chance to really study it.
If the majority has nothing to hide, then I urge every Member to
oppose this rule. Let this House and the people we represent read the
budget conference report. Let us study and understand it. Let us
fulfill our responsibilities as Members of Congress. Let us do the job
we were elected to do.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose this undemocratic rule. I would
say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, out of respect for
this House, both Democrats and Republicans, and out of respect for the
American people, vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a conference report, but
everyone should understand there has been no conference in which the
House or Senate Democrats have had any role or any part whatsoever.
This conference report comes to the floor in the same spirit, under a
cram-down rule. Take it or leave it, here it is, a conference report
that will spend $2.2 trillion, one-fifth of our gross national product,
which we have had less than 30 minutes to look over, 30 minutes to give
the most cursory sort of examination to.
The rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, prohibit such unseemly haste
when things are this important. The rules of the House require that a
budget report of this kind lay over for at least 1 day before being
called up. But our Republican colleagues, by this martial law rule,
would take a chain saw to the rules of the House.
That is why this is called a martial law rule, it brooks no dissent.
It mows right over the speed brakes we have set up to make sure that
our decisions made here in the great House of Representatives of the
United States are made carefully and deliberately and thoughtfully.
This rule rips up those cautionary measures, those speed brakes, so
that this budget resolution can be railroaded through this House.
Mr. Speaker, I choose my words carefully. That is what is happening
here tonight in the cloak of darkness when this $2.2 trillion budget
resolution is being brought up. This resolution shows a disdain, indeed
a contempt, for the process of deliberative government which we are all
sworn to defend. It says, essentially, the majority has made up its
mind; the minority should get out of the way.
There is a reason for this unseemly haste. It is not that we are
about to go on the Easter vacation and do not have enough time to get
it done tomorrow. No, that is not the reason we are pushing this thing,
railroading this budget through the House.
The real reason is that it will not bear scrutiny. Republicans do not
want a lengthy debate because it would reveal that this budget will
raise the national debt by $5 trillion, more than $5 trillion over the
next 10 years. That is right, this budget will raise the national debt
from $6 trillion to $11 trillion over the next 10 years.
Everybody who votes for it should understand that this budget entails
deficits of that size, debt accumulation
[[Page H3281]]
of that amount. It raises the national debt of the United States from
just over $5 trillion to over $11 trillion over the next 10 years.
Those are the plain consequences of it. That is the arithmetic of this
budget resolution. There is no way around it. That is why it is being
railroaded through here.
There is another reason, I think, that our colleagues on the other
side do not want this budget debated. This budget is their economic
policy. Their economic policy will not stand scrutiny. The economy is
sagging, the number of jobs is decreasing, and rather than propose a
budget that deals with these problems, they are bending the rules, they
are distorting the process, they are doing whatever it takes to pass
another round of tax cuts almost as large as the last round, which will
go primarily to the wealthy and will drive deficits out of sight.
The objective is obvious: it is to pass this budget as quickly as
possible and cut off debate before people realize the contents and,
even worse, the consequences.
When they adopt a rule like this, Mr. Speaker, they diminish the
minority and the role we play as the loyal minority, adversaries,
ferreting out problems, thoughtfully going through major decisions like
this. They diminish our role.
When they diminish my role and my colleagues' role, they do not
diminish us or our party, but they diminish this great institution
called the House of Representatives. They take that well, which should
be a forum for ideas, a crucible where we grind out great policies for
the good of this country, and they stifle debate, they cut off debate,
they truncate debate.
When they do that, they do not just cut us off, they stifle this
institution, this great institution. They violate the Constitution of
the United States.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution should be defeated by every thoughtful,
respectful Member who respects the prerogatives of this House. We
should not be taking this matter up in such haste and we should not be
taking it up without an opportunity to see it. We should not be rushing
this through, railroading it through to passage. This is the wrong way
to deal with a matter of such gravity, a budget that will spend $2.2
trillion.
Some would say, spend it in such a fashion and provide for tax cuts
that will leave us with deficits that are almost intractable for the
foreseeable future, well into the future, and will accumulate nearly $6
trillion of debt over the next 10 years.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, just about an hour before the
Committee on Rules meeting, the Democratic side got one copy of the
budget, so it is impossible to coherently discuss the budget. That is
why this process is unfair.
Let us discuss the best way we can where we are and where we are
going. This chart shows the deficit over the years showing Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan. We went into a surplus under Clinton, and
in 1 year under the Bush administration we are back into serious
deficits. This does not include the war, so if Members actually wrote
the amended numbers, it would be off the chart.
Let us see how we got in that mess. That is because we passed all
these tax cuts. Who got them? The bottom 20 percent, 20 percent, the
top 20 percent got the lion's share of the tax cuts. They call it a
growth package. Give me a break. Private sector jobs created since
World War II, we go over, administration by administration, the worst
job creation since World War II, the worst economic growth in an
administration, the worst economic growth since World War II. Do not
tell me this is a growth package.
This has implications, because when we run up all that debt, we have
to pay interest on the national debt. We are paying about $4,500 a year
for a family of four's proportionate share, $4,500 interest on the
national debt. That is going to go, under this budget, up to $8,500
each and every year, interest on the national debt. So every time they
cut another tax they have to pay interest, and this number is going up.
They are also cutting spending. Education, up about 12 percent every
year, the last 5 years. They are cutting education. They say it is
waste, fraud and abuse. We are budgeting. We have to have a line item.
We are cutting, in this budget, school lunches, school lunches, student
loans. They are cutting the line item that says school lunches, student
loans, veterans' benefits. They are cutting those line items in the
budget.
The fact of the matter is that this is an irresponsible budget. This
is caused by the tax cuts, and this is a bad process. It is a bad
budget.
This rule, which requires us to take this budget up tonight in the
middle of the night, after virtually no notice, we have gotten the
budget here in the middle of the night, it is an impossible process.
I would hope that Members would defeat this resolution and take the
bill up tomorrow, where we can discuss it and point out even more
problems with the budget.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask, does the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings) have any speakers who want to defend this indefensible rule?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I think this is a very fair rule because, as I pointed out right from
the start, we have to comply with the law which says we have to have a
resolution passed by both bodies by April 15.
We all know that the Easter break we have is always a week before and
a week after Easter. I congratulate the conferees on both the House and
Senate for getting a budget done this year.
I would remind the gentleman, if he recalls, last year we did not
have a budget. We did have a budget in the House, we did not have a
budget in the Senate. As a result, we had a very difficult time putting
the appropriation bills together. So I think that the conferees have
done an excellent job.
This rule simply provides for consideration of the budget today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I take the gentleman's comments to mean that he does not
have any other speakers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel), a member of the committee.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said: Facts are stubborn
things. Since the economic management in the last 2 years, 2\1/2\
million Americans have lost their jobs; 5 million Americans are without
health care who had health care before; $1 trillion worth of corporate
assets, small and large, have been foreclosed on; and 2 million
Americans have walked out of the middle class to poverty. Those are the
facts of the economic performance of the Republican administration and
the Republican Congress.
Tomorrow, we are going to be asked to vote for reconstruction for
Iraq. They will be provided funds for 20,000 units of housing in Iraq.
Yet in this budget, in this economic plan for America's, there are only
enough dollars for 5,000 units of housing.
There will be 13 million Iraqis who will get universal health care in
tomorrow's vote. In this, not a single dollar for the working uninsured
in America. Twenty-five thousand schools in Iraq will be rebuilt; not a
single dollar to modernize a single American school will be provided
for in this budget.
There are 12,500 schools in Iraq that will get basic books and
supplies. In this budget, we are asking teachers to take it out of
their wages here in America. Four million Iraqi children will be given
early childhood education; yet this budget, this economic plan, calls
for 28,000 children to be cut from Head Start.
There will be 3,000 roads paved, enough to reach from New York to
California, in the budget for Iraq. This budget cuts $6 billion from
America's infrastructure.
A port in Iraq, the only deep port, will be rebuilt from beginning to
end; yet this budget cuts 10 percent from our Corps of Engineers.
Reconstruction for Iraq, rebuilding Iraq, we are asking our troops to
come home to a diminished American dream, a smaller American dream.
We are providing for Iraq an economic plan that envisions a future.
The future envisioned here in America is one with less education, one
with less health care, one with less infrastructure, one with a less
promising future.
[[Page H3282]]
When the fog of war is lifted, the facts on the ground will be 2\1/2\
million Americans without work, 5 million Americans without health
care, $1 trillion worth of foreclosed corporate assets, and 2 million
more Americans who walked out of the middle class into poverty. Those
are the facts of this economic performance and economic mismanagement.
We can do better. Our troops expect more. They are coming home to a
smaller American dream, a diminished American future. We are talking
about reconstruction for Iraq, yet this deconstructs America's future.
We can do better.
This budget, this economic plan, has resulted in a diminished future
for our children; yet, we are asking our people to finance a bigger,
stronger, and a fairer future for Iraq.
There should not be that disconnect between Iraq's future and the one
here in America.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I wish to ask the gentleman from Washington if he might respond. I
want to ask the gentleman a question regarding this resolution.
As I understand it, this is the martial rule, and this is necessary
in order to bring up the budget resolution that just came out of the
Committee on Rules.
I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is a rule to allow for
same-day consideration of the budget resolution when the conferees
finish their conference, which they did today. There is a layover of
time from the time the conference was done until they reported it in
the House, so we complied with the House rules.
Mr. STENHOLM. That is the point I want to clarify, following House
rules.
{time} 2315
Does this resolution follow rule 26 by increasing the debt ceiling
every year for the next 10 years?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. My understanding of the provision in the
rules of the House means that an adoption of this budget this year will
raise the debt ceiling, which, of course, we are running deficits
because of the war effort and the downturn of the economy for this
year.
Mr. STENHOLM. But not for 10 years?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. No. However, if our rules continue to
have the provision that allows a budget vote to raise the debt, then we
will take this up next year. But my understanding is this is for this
year.
Mr. STENHOLM. So we are not exactly following House rules. Let me ask
then, is it true that this resolution that will follow this same-day
rule that will follow the other rule will increase our national debt by
approximately $900 billion in the next 12 months?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is correct.
Mr. STENHOLM. Nine hundred billion.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I believe the correct number is $984 billion
over the next 12 months. And under rule 27, if it applied, the debt
increase would go up every year, staircase for the next 10 years, and
the public debt subject to statutory limitation would increase from
just over $5 billion to a bit over $11 trillion in 10 years, if the
fiscal policies implemented by this rule are actually passed and
carried out.
Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I see several Members on the floor,
including the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
I think it is very critical for all Members to understand, when you
vote for this rule you are setting in motion the passage of a budget
that no one on this side of the aisle has read and I doubt very many on
that side has read, and we are going to borrow 984 billion additional
dollars. That is on top of $450 billion we have borrowed since we
increased the debt ceiling 8 months ago. That is $1.430 trillion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I arrived in this body in 1979. In 1981 I watched
our debt ceiling for our country increase through the $1 trillion mark.
We are about to borrow and spend $1.400 trillion more than we have got,
and we are going to do that within a period of 1 year following the
economic game plan that we cannot get a majority on this side of the
aisle to say is not working.
Now, I respect the right of the majority, and I respect all of my
colleagues on this side of the aisle that for whatever reason find it
impossible to change a plan that was put into effect last year. But I
honestly do not understand when so many of you privately are concerned
about this but publicly feel like, at 11:20 at night, you have got to
have a martial rule, jam it through, pass it, which is every right of
the majority to do; but when you do, you are going to be voting to
increase the debt ceiling by $1.400 trillion in less than a year's
time.
Now, that used to bother folks on this side of the aisle and I used
to vote with you. In fact, I have done it more times than I have the
other way. But what has happened to you? Why is it tonight that you are
not worried about borrowing and spending $1.400 trillion in a 1-year
period of time? September 11, 2001. Changed a lot of things. It should
change the economic game plan that we are under; but if you are bound
and determined to do it, be my guest. But no one walk out of here
tomorrow and complain that we could not do better. We could do better.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. We are here tonight to consider one
of the most important resolutions that we will take up this year in
Congress, the budget. This is the blueprint for everything we do. And
we do not even get a chance to read it before we vote on it.
As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I have spent a lot of
time addressing the concerns on this budget, and we spent an entire day
from early morning until early the next morning on the budget process
looking at amendments. We knew what we were voting on. We had a chance
to debate it. Yet, tonight when we are voting on final passage of the
budget of the United States, members of the Committee on the Budget and
Members of the House have not had a chance to see the product they are
voting on. This process is wrong.
Members deserve a chance to review this document before voting on it.
If leadership is determined to consider this resolution before the
approaching recess, that is fine. Give us a day, give us a half a day,
give us some time to see what is in this budget. I have a
responsibility to my constituents just like everyone does to consider
measures carefully, to know what is in that measure before we vote on
it. Yet, I cannot thoughtfully consider this legislation because I have
not had a chance to review it.
This is an awful process. I urge my colleagues to defeat the martial
law rule so we can have adequate time to review this budget.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 28 minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate of
my good friend from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), when he inquired why we were
dealing under the martial law rules, why we could not have an extended
period of time for debate to reasonably address this in front of the
American people, the good news is that my constituents are still up
because we are an hour behind Eastern standard time. Maybe they will be
able to make some sense out of this debate calling for
[[Page H3283]]
martial law. Maybe they will understand that the reason why we are
rushing is because there is some need to announce a big tax cut before
April 15.
Let me tell you what Americans want. They do not want a tax cut. They
want mutual sacrifice. While the young men and women are on the front
lines sacrificing, we are presenting to them a Nation of deficits. We
have got a reconciled tax cut of $550 billion, an unreconciled of $675
billion, making the total $1.225 trillion. We are spending billions of
dollars for reconstruction of Iraq by ourselves with nobody else
helping us. We are building thousands of schools in Iraq. We are taking
thousands of American children off of Head Start. We are, in fact,
losing 2.6 million private sector jobs. We have got so many people
unemployed for 6 months that they are not even on the unemployment list
and 4.6 trillion in loss in stock market wealth.
Where is the mutual sacrifice that this Nation is used to
participating in in time of war? How can my friends in good conscience
shackle us with $1.225 trillion in tax cuts and provide us with a 2.6
or $2 trillion deficit over a 10-year period when we just had a $5.6
trillion surplus just about 2 years ago?
I will tell you how they can do it. By passing this martial law in
the dark of night, believing no one will see it, and then being able to
announce around April 15 that you are going to get a tax cut.
I can tell you that my constituents and most Americans want
investment in American jobs, want children to have Head Start, want the
children's health insurance program to still be active, want to restore
wealth to the stock market, and want to make sure that we do not have
deficit spending.
Now, frankly, I believe that investing in Americans' interests may
require some deficit spending, but this is an outrage. And this kind of
tax cut is simply without substantiation. I would hope that we could go
back to the table and begin to look at creating jobs, begin to look at
investing in America, and responding to our young men and women when
they come home that they will have institutions of higher learning,
their families will be taken care of, and we will invest in them so
they will be the best and the brightest of this new America.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. None
of us are ecstatic about the fact that we are here, but we have a
requirement that we complete this budget process. We have spent a great
deal of time on it already this year. We have had a full and very
vigorous debate on the budget, and we had a very close vote that took
place here. And now we have gone through the conference process.
So as I listen to people say that they have had no chance to look at
this whatsoever, it is very clear the Committee on the Budget did its
job. And the conferees met, and they have come forward with this
report.
Now, one of the things that we just discussed upstairs in the
Committee on Rules is that, whether you like it or not, it is often a
prerequisite to actually meet deadlines if we are going to get things
done and have deadlines set. And everyone is enthused about the
prospect of meeting our deadline to have this done by the 15th of
April. Everyone is enthused about the prospect of our adjourning for
the district work period that is upon us. And we want to deal with a
couple of things.
We want to deal right now with completion of this budget conference
report; and we also, when we pass another rule, look forward tomorrow
to consideration before we leave of the supplemental appropriations
bill which will pay for the war effort.
Now, I see my good friend from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) here with whom I
am very pleased to work on a wide range of issues, and we have just
been working upstairs. And I wanted to clarify one issue, and that is
rule XXVII clause 2 makes it very clear that there is not a 10-year
requirement, but when specificity is designed as is outlined in this
measure, a 1-year debt ceiling increase is in fact allowed under the
rules of the House.
Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we are all continually concerned
about an increase in the national debt. We are concerned about
increases in spending. And I think my friend was very correct in
raising the fact that things changed on September 11 of 2001. And while
he talked about the fact that he believed that the overall program for
economic growth should change because of what took place on September
11 of 2001, we have found that it is absolutely essential for us to
deal with things that did change on September 11.
We embarked on that day on a war on terrorism which has cost us over
$100 billion just for the war on terrorism itself. We know that with
the war that is, actually, we hope very much, coming to an end right
now, that we will be able to realize what we have spent. Tomorrow we
will be dealing with the spending of $74.7 billion, and so it is true
that things have changed. But we feel very strongly that the most
important thing for us to do is to put into place an economic growth
plan that will generate the kind of revenues that we need to pay for
the war on terrorism, to pay for this $74.7 billion in supplemental
appropriations that will be necessary to deal with the expenses dealing
with the war in Iraq in which we have all strongly supported our troops
in a bipartisan way on that and had a great celebration of that today
here in Statuary Hall.
So, Mr. Speaker, our plan is to try and get the economy growing. We
all realize that during the 1990s, the latter part of the 1990s, we saw
a strong, bold, dynamic economy. We saw rates of growth at 6 percent
and even beyond that. We have seen this diminution, the flow of
revenues to the Treasury, not only because of increases in spending,
not only because of the war on terrorism, not only because of the war
that we are dealing with in Iraq, but because we have seen a slowing in
our economy.
We happen to believe that reducing the tax burden on working
Americans, putting into place plans to have growth-oriented tax cuts
will, in fact, generate the kind of revenues that we need to deal with
this. And so I would say to my friends who are now talking about a
level of fiscal irresponsibility, that what we are trying to do is we
are trying to get the economy growing.
{time} 2330
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
I think repetition is often relevant in this body; but when the
gentleman talks about how we needed tax cuts, a significant amount, to
get the economy growing, did he give the exact same speech that he gave
in 2001 when we were told that large tax cuts would stimulate the
economy?
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that
virtually every economist, virtually every economist has acknowledged
that had we not put into place the tax cuts, the economic growth plan
that we did in 2001, that the slowing in the economy would have been
even greater than what we have suffered in the past and the recession
which began as we all know during the last two quarters of the year
2000 was, in fact, during those two quarters in 2001, in a position
where we were in economic recession, but it is clear that the plan that
we had did, in fact, diminish the slow down that we witnessed.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will
continue to yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I know as you get old your
memory goes, but I do not remember hearing that this is new. I remember
rehearing that this will get the economy going. I do not remember the
defense of the 2001 tax cut being this will prevent the economy from
slowing down so rapidly. There was no acknowledgment that there was
going to be a slow down; and I asked people to go back to 2001, and we
heard in 2001 these same arguments.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said that
[[Page H3284]]
repetition is sometimes good, and so I guess I repeat once again.
He talked about the fact that we put into place what we considered to
be an economic growth plan in 2001, and that economic growth plan was
put into place before September 11, 2001. So I am repeating again what
I said earlier, we have had to expend $100 billion-plus in the war on
terrorism, and we know that September 11 played a big role in creating
an economic slow down; and we also know that the cost of the war, which
we have just gone through, has also played a role in slowing the
economy, with increased oil prices and a wide range of other concerns.
We know that as we look at the challenge, Mr. Speaker, of trying to
get this economy growing, doing things like reducing the top rate on
capital gains for new investment, which is a measure that I have been
pushing for a while, which would take the top rate and cut it from 20
down to 10 percent for new investment, if there were a 1-year holding
period. I have talked to a wide ring of economists, Democrats and
Republicans, and they believe that that would provide an incentive for
new investment and could play a role in getting the economy growing.
So, Mr. Speaker, my point is that we need to have growth-oriented tax
cuts. Our goal is to do just that, so that we will have the revenues
that we need so that we will not have a further debt burden, so that we
will not have the kinds of deficits that unfortunately we are going to
have to deal with because of these economic challenges that we face for
a while.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. Let me just say that I know that there is time on the
other side of the aisle. I have enjoyed having this exchange with my
colleagues and appreciate my friend for yielding me the time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we do not have a lot of time. I would have
appreciated the distinguished chairman yielding to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) does not have the floor.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as
much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me,
and I would be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and
I think the spirit of the debate, and precisely what you have been
arguing is why I so strongly oppose what you are about to do tonight
because the very economic game plan that you have once again
articulated by your own scorekeepers, if it works exactly like you have
got it planned, if all of the things happen that you believe will
happen with it, we are going to owe almost $13 trillion at the end of
the 10 years. We are going to owe another $3 trillion almost at the end
of 5 years if we do it just like you are doing it.
That is why some of us are asking you respectfully, take a look at
that rhetoric that you have been repeating since 2001 that you do again
tonight. I know you believe it sincerely. I do not question that, but
how can you continue to make that argument when the result of it in the
budget that we are passing, we are going to have to borrow another
trillion dollars almost in the next 12 months, and even if it works
exactly like you have articulated so well, as you can do, tonight, we
are still going to be borrowing that amount of money?
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I simply say that we
believe that we have the potential to get back, if we can unleash this
economy to the kind of bold, dynamic economic growth that we saw in the
latter part of the 1990s, if we do that, if we do that, I am convinced
that we will have a level of revenues that outpaces even the kinds of
projections that are included in this budgeting process itself.
So I thank my friend. We have shared interests here. We have shared
goals. I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike very sincerely
want us to get this economy growing so that we can have the revenues
that we need to balance the budget and to deal with our priorities.
Along with homeland security, along with the war that we have dealt
with in Iraq, we can deal with education, transportation, health care,
a wide range of other concerns that are out there; and I thank my
friend for his thoughts.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask all Members, in the
spirit of debate on this rule, to only address the Chair during the
course of being yielded time by either the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) or the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Rules for agreeing to that dialogue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, for the record and for clarity, we only got
this document minutes before coming to the floor. It is hundreds of
pages long; but if you turn to about page 70, you will see just for
clarity our debt limit now is $6.4 trillion. Vote for this resolution
and you will raise that to 7.384 trillion, 984 billion in 1 year. Over
the next 10 years, the deficits entailed by this budget resolution will
require the debt ceiling to be raised to $12.040 trillion. Those are
your numbers in your resolution, and that is what you will be voting
for if you vote to adopt this budget resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, it is almost midnight here on the east
coast, and I hope that whoever is up and watching will understand what
I am about to say.
What we are witnessing here tonight is the largest, long-term,
structural tax increase on the American people in the history of this
Republic because every year we borrow money, we have to pay interest on
it, a tax on the American people, the Blue Dogs call the debt tax, that
cannot be repealed.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard under their budget resolution, if it
works like they say, we are going to incur $1.2 trillion in additional
debt in the next 12 months, in addition to what we have already done
and seen the last eight. Mr. Speaker, at 4 percent interest that is $40
billion a year that the American taxpayers have to pay every year.
This is the largest, long-term structural tax increase in the history
of this Republic, and nobody can doubt that. At 5 percent, it is over
$50 billion a year in perpetuity.
If that is not bad enough, Mr. Speaker, what really is happening here
is we have sent young men and women from this Nation to die for other
people in the Middle East; and Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is saying
we are going to take a tax cut while they go over there and die, and we
are going to send the bill for this war and we are borrowing the money
to fund and borrowing the money for the tax cut, we are going to send
the bill to these young men and women in uniform, the only people who
are being asked to sacrifice anything at all in this war, send it to
them and their children; some of whom do not have a daddy now because
they are dead in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, where is the honor? Where is the sacrifice? Where is the
honor of this House when we try to do something like this? That is
exactly what is going on tonight.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, there is no honor
in this. Think about what you are doing tonight. Your majority leader
said, and I will read quickly, Between now and the next Presidential
election, through the end of the fiscal year 1996, the public debt will
increase by almost $1.3 trillion. During President Reagan's first term,
the debt ceiling was increased from $935 billion to $1.8 trillion. That
is an increase of $889 billion. It took us over 200 years to get to $1
trillion in debt, over 200 years, and in the last 10 years we have gone
to over $4 trillion of debt.
[[Page H3285]]
All of that so-called stimulus package is deficit spending. None of
that spending, none of it is paid for. All of it borrows money to pay
for it. That is part of why we are raising the debt ceiling.
He was speaking in opposition to the kind of action you are taking
tonight and then the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) said this,
``We need to do other things to balance the budget. Let us do it. But
first and foremost, we have to shoot straight with the American people,
and hiding things like this debt ceiling increase is not the way to do
that.''
How many of you campaigned and said you were against raising the debt
limit? How many of you campaigned on the fact that you were going to
balance the budget? I voted for the balanced budget amendment. I
believe in balancing the budget; and very frankly, under the Clinton
administration, we took the Reagan-Bush deficits into surplus for the
first time for 4 years in a row, the first time in 80 years.
Do you have no honor? Are you not ashamed of the hypocrisy that this
budget resolution that you bring before us represents? Is there no
honor in this House? Is there no fiscal integrity? Is there no concern
for generations yet unborn who, as the gentleman from Tennessee says,
will have to pay this bill and the young men and women we have in Iraq
today will have to return here to pay the bill? Can we not stand up as
Americans, proud of our country, proud of our objectives and say to
them, we will pay as you fight, and together, we will win this battle
for a better America?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I have been trying to figure out this process because normally an
organization that works only 2 days a week should be able to get its
work done without working till 3 in the morning, and so if the House
was run competently we would not be here till 3 in the morning. So I
thought it might be incompetence, and then I realized, this is
chicanery masquerading as incompetence.
The reason we are here late at night is because what we are doing
would not stand the light of day. We are creating a system where our
friends on the other side of this building can say they are only voting
for a $350 billion tax cut. We over here can say it is a $550 billion
tax cut, but ultimately, the resolution tells us that we are on our way
to a $1.2 trillion tax cut.
The plan is simple. They will pass the most obnoxious provisions of
their $350 billion tax cut over there. It will go to conference. It
will come back as 550. It will be passed on both sides by their
majority vote, and that will be the portion of the tax cut loaded
exclusively to the most wealthy.
Then, having cut the taxes in an unbalanced way, then another tax
bill will be prepared, including the least egregious provisions, and
they will be packaged in such a way that they can pass without a
filibuster on the other side. If only the light of day would shine and
the country knew what we were doing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time controlled by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining
time.
This is a rule that allows us to consider the budget resolution that
we have to get out by law so we can plan for the appropriation process,
which I know will be difficult. So I urge my colleagues to support this
resolution that allows us to consider a rule and ultimately the budget
resolution.
{time} 2345
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 203, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 139]
YEAS--223
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--203
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
[[Page H3286]]
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--8
Boucher
Combest
Duncan
Gephardt
Houghton
Hyde
McCarthy (MO)
Paul
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair would advise all
Members there are 2 minutes, approximately, remaining in this vote.
{time} 0004
Messrs. RODRIGUEZ, PASCRELL and HALL changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________