Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 77 (Thursday, May 22, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 77 (Thursday, May 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4534-H4542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2, JOBS AND GROWTH RECONCILIATION TAX
ACT OF 2003

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for reconciliation
pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2004, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the
Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.

Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Stenholm moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2 be
instructed--
(1) to include in the conference report the fiscal relief
provided to States by section 371 of the Senate amendment,
and
(2) to the maximum extent possible within the scope of
conference agree to a conference report that will neither
increase the Federal budget deficit nor increase the amount
of the debt subject to the public debt limit.

{time} 1030

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) each will
be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union address, the President told us
this country has many problems, and that we will not deny, we will not
ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other
presidents, and to other generations.
As a proud grandfather who wants to leave a better future for my
grandchildren, I applauded that statement; and I applaud it today.
Unfortunately, our current budget, our current economic game plan, our
current budget policies, would do precisely what we all applauded we
should not do. Every dollar of the tax cuts passed by the Senate will
be added to our $6.4 trillion debt.
At the same time, we are debating another round of tax cuts, the
leadership of this House is trying to slip through an increase in our
debt limit of nearly $1 trillion, the largest increase in the history
of our country. Our total debt in this country in 1979 was less than
the amount that we will borrow in a period of less than 2 years. That
is what we are objecting to in this motion to instruct conferees.
I do not oppose tax cuts. In fact, I have stood with my fellow Blue
Dogs and an overwhelming majority of this side of the aisle, and a few
from that side of the aisle, and voted this year to do the tax cuts on
the marriage tax penalty, to do the child tax credit speed-up. But our
budget, our bill, did not borrow the money to do it.

[[Page H4535]]

My objection to the tax cuts that we are about to vote on today is
that they are being done with borrowed money. It is irresponsible to
pass a tax cut for ourselves today that leaves the bill to our children
and grandchildren in the form of a crushing national debt.
If my friends on the other side of the aisle honestly believe that
tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, they should be
willing to stand up and vote to increase the national debt to pay for
their tax cuts, instead of relying on parliamentary maneuvers to avoid
an up-and-down vote on this issue.
Our current economic and budget policies will increase the most
wasteful spending in the Federal budget, the $332 billion collected
from taxpayers simply to cover our national interest payments. The tax
bill passed by the House would increase this wasteful spending by $273
billion over the next 10 years.
The best way to ensure that we, as well as our children and our
grandchildren, are all overtaxed for the rest of our lives is to keep
borrowing money and running up our debts. Our children will be forced
to pay even higher taxes just to pay the increasing interest on the
debts we incurred and getting fewer services from the government for
the taxes they pay.
Under the majority's budget, the debt tax will consume more than 20
percent of all taxes going to pay the interest on our national debt by
the end of the decade; $520 billion the Congress will have to tax the
people in 2012, assuming 4 percent interest, assuming 4 percent
interest.
That is under the economic game plan that, if it works exactly like
the proponents and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means who
will defend this, sincerely in his own heart, if it works exactly like
they say and it creates exactly the amount of jobs that they propose,
we will increase our national debt to $13 trillion over the next 10
years, continuing to ignore the baby boom retirements that will occur
beginning in 2011, continuing to postpone to the next Congress and the
next president dealing with the most serious problem facing the economy
and this country, which is, how do we deal with the crushing unfunded
liability of the Social Security system and the Medicare system,
ignoring that in order to pass what they will explain, as we have heard
in 1-minutes today, is a jobs-creating tax bill.
I hope they are right. As I said 2 years ago when we stood on this
floor and opposed the then tax cut of the 2001 variety, I hoped that I
would eat the biggest plate of crow in town. I sincerely did. For the
good of our country, I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle
are right, because it will be better for our country if they are right.
Unfortunately, their track record thus far does not meet the rhetoric
that we will hear over and over and over again.
When my Republican colleagues talk about the economic benefits of tax
cuts, they conveniently ignore the harm to the economy and the impact
on private capital markets from the government running large permanent
deficits.
Just yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the
Joint Economic Committee that deficits do matter in any evaluation.
What happens to deficits is an integral part of the analysis. That is
why the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation
both concluded that the tax cuts would actually harm the economy over
the long term by increasing the deficit.
I ask my colleagues, as one Democrat who used to vote with them, with
my friend who came to Congress at the same time in 1979, when we used
to try or we passed the balanced budget constitutional amendment in
1995, what has happened to him? What has caused the gentleman to
suddenly start saying that deficits do not matter, balancing the budget
does not matter? If we believe that deficits matter, if we agree that
we should not be placing a crushing debt burden on our grandchildren,
vote for this motion to instruct and then follow it. Do what this
motion says.
The motion the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has put forward
today, or I have been privileged to do on his behalf to this point, is
to include in the conference report the fiscal relief provided by the
States to the maximum extent possible within the scope of the
conference, agree to a conference report that will neither increase the
deficit nor increase the amount of debt subject to the public debt
limit.
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter today. It is probably one of
the most serious points in the history of our current generation that
we have been to. I hope that those that believe that increasing the
debt is not a problem, that there is an unlimited amount of money that
the United States can borrow for whatever purposes we wish to borrow
and spend it, because if we will look at the spending side of the
ledger, we will see that spending is going to increase at the greatest
rate in the last 25 years.
So when we hear that it is Congress' spending that needs to be
controlled, look at the facts. Do not deal with rhetoric, mine
included. Just look at the facts. Somehow, some way we have got to
focus on the facts of what we are doing to this country: pursuing an
economic game plan that most economists in this country say will not
work, cannot work under the conditions we are living in today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) be permitted to control the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Texas, and I did not know whether he was going to depart the Chamber,
having yielded his time, but if he is not, I listened carefully to what
the gentleman said. We did come together, and I have read this motion
to instruct.
As the gentleman knows, we have to bring the House and Senate
together, since two pieces of legislation have passed and they are
different in each House. This motion to instruct asks, and we all know
that motions to instruct are not binding, but they do focus on what is
important to people, the motion asks that we include in the conference
report the fiscal relief provided to the States by section 371 of the
Senate amendment. That amounts to $20 billion in two different forms,
$10 billion to be distributed through the Medicaid structure and $10
billion through a pro rata formulation with minimums to smaller States
and smaller territories.
Whenever we have to reconcile the differences between the two bodies,
we oftentimes have to listen very carefully to whether or not what one
or the other side is asking for is important to them. Having talked to
a number of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, on the other
side of the Capitol, I believe this provision is important to them. I
believe it is important to them to the level that, if it is not
included, they would seriously consider the way in which they would be
required to vote on a conference report that was placed in front of
them without this provision.
So I can tell the gentleman that I have every intention of including
section 371, as we can mutually agree to internal amendments to that
section in the conference report.
The second item in the motion to instruct begins with the language
``to the maximum extent possible,'' which I believe is a very wise and
even sage observation that what we are going to do is, as humans,
attempt to deal with the situation as best as we are humanly capable of
dealing with it, to the maximum extent possible.
I have no problem with any of the language following ``to the maximum
extent possible'', although I did hear the gentleman read that section
and not read that portion of the section, as though it was a dictate
that certain things must follow; but in fact it is not, the way it is
written. It is a desire to the maximum extent possible to do certain
things. When I read it that way, I have no objection to what the
gentleman is saying in the second section, either, when I read it the
way it is written.
I would tell the gentleman, his reference to the time we came and the
decisions that we have made, at the time we came the gentleman and his
party were in the majority. Currently, the gentleman from California
and his party is in the majority.

[[Page H4536]]

One of the differences between the time the gentleman was in the
majority and the time we were in the majority is that we have actually
paid down on the national debt more than half a trillion dollars since
we have become the majority. So I think not only in word but in deed we
agree with the gentleman.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Would the gentleman care to revise and extend the
remark that he just made about the success of his party in the majority
and what has happened to our national debt?
Mr. THOMAS. I did not say what has happened to our national debt. I
said ``paid down on the national debt,'' money that went to the
reduction of the national debt. That was my statement.
Now, let me go on and talk about his concerns and my concerns about
deficits, because when we have a deficit and when we add to a deficit,
$1 added to the deficit in one particular way I believe is
substantively different than $1 added to the national debt and deficit
in a different way.
For example, when we have fought past wars, especially significant
societal and in fact world wars, when we have to build that battleship,
build that carrier, build that bomber, build that tank, we clearly
spent money we did not have. That is a dollar spent in deficit, but it
was spent as an investment to ensure our way of life. No one would
argue that that was not a very high calling for the deficit dollar.
In the decades following World War II, and especially in the 1960s
and in the 1970s and to a certain extent through the 1980s, it became a
habit when the revenue did not equal the desired spending of the
Federal Government that the Congress would spend $1 it didn't have, a
deficit dollar, spent to sustain programs or to create new programs
which would then in the future demand more deficit dollars to keep them
going, unless there was a decision to raise taxes and bring in the
revenue that would be required to cover the new and growing costs of
the Federal Government.
What happened was that year after year after year deficit dollars
were spent. What for? To sustain spending programs. That became known
as the structural deficit, that they just continued a deficit that was
built in because it was easier, more convenient, less painful than
asking the American people to contribute more to cover the programs
they wanted to create.
I do not believe anyone should support for any length of time a
structural deficit. That is just wrong. I oppose and I believe the
gentleman from Texas opposes structural deficits. That is one kind of a
deficit dollar.
The other kind of a deficit dollar I have talked about in the context
of war, but we can also talk about a deficit dollar in the context of
peace.

{time} 1045

Mr. Speaker, because the deficit dollar in war was an investment in
national security, you can spend a deficit dollar in peace as an
investment in national strength, i.e. make sure the economy is strong,
create jobs; and when you have jobs, people are being paid, more
revenue comes into the Federal Government, and you can see that deficit
dollar is not a structural deficit. It is spent in a way to grow the
economy to be able to cover the expenses the Federal Government incurs.
That is not a structural deficit. That is an investment deficit dollar.
While there is no question we wish there were no deficit, recent
history would clearly indicate what has gone on which certainly has
contributed to the problems we have; not just external, internal as
well; decisions that people made about investments and the ability to
convince people that certain things were real when perhaps they were
not, where you create investment opportunities that fail.
One of the great things about this country is you can succeed; but in
creating a structure that allows one to succeed, it is also necessary
that we have a business structure where we allow people to fail. One of
the fundamental differences between the United States and Europe in
creating jobs is that we understand creative destruction because we can
then rebuild. We can start anew. If we hang onto what we have got, if
we do not risk, we cannot gain.
What happened was in many of the investments they were not placed
wisely. I do not think that the government should deal with that, but
nevertheless it had an impact on the economy. We can go over a number
of other factors that have placed us where we are today.
The gentleman's emphasis in the motion to instruct is should we spend
deficit dollars not for structural deficits, and that is why we are
opposed to significant increases in spending, if we do not have the
money, but should we spend a deficit dollar investing in the economy so
it can grow. There is a legitimate difference of agreement as to
whether, and how we do, it is appropriate or not. I have no problem
dealing with that. That is the structure we have here and the debate
that will take place.
So the way the gentleman has worded his motion to instruct in which I
think to be able to bring back a conference report the first one needs
to be included in ways that make it more amenable to more people, and
the way the gentleman words his second provision to the maximum extent
possible, the gentleman from California would accept the motion to
instruct. I have no problem with it based upon our clear difference
notwithstanding about the way we spend deficit dollars, because to the
maximum extent possible, we will not because it does not say you will
not. One does not create a procrustean bed where if you do not fit
cramping you in that you are in countervention to your position, no.
Mr. Speaker, I accept what I consider to be a reasonable proposal to
the maximum extent possible. I would indicate to the gentleman and if
he has now transferred his time to the gentleman from New York, if the
gentleman is willing to yield back the balance of his time, I am more
than willing to yield back the balance of my time since we are in
agreement.
If the gentleman, therefore, and I would recognize the gentleman from
New York, is willing to yield back the balance of his time, I will
yield back the balance of my time; we will agree to the motion to
instruct so we can get on to the conference.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think I should be recognized by the
Speaker.
Mr. THOMAS. I am yielding to the gentleman on my time to respond to
my question. Is the gentleman willing to yield back the balance of his
time?
Mr. RANGEL. I am anxious to be recognized by the Speaker.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, then I will say to Members, everything that
is being said after the refusal to accept the offer to yield back so we
can go to conference is nothing more than politically motivated. If
they were sincere in this motion to instruct, which we are willing to
accept, we would be on to the conference. Instead, we are going to hear
a whole series of discussions which obviously can be made when the
conference report is brought back.
I see on the other side of the aisle the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the majority whip, who has taken the mike more than once
asking, What has happened to the comity in this body? Why are we not
working together? We should show decent respect for either side. All I
am saying is, here is the offer: let us yield back, let us accept the
motion to instruct and go to conference. The answer is, no. Clearly the
intentions, the motivations, the language probably is here for an
entirely different reason; and actually, I am saddened a little bit.
Mr. Speaker, I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, you
have offered, we have accepted.

point of order

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman will state
his point of order.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, is it permissible for a Member to impugn the
motives of another Member? I think he is out of order because he has
impugned the motives of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and
those of us who want to speak on this issue by his words.

[[Page H4537]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, a Member who
has only talked about political motivation would not be in violation of
the rules.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is still recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, apparently my friends on the other side of
the aisle are interested in employing parliamentary maneuvers so I am
not able to continue to make a very basic point. The basic point is
this: if we had yielded back our time, it would have been a sincere
offer and a sincere acceptance.
Since they are not willing to yield back, everybody understands what
this is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the graciousness of the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and congratulate him on the
sincerity with which he accepts the motion to instruct the conferees
for creating the atmosphere so we can have discussion on what is
happening here.
This is a motion to instruct the conferees; and to people who are not
aware of it, there is an assumption that there is a conference, a
conference that involves Members of the House and the Senate appointed
by our great Speaker to resolve the technical differences in a bill
from the House of Representatives and the Senate, for us to be
represented, Democrats and Republicans alike. And the distinguished
chairman of the committee says that he will accept our recommendations
that were drafted in parliamentary language to report neither an
increase in the Federal budget deficit nor an increase in the amount of
the debt subject to the public debt.
Now, while he is saying that this is his conduct in the conference,
all of last night and this morning we have heard that the chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means has already reached agreement with his
Republican friends in the Senate. I do not know who is going to be
appointed as a conferee, but it is abundantly clear that they have
reported to the press that they have already decided what they are
going to do, and so the whole idea that democracy is taking place here
has really been shattered by the fact that the Republicans have yet to
come out of the dark room that they have been in to share with us where
will the conference be.
I do hope that we understand this, that the eloquence with which the
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means described how repugnant the
deficit is to him, that he only found it difficult to live with because
it was caused by Members of Congress' propensity to spend money for
programs.
I really think that is the key to the whole thing. He has no problem
in creating the deficit for tax cuts, but his problem is when we are
spending it for education and housing and Social Security and Medicare
and prescription drugs. That is where he draws the line.
It seems as though while the papers are concerned with whether the
negotiators, and that is what is referred to on the front page of the
Wall Street Journal, not the congressional conferences taking place
trying to resolve differences, but what he and his Republican
counterpart have decided that they are going to do for long-term
economic gain, something similar to what they did several years ago
when they said they had a program to create jobs, and it turns out that
they had a program to increase deficits.
So here we are today saying that they have agreed on a $350 billion
tax cut when everyone inside the Beltway and in the House and Senate
knows that they have agreed to a trillion dollar tax cut and a trillion
dollars in borrowed money; and the fact remains that for the next
decade the interest that we will be paying on the money that has been
borrowed for tax cuts will be more than the money that we ever will be
paying for discretionary programs to provide assistance for Americans.
So now that they have come out of the dark room and agreed that they
are going to do the best, I can tell Members this: no matter what they
come out with, it is the American people who are going to pay the price
for this dramatic shift as to when did we start borrowing trillions of
dollars in order to reduce the taxes on the precious few already-
blessed people with high incomes that will be the beneficiaries of it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will reach my hand out once again; we are willing to
accept it. You slapped it away once. I hope the gentleman does not slap
it away a second time because as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) has reminded us time and time again, there is not enough comity
in this House, that we ought not treat each other the way we have been
treated. I thought I would take the initiative.
I find it interesting when the request is made repeatedly on this
side, apparently it is just a request. When I accept that offer and
reach my hand back, it is denied. So then you wonder why the request
was made in the first place, or perhaps it was just a request that they
hoped would remain out there, floating ephemeral.
What I have done is I have put my hand out and said let us get to
conference. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) says he does not
know where the conference is or where it is going to meet. I tell the
gentleman from New York, I do not know either. Why, as the gentleman
well knows, the Senate is organizing this conference. It is the
chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance who will be the chairman of
the conference. They will organize it, and they will structure it.
If we can get this motion to instruct behind it, I would have
preferred yielding back the balance of my time, but obviously
statements need to be made, but then maybe we will find out where it
is; and he and I can go together to where it is that the chairman of
the Senate Committee on Finance will decide where and when it should
meet.
So if the gentleman is concerned he does not know, once again, on a
totally equal basis, I do not know either. We will try to pursue that
together. Perhaps that is one thing we can do together today because
clearly you are not willing to accept the gesture of moving on so we
can actually do it by accepting our offer on the motion to instruct.

{time} 1100

I guess it just concerns me a little bit because from now on when I
sit on the floor and listen to the platitudes about how we ought to
work together, we will have a little better understanding of the
context in which those statements are made. We understand it is
political rhetoric, just as everything that is going to be said from
now on is political rhetoric.
I just wanted you to know that in all sincerity, to live up to what
you said, I wanted to give you a chance. You offered. We are willing to
accept. You are not willing to accept our offer to accept. That really
is sad.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am even more frightened now that the chairman has indicated
publicly how little he knows about what the Senate is doing since he
has been on television all night sharing with us that he has been
negotiating with the Senate, but I accept his lack of understanding of
where the conference is going to be.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the chairman can say over and over and over
again that he reaches out his hand in comity in seeking bipartisan
participation. But no matter how often he says it, no matter how
sincerely drips the lines from his mouth, the reality is starkly
different. Yes, we reject a sham offer for a sham process,
predetermined and not inclusive, a process that is leading to the
injuring of our country, the undermining of our economy, the
destruction of jobs. Those are the facts, as the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) said earlier. The creation of gargantuan debt. And, yes,
as the chairman knows but will not repeat, under Mr. Reagan and Mr.
Bush, their budget request, forget about what Democrats did, their
budget request requested more spending than the Congress gave them in
those 12 years. This

[[Page H4538]]

President has asked for more spending than we had last year.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct,
not caveated, not if you mean this or that, as the chairman says. This
motion instructs conferees on the tax bill to include the provisions on
State aid as provided for in the Senate. Frankly, I know it galls many
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, none more so I think
than the chairman, that the States are now asking the Federal
Government for help in weathering their worst fiscal crisis since World
War II, caused in large part by the fiscal policies of this
administration. Do we ignore the fact that many States are now
considering massive layoffs in an effort to save money and balance
their budgets? The chairman would say yes. Do we ignore the fact that
States are now considering Draconian cuts to Medicaid and other vital
services for our most vulnerable citizens? The chairman would say yes.
Do we ignore the fact that at least one State, Kentucky, is even
considering letting prison inmates out early to save money?
Mr. Speaker, that puffed-up piety, that dripping sanctimony that so
often laces the lectures on fiscal responsibility that our Republican
friends are so fond of making would have far more credibility if the
GOP actually practiced what it preached. But the party that turned
record budget surpluses into record deficits, the party that squandered
a projected $5.6 trillion surplus, and the party that later today
intends to vote for a $350 billion bill, it says, but everybody on this
floor who is at all honest knows it is a trillion dollars, plunging us
deeper into debt, demanding a record increase in the statutory debt
limit should not be lecturing anyone on fiscal responsibility.
This motion instructs conferees not to increase the deficit, which
the CBO now projects will be well over $300 billion, and not to include
language to raise the debt limit. Our Democratic alternative, of
course, was paid for with offsets. The GOP bill is not.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you care about your country, if you care
about honesty with the American public, if you care about any personal
responsibility that we have as Members of the Congress, you will vote
for this motion to instruct and against this package that will harm our
country.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Maryland called my offer to yield back the balance
of the time and accept the motion to instruct a sham offer. All you
have got to do is call me on it to see if it is a sham or not. You
yield back your time; I will yield back my time. That was rejected.
The next test will be since we have already said we would accept the
motion to instruct is when we finish debate, all time has expired and
the question will be on the motion. We do not intend to call a rollcall
vote. There would be no need to call a rollcall vote if in fact you
have offered and we have accepted. It would be a sham to call a
rollcall vote. We do not intend to call a rollcall vote. If you on the
other side of the aisle call a rollcall vote after you have offered and
we have accepted, then it is pretty obvious where you are going. Words
piled upon words cannot bury this simple fact: I offered; you refused.
Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: ``It might
have been.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time.
It is certainly understandable why the chairman of the committee
would not want us to talk about this bill. It is certainly
understandable that he would not want the American public to learn from
us that this is a trillion-dollar tax bill that plunges this country
faster and further into debt than anytime in history. He certainly
would not want us to tell the American people that when they did their
first tax bill of a trillion dollars 2 years ago, that since that time
we lost 2.7 million jobs, the economy has faltered, the market has
faltered and the Bush administration and the Republicans in the House
and the Senate do nothing.
They do nothing but take care of the Bush class in America against
the middle class in America. I am sure the gentleman from California
would not like to have us tell that to the American public, just as he
did not want us to tell the American public when we had a substitute
and they denied us time to talk about it, they denied us the right to
offer. Why? Because we had a substitute that was fair and fast acting,
would have created a million jobs and no long-term deficit. They could
not figure out how to construct one. They did not have the discipline
to construct it. They did not have the morals to construct it. They did
not have the ethics to construct it, so they just dove into the pit of
debt and deficits and red ink.
And now as they emerge from that pit, it drips off of them, deficits,
red ink, muck, to be left to the future generations. That is their
plan. And I am sure they would not like us to talk about it. And I am
sure that he will beg us to yield back our time. But we think this is
the House where the people rule. This is where the people ought to hear
what is taking place here. The facts that cannot be buried, as he would
say, is the exploding deficit, the cost of these tax bills, a $400
billion deficit this year, a $7 trillion deficit over the long term and
the immorality of passing that on to future generations.
Mr. THOMAS. Might I ask the Speaker the remaining division of time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) has 12\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) has 11.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from California indicated that they were quite
disappointed that their substitute was not made in order. What the
gentleman full well knows is that the substitute did not conform to the
rules. That they could not construct, or chose not to construct a
substitute that did not violate the rules, that was outside the rules.
And what they wanted was to ignore the rules.
What the majority did was construct a program that fit the rules. I
understand, based upon the way you behaved when you were the majority,
that you do not like the constraining aspect of rules. We believe that
you ought to play the game according to the rules, and you do not think
rules should apply to you. We understand that. But for you to argue
that your motion should be made in order in which we had to follow the
rules of the House and you did not is to say, let's have a game of
baseball. You get nine in the field, we get 28. You get three outs, we
get 12.
I certainly understand based upon the way you performed when you were
in the majority, you do not get it. Why can we not have 28 in the
field? Why can we not have 12 outs? Why can we not spend more than we
raise year after year after year when you had the ability not to? But
now somehow the Holy Grail is to not spend more than you take in, and
we would sip from that cup every day if we did not face the problems we
face now. Just as we did in wartime when we spent dollars we did not
have to try to save our country, we are trying to do the same thing
right now.
I understand your desire to score political points. But the argument
that somehow we do not want people to know what we are attempting to
do, as soon as we can get to conference, is absolutely the most amazing
argument I have ever heard. You know why? Because once you understand
what we are doing, it completely blows up your rhetoric. Those old
yellowed sheets of class warfare give to the rich are actually going to
have to be rewritten. Or maybe you just ignore, as you have done a
number of times, reality.
What we are attempting to place before this body is a change in the
Tax Code that does not give no taxation of dividends or capital gains
to the most rich. Warren Buffett does not get zero. Bill Gates does not
get zero. We are attempting, and the longer we stand here the longer it
is going to take us to present it to you, to create a change in the Tax
Code that gives zero to who? No tax on dividends or capital gains to
those who pay the lowest amounts of taxes. In the 10 and the 15 percent
bracket, zero. Their modest investment

[[Page H4539]]

in the engine that drives our economy, the private sector, should not
be subjected to the Federal Government taking money out of that small
pot. That is what we want to put in front of you. I think you are a
little worried about it because your old syllabus will not work. We do
not want to provide zero tax to the richest in America. We want to
provide zero tax in the investment of the engine of this economy to
those on the bottom and the second to the bottom rung of the ladder, so
that they can amass wealth, they can understand what it means to be a
capitalist, they can share in the resources of this country; and I
believe your real fear is that eventually they will understand what it
means to think and be a Republican.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is so sad that the gentleman constantly refers to this as some
type of a game. I am certain to the millions of people without jobs and
without hope that they consider this tax cut just as repugnant as the
words that have been uttered about this class warfare. It is a class
warfare, and it is the working class that are the victims.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader.

{time} 1115

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, just now as he talked about the rules of the House and those
rules foreclosing the option of the Democrats to be able to bring a
bill to this floor.
What I heard the gentleman say is that the rules of this House are
rigged against working families in America; that the rules of this
House under his interpretation are rigged against bringing a bill that
would create jobs, that would invest in infrastructure in our country
and immediately create jobs which would help address the concerns of
cities, States, and localities in terms of homeland security needs so
important to the American people; that it is rigged against extending
unemployment benefits to America's workers where the money is there for
that purpose and which would inject demand immediately into the
economy, immediately creating jobs because of people having to spend
that money on necessities; and that the rules of the House are rigged
against fiscal responsibility.
The Democratic proposal was at a cost of zero. It paid for itself. It
was offset. So if the rules of this House do not allow us to come here
and fight in a very direct way for working families in America, for the
middle class in America, then the rules of the House should be changed.
The gentleman knows full well that the minority had every opportunity
for amendment and substitutes when the Democrats were in power. But it
is no use talking about process. Let us talk about jobs. Let us talk
about job creation. Let us talk about immediately infusing demand into
the economy. Let us talk about fiscal soundness. Let us talk about the
debt limit, that this irresponsible, reckless Republican proposal that
may be coming to this floor will demand that we lift the debt ceiling
once again, further indebting, further indebting America's children
well into the future, but without a vote and without a debate and
without the American people understanding the damage that the
Republicans are doing to our economy and to our future.
Republicans are supporting record debt increases to finance a tax cut
that hundreds of economists and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
agree will not grow the economy. And sadly what President Bush did by
putting forth his proposal has started the unraveling of fiscal
responsibility in our country. That is not leadership. How
irresponsible that was.
But the Republicans in Congress picked up the baton and started a
feeding frenzy of further tax cuts, further responsibility in terms of
our budget. And some of their proposals even administration allies,
such as Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, are saying
that what they propose in their dividend plan is one of the most
patently absurd tax policies ever proposed.
Mr. Speaker, public policy is important. Fiscal policy, budget policy
makes a difference. It has ramifications in the economy. In order to
back up their claim that passing this bill will stimulate the economy
this year, House Republicans are using gimmicks that border on the
absurd and have very damaging public policy ramifications. Their bill
delays billions of corporate tax payments, otherwise due September 15,
for 16 days until October 1 when the next fiscal year begins. How does
delaying taxes for 2 weeks create jobs for American workers?
Again this is process. We want jobs. In order to jam more tax breaks
for the wealthy into this bill, Republicans have included provisions to
end middle-class-oriented tax cuts, leaving middle-class Americans with
a tax increase in 2006. This will force a future Congress to either
increase taxes or add billions to our spiraling debt just as baby
boomers are retiring.
The tax cuts for the higher end ought to be left alone. The middle
class is asked to subsidize the wealthy. That is simply not right. The
projected deficit for this year is already a record high, and the
Republican's want to add $1 trillion more in debt to pay for this tax
cut. It defies logic. It defies economics, and it contradicts promises
made to the American people.
Shortly after taking office, President Bush said, ``We should
approach our Nation's budget as any prudent family would.'' And last
August he reiterated, ``We cannot go down the path of soaring
deficits.'' We cannot go down the path of soaring deficits? What are we
doing today? This tax bill breaks that promise.
The reckless tax bill promoted by Republicans in Congress fails to
help those who need it most, the middle class; fails to create jobs;
fails to maintain fiscal responsibility.
Democrats have their own initiative, a plan that creates one million
new jobs this year and gets the economy moving again without adding to
the deficit, and the Republicans tell us that the rules do not allow
that.
We are fighting for a return to fiscal responsibility. The motion to
instruct is part of that fight. I urge my colleagues to support it, and
I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his leadership
in putting it forth.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as I may consume.
I find it ironic that the yellowed notes made their way down into the
well in terms of, need I say, class warfare, in terms of cuts for the
richest people in America and the poor working people do not get a
break. If someone would actually examine what it is we propose to do,
it is to remove the dividend and the capital gain tax on working
Americans, on those in the 10 and the 15 percent bracket, that we
retain taxes on the richest Americans, remove them from those in the
lowest brackets.
I know it does not fit their yellowed notes, but that is what we
propose to do. And I know change is difficult.
I especially know change is difficult when the minority leader takes
the well and begins to talk about how fair they were when they were in
the majority, but never mind that. And if the Members will read in the
Congressional Record, it trails off into a failure to present specifics
about how reasonable and fair they were. In fact, she said the rules of
the House have been rigged against them. I find it ironic because all
we say is follow the rules.
But since the subject was brought up, let us visit a little recent
history. When they were in the majority, there was not even a motion to
recommit guaranteed to the minority. The present rules of the House
under this majority are the most liberal rules ever extended to a
minority in the history of the House of Representatives. They just
apparently do not remember or do not want to remember. Their rules were
far more restrictive toward the minorities than the current rules.
Guarantees in today's rules; not guaranteed under their rules.
So everything we hear is rhetoric. Some of it comes close to being
accurate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), who has made such an

[[Page H4540]]

outstanding contribution to the Committee on Ways and Means and
Congress.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. The hand the chairman has
reached out is one of the hands that has strangled democracy in this
institution. It is no longer a deliberative body. It is the rule of
one, the Republican majority.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says zero taxation for
low-income people. Why? Because in most cases they have no dividends or
capital gains to tax. Under his original proposal, and it remains
essentially the same, a millionaire gets 90,000 bucks more in tax cuts.
The average taxpayer gets a couple hundred bucks.
Mr. Thomas, whom are you warring on? Middle-income and low-income
families in this country.
The President came here today to declare victory. Time will declare
this a defeat for the Nation because the Republican party has turned
red, red ink, red ink. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says
he is opposed to structural deficits, but they have built in more and
more debt into this structure. The only way it is not a structural debt
is the hole is so deep the way they built it they cannot build anything
on it.
Now you say you favor creative destruction? Two and a half million
jobs lost. That is very creative under this President and under the
leadership of the House majority here.
This is a fiscally irresponsible bill for the Nation. It is unfair to
individual taxpayers. It will not stimulate economic growth, as the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and others have said. They are
mortgaging the future of my children, of my grandchildren. We should
pass this and then go on to defeat this conference report.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
California has 6 minutes. The gentleman from New York has 6\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has more time
than the gentleman from California?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. By 30 seconds.
Mr. THOMAS. I find that astounding. With all the speakers and all the
time that was consumed, he still has more time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I will tell the gentleman we are pretty good
at that up here. The gentleman has 6 minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways
and Means and the Congress.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have had a lot of town hall meetings in my district;
and I will tell my colleagues what my constituents do not like. That
is, they do not like us to charge and spend; and that is exactly what
this conference report is going to do. It is going to borrow money in
order to give tax breaks.
That does not make a lot of sense. By the Republicans' own number,
their budget is going to go from a $6 trillion national debt to $12
trillion, doubling the national debt. Every dollar of tax relief has to
be borrowed in which we are paying interest. That does not make sense.
Mr. Speaker, this is a reckless bill. They advertise they give help
to low-income people. That is for 1 year only. They give permanent
relief to the well-to-do. That is not fair. That is not what we should
be doing as a Nation.
This bill is reckless. This bill is not affordable. This bill is
going to hurt our economy, not help our economy.
What we should be doing is responsibly managing our resources. We
should not be borrowing money to give a tax cut. That is wrong.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, where might I find that Jericho clock
somebody apparently has in keeping time?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think I finally get it. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin)
indicated that some of these provisions are permanent. I actually
thought that since it is under the process called reconciliation,
governed by the rules of the Senate, by the way, not the House, that
anything that is done under the reconciliation process by definition
cannot be permanent. In fact, on the one hand they criticize a number
of provisions that expire.
Frankly, when we are trying to stimulate the economy and we offer a
reduction on depreciable assets, what we want them to do is make a
decision to buy that truck, to buy that computer as soon as possible.
That helps stimulate the economy. That helps create jobs. If we leave
the offer to reduce the cost on depreciation for the entire decade, a
decision can be made anytime during the decade.
The whole concept of a stimulus is to get decisions that will be made
sometime in the decade near the current time. Those are supposed to
expire.
But for the gentleman to say that some of these provisions are
permanent tells me there is an underlying fear on the other side of the
aisle that, notwithstanding the statutes will expire, they will not be
in the majority when they expire.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I will not yield at this time. I do not have a Jericho
clock like some folks have, and my time actually gets ticked off.

{time} 1130

The real fear in terms of their arguments, notwithstanding the
yellowed notes that they use about the class warfare, which simply is
not true, based upon the facts in the tax bill, is that when those
provisions do expire, as they must under the temporary provisions of
reconciliation, the American people might have the audacity to continue
to maintain a Republican majority, because they like what we are doing;
and when it comes time to decide whether they get extended or not, they
might actually get extended.
Now I get it. You are in the minority, and your fear is if this
becomes law, based upon what we do and the positive reaction of the
American public, your fear is you will remain in the minority. I will
trust to the wisdom of the American public. They have done pretty well
in recent years.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have ever been accused of
exercising bad faith because we were given 30 minutes to talk about
this and we actually took it.
I think that one other point ought to be made, and that is that on
January 1, 1995, our national debt subject to limit was $4.8 trillion.
On January 1, 2004, it will be $7.4 trillion. That is an increase of 54
percent in 8 years. That is not a political argument; that is a fact, a
demonstrable, proven fact.
Now, part two of this motion says, to the maximum extent possible,
within the scope of the conference. To me, that means what the Blue Dog
plan was that was rejected on the floor, because, to the maximum extent
possible, the Blue Dog plan does what we have asked. It neither
increases the Federal budget deficit, nor does it increase the amount
of debt subject to the public limit. So when one wants to say to the
maximum extent possible, we can do that. We could do that by adopting
the Blue Dog plan.
The other thing I would simply say is this: if we keep going down
this road, we are building in such a structural long-term tax increase
called interest on the national debt that the young people of this
country are going to be unable to have the options and the choices
about what kind of government they want when they are our age, because
they will be strapped to the gurney with debt and interest that has to
be paid on that debt that we are leaving them.
That is not a political argument either. That is a fact. With
interest, compound interest, capitalism, whatever you want to call it,
interest must be paid before anything else in our system.
So I would just hope that we would actually take a look at what we
are doing.

[[Page H4541]]

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sandlin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, to quote a popular Republican President,
``There you go again.'' With no apparent sense of irony, the Republican
leadership scrambled to complete an irresponsible, unaffordable tax
package during the same week that the other body will consider a $984
billion increase in the public debt, the largest in American history.
The House leadership pushed a massive increase of $450 billion in the
debt limit not even 1 year ago; and here they go again, with a debt
limit increase that is more than double the size of last year's record
increase. We have about $7 trillion in debt. We pay over $1 billion a
day in interest in this country, and it is outrageous.
The Democratic motion to instruct conferees attempts to restore at
least some sanity to Congress' fiscal mismanagement of the country by
insisting that the tax reconciliation conference report should increase
neither the debt nor the deficit in this country.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic motion to instruct recognizes
the necessity of relief to our States. Under the Senate tax bill, Texas
would receive approximately $1 billion in fiscal relief, including
$571.4 million in increased Medicaid funding. This is especially
necessary at a time when the Texas House approved a budget that would
slash Medicaid and eliminate coverage under CHIP for 250,000 low-income
children.
If the passage of an irresponsible tax cut is inevitable, despite the
highest projected budget deficits and a record national debt, the very
least we could do is aid our States.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the previous two speakers, the gentleman from Tennessee
and the gentleman from Texas, talked about the national debt and how
much it has increased from 1994 to 2004, and those numbers sound scary
to people. But most of that debt, Mr. Speaker, is debt that we are
paying to the Social Security trust fund, to the Medicare trust fund;
and surely those gentleman are not suggesting that we should not be
accumulating that debt in those trust funds and paying interest on that
debt.
So I just want to make clear that for several years under the
Republican majority we paid down the debt held by the public while we
were continuing to accumulate debt in the trust funds. Economists and
market watchers distinguish between the publicly held debt and total
government debt, and that distinction needs to be made here on this
floor.
So, Mr. Speaker, while the figures they gave are technically
accurate, they are far from the truth when it comes to fiscal
responsibility in this House.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, earlier I listened to the distinguished chairman of the
committee talk about the importance of funding our national security
budgets, and I agree with him. But make no mistake about it, this tax
plan makes it harder for our kids to fund their national security
budgets.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that
starting in 2008 we are going to require defense budgets of $464
billion a year. What does that mean? Within a few years, we are going
to have to come up with at least $64 billion a year every year over
this year's authorized limits. That is $384 billion for defense before
this tax cut expires. You do the math: $384 billion more for defense,
and $350 billion less to pay for it. We are draining the Treasury when
we need even more for defense.
No conferee would go into a fancy car dealer, pick out the most
expensive model, and say, Let my kids pay for it.
Mr. Speaker, this is reckless. For those Members of this body who say
they are strong on defense, let them be strong on defense budgets.
Strong defense budgets are more important than tax cuts. This plan does
the opposite.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the comments from the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) border on fraud. If more debt
would stimulate the economy, then you would think that with the $817
billion of debt that has been added in slightly over 2 years since the
passage of the Thomas-Bush tax package and budget, we would have a red-
hot economy.
Our friend from Louisiana says that that money we are borrowing goes
into the Social Security trust fund. No, I say to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), it is stolen from the Social Security trust
fund.
Take the lockbox. Please tell these folks in the gallery where the
account is. Because there is not one penny in that account. They cannot
find it. It is all IOUs.
They are taking money from working people, Social Security taxes,
Medicare taxes; and they are using them to give to other folks in tax
breaks, and then they are borrowing the rest, $817 billion, to run our
Nation. I say to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), you
obviously do not understand the facts.
Mr. Speaker, this is the theft of the future of America. Those people
who claim to be for a balanced budget are running up $817 billion worth
of debt in 2 years, stealing it from your Social Security trust fund,
stealing it from Medicare; and now they are saying the only answer to
this is more debt.
Please vote against this.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all
Members not to make reference to the visitors in the gallery.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be talking about the
greatest threats to our children, we ought to at least get it accurate.
The greatest threat to our children is our failure to acknowledge that
we are currently engaged in the greatest transfer of wealth in the
history of the world. They are called the Medicare and the Social
Security programs. The failure to modernize and to reform, given the
continued growth of those programs in the Federal budget, will choke
out every other aspect of the Federal budget. The threat that they will
go bankrupt without our addressing them is the greatest threat to our
children, denying them the opportunity tomorrow what seniors have
today.
So if we are going to talk about threats, let us talk about the
failure, the absolute refusal to give up a political bumper sticker,
you have all seen it: ``Save Social Security, Vote Democratic.'' If you
do not address change, it is going bankrupt. It is not a partisan
issue.
Just like the yellowed papers on ``we are favoring the rich and
hurting the poor on the tax issue,'' which is absolutely false, your
failure to address this fundamental reform is the greatest threat to
our children. And probably the greatest insult to Americans is to argue
that while you refuse to seriously engage in modernization and reform,
you are doing it to save the system. It is about as old and yellowed as
all your other arguments.
The test will be the choice made by the American people. They have
made it recently; and I believe we will be able, despite the rhetoric
that you offer, to make the changes that the American people agree on
and move this country forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has
30 seconds remaining.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I really think that the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means has adequately concluded this debate. God
forbid, if the safety and the solvency of the Social Security system
and the

[[Page H4542]]

Medicare system, the future education of our children, affordable
housing, be placed in Republican hands, then the situation is worse
than I ever thought.
No, you do not have to be an economist to figure this move out. What
we are talking about is borrowing money, making insecure the Social
Security system, privatizing the Medicare system, not having enough
funds to and keeping every child behind. And why are we doing this? Are
we borrowing it for spending, or are we borrowing it for tax cuts? I
think the American people understand what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
The motion to instruct was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees:
For consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Thomas, DeLay and Rangel.
There was no objection.

____________________