[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 77 (Thursday, May 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4558-H4564]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 249 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 249
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 May 22, 2003, providing for consideration
or disposition of the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, any amendment
thereto, any conference report thereon, or any amendment
reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and
friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 249
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.
The rule applies the waiver to a special rule reported on the
legislative day of May 22, 2003, providing for consideration or
disposition of the bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 201 of the concurrent resolution, any conference report
thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference
thereon.
This rule is the starting block to allow the House to consider
legislation that will infuse our economy with job-creating tax relief,
investment incentives, and overall economic growth. The House initially
passed the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act earlier this month,
and with today's action we can demonstrate our continued commitment to
spurring economic expansion and providing stability to American
workers, businesses and families.
Our economy needs a healthy dose of meaningful relief. This Congress
has once before exhibited the leadership and sense of purpose needed to
create jobs and protect workers. If we delay, we put American jobs and
the strength of our economy at risk.
As we prepare to consider legislation extending unemployment
compensation, I can think of no better complimentary action for
Congress to adopt than legislation to boost employment levels, lower
the tax burden, and grow the economy. It is imperative that we move
forward at once. Thus, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this
rule so we can proceed with a debate on this very important
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1345
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, it is often said if you repeat a lie often
enough, people begin to believe it. Our record $350 billion deficit,
the Republican Congress tells us that does not matter. The fact that
this Republican administration has asked us not once, but twice, to
raise the debt limit to record levels, ignore that, and maybe it will
go away. The promise that all Members made to protect Social Security
and Medicare funds in a lockbox, that does not seem to matter either,
Mr. Speaker.
This is not government. This is a complete abdication of fiscal
responsibility.
In 1995 the now majority leader, Tom DeLay, said, ``By the year 2002,
we can have a Federal Government with a balanced budget or we could
continue down the present path towards total fiscal catastrophe.''
It is now abundantly clear that the Republicans have lost their way
and have decided that the path of fiscal catastrophe is not such a bad
path after all. That begs the question, Mr. Speaker, what are the
priorities of the Republican Party that makes tripping down the path to
fiscal catastrophe such a great idea in 2003 when it was so bad an idea
in 1995?
Well, we know the Republicans' top priority is to give millionaires a
dividend tax cut. Where does that money come from? Well, the Republican
budget conference report cuts veterans' Medicare and burial benefits by
$6.2 billion. So if you are a millionaire and you have got a lot of
dividend and capital gains income, the Republicans take care of you. If
you are a veteran, this Republican Congress wants you to remember this
Memorial Day as the one when your benefits were cut. And for what, Mr.
Speaker? One of the most gimmick-laden tax cuts this Congress has ever
considered. While the dividend and capital gains taxes last until 2008,
the marriage penalty relief and child tax credits disappear at the end
of 2004.
So while the millionaires enjoy their rate break for the rest of the
decade, working families are left with uncertainty.
In 2001 the Republicans told us that their tax cut would create jobs.
Instead, the Bush administration has presided over one of the worst job
losses in American history; 2.7 million jobs have been lost. A dividend
tax package is not going to help these people get jobs. It is simply
welfare for millionaires.
Mr. Speaker, Warren Buffett has made a lot of money. Mr. Buffett
would, in fact, be one of the greatest recipients of the Republican tax
plan. He wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post this week calling the
dividend tax plan ``voodoo economics.''
Alan Greenspan said, ``There is no question that as deficits go up,
contrary to what some have said, it does effect long-term interest
rates. It does have a negative impact on the economy.''
These are two of America's leading economic minds, Mr. Speaker. And
they know that financing this tax cut which benefits only the wealthy
few with borrowed money is wrong. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we believe it is important to move this legislation
forward to grow our economy, to create jobs, help people who do not
have jobs find jobs; and we strongly support it and strongly support
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I received my symbol for this Congress
just the other day. It is an official stamp from the White House, and
they are passing them out. You will all get one in the mail I am pretty
sure, and it says: ``Official rubber stamp. I approve of everything
George Bush does. Member of Congress.''
All you have to do is sign your name on there. That is what this
Congress is about, rubber stamping the President's proposals. Bring it
out here. No debate. Do not let us offer amendments. Do not take any
time. Just get out the rubber stamp and put it down there and just roll
it on in. You have now joined the rubber stamp Congress.
This party is running a one-party government. They want no input from
the Democrats whatsoever. They are a rubber stamp for the President.
They are willing to give away all their prerogatives on the war. They
said to the President, whenever you think it is time to go to war, go
ahead. So they have rubber-stamped whatever he wanted to do. On the tax
cut, just give it to him. It will work. On unemployment benefits, well,
they stalled and stalled; and he said, look, we are getting bad numbers
on those polls. We better do something about employment. So in about an
hour we are going to come out here and rubber-stamp again his
unemployment bill that the Democrats have been pushing for 4 months.
But when the President says it, everybody on the other side jumps up
and says, Where is my rubber
[[Page H4559]]
stamp? God, I got to get over to the floor and cast my vote for
whatever he wants.
Whether he wants to repeal all of the environmental issues related to
the military, give the military an open season on doing anything they
want. They are killing whales and porpoises in Washington, they are
doing all the rest, but over here on the other side, we do not want to
have any debate on that. We are rubber-stamping whatever the President
wants. I welcome everybody to the rubber stamp club. I hope you got
yours. Do not forget to bring them to the floor when you vote.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, it would be my greatest desire that we would have a full
debate on the question of the next step for our economy and walk out of
this Chamber with the mark of the Congress in the bipartisan way.
Two days ago, Warren Buffett wrote an op-ed, and I believe everyone
knows the portfolio of Warren Buffett is still very strong, one of the
richest men in the Nation. And he argued vigorously with the approach
this Congress was taking. Clearly, he said, the tax plan now moving
through the Congress is not a gift for him. It is an outright bonus. It
is Christmas every day, and it is for everyone in his predicament and
condition: $40 billion-plus in assets. But he compared his status, Mr.
Speaker, with the status of the secretary or receptionist working in
his office or even the cleaning woman working in his office.
He said, under this effort, this tax cut program, he would be paying
or being given a gift and he would be paying one-tenth of the amount of
monies required by the receptionist and the cleaning woman.
What that says to me, Mr. Speaker, we are going up the wrong road.
There is a dead end at the end of the road and the dead end are the
millions of unemployed who are not getting an extended unemployment
package of 26 weeks because we have got to give a tax cut to the rich.
We are going up a dead end, Mr. Speaker, because the program that is
now being fostered upon us does not create jobs.
If we took the Democratic plan, Mr. Speaker, and we invested a
million dollars in transportation infrastructure, you would get 13
jobs. If you did it in health care, you would gets 26 jobs. Mr.
Speaker, if you use the plan that the President has put forward, you
take a million dollars and you get two jobs.
Now, I know that there is a difficulty in math in this great body
because we are willing to go forward on $550 billion, which I
understand is a compromise on $350 billion; but it does not invest back
into America to create jobs, and the plan as proposed by the
Republicans takes $1 million to create two jobs. And I can take $1
million and put it in transportation and create 15 jobs, and in health
care and create 28 jobs and on down the line. And then I could provide
26 weeks of unemployment for those whose benefits are being cut off.
I know the American people are focused as we honor the dead this
coming weekend, and I will join them in cherishing those who fight for
our freedom. But it is time for America to wake up. You are going to be
hungry after 13 weeks. You need to stand up and fight for 26 weeks.
That is what I believe we should be doing today.
Putting up this marshal rule does not allow us to collaborate and to
work together. Let us work through tomorrow, let us work through
Saturday, let us work through Sunday. Let us leave this place with a
tax bill that really invests in America. Let us leave this place with
26 weeks of unemployment insurance for the single mothers and dads who
are going to be facing eviction because they do not have the benefit.
Let us churn the economy by ensuring that those people who are
without work who are looking for work because there are no jobs, still
have the benefits to pay their mortgage and their rent and to buy the
food.
Mr. Speaker, we are forcing this down the throats of the Members of
Congress. I know we are better than this. This is not a good rule. We
need to deliberate and work for a better economy for America because
our economy is in shambles. I ask my colleagues to work together and
vote against this.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest a caution flag as we rush
towards this free lunch-approach to governmental fiscal policy. We
cannot have a world-class military and defense, world-class health
care, education, cities, and culture, and suggest that no one has to
pay for it. And we talk about tax cuts today as if they are going to
stimulate the economy tomorrow with some type of selective amnesia,
because it was right here on this floor just 2 years ago that we passed
the largest tax cut supposedly in the history of the country. And it
did not stimulate our economy.
Let us just take a look for a minute at where we are.
{time} 1400
We have moved from hundreds of billions of dollars of surpluses to
now having hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits. We had millions
of Americans who were working who are now unemployed; and, even today,
the unemployment registration rate in our country has increased again.
Consumer confidence is down. Housing starts are down. And every single
indicator, in terms of economic health in our country, is troubling.
We have heard from the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan
Greenspan, suggesting that this tax cut is very problematic in both the
short term and the long term. He cautions the Congress that our
combination of both spending and tax cuts risks the fiscal health of
this Nation. And the Republican majority, I am sure, wants to say,
well, we just need to get spending under control, as if the country
should forget that they are in the majority, that they control spending
both in the House and in the Senate, and they control the signature
from the executive at the White House.
For so many years now we have been insisting on spending more on
defense, we have been insisting on investing in a whole range of exotic
weapons systems, and then we come to the floor and the majority offers
us more and more tax cuts. The fiscal health of our country is in
jeopardy. Future generations will have to pay. We should say to
Americans, why do we not be mature, pay the bills as we go, rather than
run the country into further deficit?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is a martial law rule, and that is
appropriate because there are those in this House and in this country
that think the role of all the representatives here is to march in a
martial fashion behind the leadership of the majority leader, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
So it is appropriate they bring this rule out today, a gag rule, to
gag those of us that do not share the views of the majority leader, who
might have an amendment or an alternative way to address the problems
that American families face. They deny us that right. They have assured
there will be no substitutes considered on this floor. It is their way
or the highway. It is a martial America that they are supporting and
appropriate they bring this rule up to do it.
Their ideas are so narrow and so extreme that they cannot stand to
have them debated and voted upon, not so much worrying about the
Democrats but worrying that some members of their own party could not
be held in line against solid alternatives to do something for the
millions of Americans that lack jobs in this Bush economy; to do
something about the millions of Americans who lack insurance in this
Bush economy; to do something about the children who are denied the
opportunity to fulfill their full potential because of teacher freezes,
because there are textbooks that will not be renewed in Texas.
Meanwhile, the President tells us that he has to break his promise on
the ``Leave No Child Behind'' Act. He has come up with a mere $9
billion, that is billion with a ``B,'' billion dollars. He breaks his
promise in the short period
[[Page H4560]]
of time that he advanced a bipartisan proposal for education that we
all came behind. Now he will break his promise and not fulfill the
promise he made to the American people. Though we do not have the money
for our children to get access to new textbooks, we do not have enough
money for that, we do have enough money for more tax breaks for those
at the top of the economic ladder.
The budget deficit puts a hole in the pocket of every American every
day of their lives. It threatens the very foundation of our culture. We
must seize and act upon this historic opportunity to solve this, the
most pressing issue facing the country.
Those are not my words, though I find them rather eloquent. They are
the words of Treasury Secretary John Snow in 1995 but forgotten by him
now that he has a new job in the administration. No ``Snow job'' can
hide this administration's Mt. Everest of debt. Mr. Snow got a new job
and a new viewpoint at the same time millions of Americans were losing
their jobs in this sorry economy.
A few weeks ago, the President announced a tax cut of the size that
will be imposed on America tonight and said that it was just a ``little
bitty'' tax cut. Well, Mr. Snow is coming the same week and asking us
to raise the debt ceiling by billions of dollars. Is that a ``little
bitty'' increase? No, they practically need an extension ladder over
there at the Treasury Department because they cannot get the debt
ceiling raised fast enough before they are back having to go up a
little higher and raise it some more.
Of course, they turn to us and say, ``it is the people's money, give
it back to them. It is their taxes.'' Well, it is the people's debt,
too, and they are going to have a whole lot more of it. And not
billions, but trillions, with a ``T,'' trillions of dollars in
additional debt if this lame economic policy, this sorry tax break, one
after another writeoff for the rich, is imposed on the children and the
grandchildren of America.
This is a borrow and spend Republican Party, and that is why they
have to have martial rules because they cannot permit Congress to
consider alternative proposals. They cannot have full and fair debate.
They need everybody to line up in a line and stand to borrow more from
the people of this country. A ``no'' vote is a vote for fiscal
responsibility that ensures our children will not be burdened by
today's excesses.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition
to this martial rule, which essentially restricts debate. It does not
permit the Democratic economic program to even be debated today.
Why not? What is the opposition afraid of? They have the votes on
their side. Why not even allow us to talk about our program?
Here is why. I remember back to that old saying, if you fool me once,
shame on you. If you fool me twice, shame on me. But if you fool me
thrice, well, my gosh, it is just a sad and deadly shame.
If we think back to 1981, when Vice President Dick Cheney was then a
Member of this House and head of the Republican Policy Group, he was
involved in the Republican tax program enacted back in 1981. We had the
worst job washout in American history. I was elected in 1983. It took
us 15 years to balance this budget and to bring employment up, with the
election of Bill Clinton and 8 years of economic growth inside this
economy. And it was not easy.
When this administration took over, they blew $1.3 billion in the
first year and a half. Fifteen years of work flew out the window. Then
with their tax bill that they passed back in 2001, what have we gotten
in terms of employment? None. We have got the biggest job loss since
World War II, over 3 million more jobs lost in this country. We have
three people in this economy looking for every single job that is being
created, and most of those jobs do not pay a living wage and they do
not have health benefits.
So, fool me once, fool me twice, and now we have the third version
that they are bringing up. This bill, what will it do? It is going to
create more unemployment. It is no different than what was done back in
1981, no different than what was done back in 2001. Strike one, strike
two, strike three. They ought to be out.
If we take a look at our country, we might ask ourselves the
question: With 150,000 of our men and women, of our troops, now
deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, is it not amazing that what we do
here at home under the Republican plan is reward the Wall Street
brokers who just stole your 401(k) money? There is not a single
American family that has not been affected. So we say to them, take
more of our money. Take more of our money. The interesting thing about
the Republican bill is that not a dime that is given to them has to be
invested in the USA. We are going to have more job washout to China, to
Mexico, and every single American community and worker knows what I am
talking about.
So the Democratic plan provides a million jobs this year alone. It
invests in the United States. It gives families security. It does not
borrow against the Social Security trust funds, which is how they are
covering their growing deficits, and it enacts responsible economic
programs. That is what the Democratic bill does. It creates jobs this
year, it does not add a penny to the deficit, and it preserves Social
Security and Medicare, our Democratic legacy.
Fool me once, not me. Fool me twice, not me. Fool me thrice? How
about you?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
We are seeing a very clear difference in philosophy and opinion on
the floor of the House today between the parties. It was said before by
one of our friends on the other side of the aisle that when we cut
taxes, when we reduce the burden of taxation on the American people,
that that is an imposition. That was the word. We impose this.
Congress, it was said, will impose a tax cut on the American people.
We believe that when we relieve the tax burden on the American
people, that that is not an imposition on the American people. We
believe it is their money in the first place, and we are relieving the
tax burden on the American people. We are imposing less taxes from
Washington.
So it is an interesting difference of opinion, and I think it is a
fundamental difference of opinion. I think the American people are
seeing it today. What we believe is that we should return as much as we
can of the people's money to the people, and that they are best suited
and know best how to spend their own money. So it is a fundamental
difference.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Yes, there is a difference between the two parties here. The other
side would impose billions of dollars of debt on my 6-year-old
granddaughter and my 3-year-old granddaughter and my 2-month-old
granddaughter. I do not believe we should be doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Bush recession continues, and this job
killer bill ensures that it will continue to continue. It imposes
additional deficits on our budget and additional debt on the American
people. It imposes higher interest rates on the American people. It
will impose upon our teachers and our firefighters layoffs at a time
when we need more jobs in the economy, because it virtually ensures
that we will provide only very limited and inadequate aid to our States
and cities that are falling on hard times right now.
If we look at the details, we become aware that this bill, whatever
the arguments that were made in favor of it, is nothing more than an
effort to hand as much cash as possible to the Bush class. We are told
that it is going to help investments, but when we look at the details,
we discover otherwise. Three details: It is temporary, it provides aid
to children with huge trust funds, and it provides equal encouragement
to invest in foreign corporations as domestic corporations.
At least that is what I am told orally about a bill that, in theory,
has not been written yet but in fact is out in the press now.
[[Page H4561]]
What about it being temporary? The idea was that we were not just
going to give a windfall to people who had already invested in stocks
but that we were going to encourage people to invest more. Well, wait a
minute. Municipal bonds are a nice investment for tax-free income. But
who would buy a municipal bond today if 5 years from now all the income
was going to be subject to tax? Nobody is going to invest in stocks
long term because of a short-term window in which the dividends are tax
free. Sure, if they already own the stock, they will enjoy not paying
taxes.
Second, I am told that these same benefits are available to
investments in foreign corporations. So if you invest in the Chinese
people's low-wage corporation, you pay no American tax at the corporate
level, of course, and no American tax at the domestic level, or a very
low tax.
Finally, if you transfer half a million bucks worth of Rolls Royce
stock to your 14-year-old daughter, in a couple of years she will be
eligible to receive the dividends on that stock virtually tax free and
then go out and buy a Rolls Royce with the dividend income. This is the
Rolls Royce Investment Act, or I like to call it the Rolls Royce for
Buffy Act.
{time} 1415
The Bush recession continues, and this bill is carefully crafted to
make sure it continues.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk, and my colleagues
on my side of the aisle have suggested that we are traveling down a
course we traveled before from 2 years ago when we were promised that a
tax bill would create millions of new jobs and new opportunities for
people. In fact, it did not.
Some will say there are reasons for that. The President will say, as
he has said in speech after speech, that this country was attacked. We
were. Our Nation responded with great resolve, determination, courage
and charity; and our military has responded with unprecedented
swiftness and effectiveness. Yet we in Congress have failed the
American people, and the President has, in large part, as well. Instead
of tailoring and adjusting a plan to conform to the realities of the
day, we continue to offer the same rhetoric and the same plan that we
offered when things were good, when things were bad, when things were
really bad, and now at a time when things are compounded.
Some of my colleagues have come to the floor to detail the challenges
that their States face. My colleague on the other side of the aisle,
whom I have great respect for, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart), comes from a State which is running a big deficit. The
President's brother is the Governor of that State. My Governor is faced
with a $500 million shortfall. Things are so bad in some States that
they are releasing prisoners early to help meet or to close budget
shortfalls. Something is wrong here in Congress and wrong with us in
government when we pretend that these issues are either not ours to
confront or not of our making, or somehow our ideas are the only and
best ideas.
We could probably come up with a number of ways to stimulate the
economy, a number of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. I have heard
some say this dividend tax is unfair. The Tax Code is polluted with
areas that unfair; inequities litter it. We should prioritize if we are
going to clean up and undo some of the unfairness of the Tax Code.
It would seem to me the best thing we can do is to help our States.
The President reluctantly agreed to include a $20 billion package. I
applaud him on that front. If anything, we should provide more for the
States. Not only do we help governors avoid doing the two worse things
during an economic downturn, which are to cut services and/or raise
taxes, we also help them create more jobs because as you cut State
programs, more and more people are laid off.
Those of us from rural areas understand the importance of rural
hospitals and rural health care. When you close hospitals, not only do
you compromise care, you cause a decline in the job market in those
areas as well. I can only say to my friends, and there are those who
have come to the floor and have talked about marching orders and even
rubber-stamping, and there is great truth and great humor in a lot of
the things that they have said. It is my hope that my friends on the
other side of the aisle will pay some attention to what we are saying.
We understand that they have the votes to ram things down and do what
they choose to do. But remember, all of us represent people and all of
us have to go home and explain to our Governors, to our mayors, and,
more importantly, to our bosses whom we call constituents why we have
not done more to assist cities and States, and for that matter the
private sector, in creating more and more jobs.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing some interesting arguments today. I
thought it was very interesting that one of our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle said that by virtue of the fact that the tax cut is
set to expire, or parts of it at the end of the year 2008, that that
will diminish the incentive for people to invest in the stock market
and have the stock market thus increase and contribute to economic
growth.
But what was failed to be pointed out is that the opponents of the
tax cut have so diligently fought the tax cut that they were able to
reduce the amount of the tax cut for the American people, the reduction
of taxes for the American people; and thus that portion will expire
previously before we would have wanted it to have expired. I do not
think it is logical to be able to say I am going to fight the tax cut.
You reduce it, and then they say since it expires sooner than it was
meant to, then its effectiveness is to be questioned. Wait a minute, do
you want the tax cut or do you not want the tax cut?
In a sense I thought that was somewhat incoherent, that argument; but
of course there is a right to make any argument in this wonderful body.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from
Tennessee.
Mr. FORD. If my reading is correct, and I have not been a part of any
of the meetings, it appeared to me that one of the reasons that the tax
cut was reduced from $726 billion to $550 billion to $350 billion was
because there was disagreement in the gentleman's own party between the
two bodies, between the House and Senate.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. That is correct.
Mr. FORD. So we bear some of the responsibility, but some on the
other side of the aisle also bear some of the responsibility.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Yes, there is no doubt about
that. But what I was pointing to was that the argument was made that
the incentive to invest in the stock market is reduced by virtue of the
fact that that tax cut, that tax incentive, is sunsetted.
What I am saying is it is people who oppose the tax cut, from
whatever party, and the argument was made against the effectiveness of
the tax cut with regard to the dividends part by my distinguished
colleague who is a Democrat. I was pointing out that I think it is
inconsistent to want to have it both ways and then to say it sunsets,
so it is not effective. I thought there was an inconsistency there, and
some incoherence.
Mr. FORD. Fair enough.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. But the gentleman is right, there
are Republicans in the other body that are responsible for reducing the
effectiveness of what we are talking about. But what we strongly
believe and what we want to do, and we are doing it to the best of our
ability, is to reduce the tax burden on the American people.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) pointed out previously that the
debt burden may be increased. We want to reduce the debt burden by
incentivizing economic growth which will not only create jobs now, but
also lessen the debt burden in the future.
[[Page H4562]]
That is what I was pointing out with regard to the point on the
effectiveness of the dividend part. If you are against the tax cut, but
then say it sunsets, so it is not effective, I thought that was an
incoherent argument.
Mr. FORD. If the gentleman would continue to yield, with regard to
the efforts the Congress made on behalf of the airline industry right
after September 11 and not long ago in the war supplemental, which I
thought was the right thing to do and I support it, does it not make
sense also, because part of the argument on this side, and I think from
some in the other body, to provide greater resources to States that are
having to lay nurses and teachers off? And I could go on with our
rhetoric, and the other side has rhetoric; but the reality is State
governments are forced to make some bad decisions largely because the
Governors cannot borrow money, and we can. I am just curious, the $20
billion that was added on the Senate side, is that something that the
other side would be supportive of? That was not included in the House
bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I am not sure if it is. What we
are doing with this rule is making possible for us to have that debate
today, and obviously the people who have been involved in the
negotiations will explain the details of what they ultimately end up
with. We are trying to have that debate today, and that is why we have
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The reasoning on the other side is very curious. I do recall in 2001
when they were promoting the first tax cut, the reason they gave for
the tax cut was, oh, we have a surplus. Now we have this surplus, we
need a tax cut so we can give that money back. Now we are in 2003 and
we have a deficit, so we have to have a tax cut. Which one was it? It
cannot be both. It cannot be we had a surplus, so we should have a tax
cut; we have a deficit, so we should have a tax cut.
I find their logic very curious. Everyone would like a tax cut. The
American public obviously would like to pay less in taxes; and
certainly we could have made the argument for a tax cut in 2001,
perhaps not as large as they did, but we certainly could have made a
valid argument: we are running a surplus; we do not need all of this
money. Some of us felt like the tax cut was so large it was going to
plunge us into a deficit, and that is what has happened.
But it is hard to make the argument that now we are in a deficit, let
us drive this country deeper into a deficit.
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider
H.R. 2046, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the
Democratic Rebuilding America Through Job Creation plan.
I guess I can understand why the Republicans are rushing through what
they are claiming is a conference process to come up with a so-called
economic growth bill. Every hour the American people have to see what
the Republicans are up to, the less they will like it. It is a proposal
that hurts American families, it hurts the American economy, and just
digs the deficit hole deeper.
In stark contrast to the conference agreement we will soon see here
on the floor, the Democratic plan helps all Americans, not just the
rich; and it helps the economy immediately. It provides middle-class
tax cuts to stimulate demand; it gives tax incentives to all
businesses, especially small businesses and U.S. manufacturing
businesses; and unlike the Republican proposal, it is fiscally
responsible.
Yes, if I were a Republican, I might not want to have to explain a
vote against the Democratic Rebuilding America Through Job Creation
plan. But guess what, that is not a good enough reason to deny Members
a chance to debate and vote on this measure. It is a terrible
disservice to the American people if we let our fear of criticism
prevent a vote on this very effective and responsible plan.
Let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question
will not stop consideration of the conference agreement. A ``no'' vote
will allow the House to consider the Democratic job creation plan as a
separate bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will
prevent the House from taking up this responsible alternative. Make no
mistake, this vote is the only opportunity the House will have to
consider the Rangel plan. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous
question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we believe it is very important to be able to get to
this debate. We need to pass this rule, and then we will debate this
matter further. It is obviously a fundamental matter. We believe that
we need to do everything that we can to incentivize economic growth and
job creation. That is why we are bringing this matter to the floor
today.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 249 Waving
\2/3\ Consideration for Conference Report on H. Res. 2
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. . Immediately after disposition of the resolution
249, it shall be in order without intervention of any point
of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2046) to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to rebuild America
through job creation. The bill shall be considered as read
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the Chairman and ranking Minority Member of the Committee on
the Ways and Means; and
(2) on motion to recommit with or without instructions.''
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. 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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on adoption of the
resolution.
This will be a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 202, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 211]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
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
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
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
Houghton
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
Marshall
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
[[Page H4563]]
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
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 (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
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
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
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)
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--11
Bonilla
Combest
Cunningham
Foley
Gephardt
Hyde
Kennedy (RI)
Lewis (GA)
Oxley
Quinn
Weldon (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1448
Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 202, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 212]
AYES--218
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
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
Houghton
Hulshof
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
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
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)
NOES--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
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
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
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
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
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)
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--14
Bilirakis
Bonilla
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Combest
Cunningham
DeGette
Foley
Gephardt
Hunter
Hyde
Lewis (GA)
Nadler
Oxley
Quinn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised they
[[Page H4564]]
have less than 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1455
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.
Stated for:
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 212, I was attending the
burial of a leading veteran from my district at Arlington National
Cemetery. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________