[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 22, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4674-H4683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4613, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 683 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 683
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4613) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted
in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. Points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure
to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During
consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as
amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding,
to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment
of the House and Senate during the month of July.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to 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 the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted an
open rule for H.R. 4613, the Fiscal Year 2005 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate,
equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. The rule also ensures that the United
States Government shall take all steps necessary to guarantee the full
faith and credit of the government.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and open rule for a very important bill.
It cannot get any better than that. The rule allows any Member to offer
any amendment to the bill as long as their amendment complies within
the normal Rules of the House.
H.R. 4613 comes at a particularly crucial time for our Nation's Armed
Forces. The Iraqi conflict and our continuing war on terrorism have
brought a renewed and proper focus on national defense. In our global
campaign against global terror, our military must have every resource,
every tool, every weapon, and every advantage that they need for the
missions to come.
This legislation addresses the needs of a Nation at war on multiple
fronts.
[[Page H4675]]
It contains $391.1 billion for the Department of Defense. It also
provides an additional $25 billion requested by the President for early
fiscal year 2005 costs associated with operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The primary focus of the legislation is protecting our
troops on the battlefield. Our men and women in uniform depend on
having the necessary systems and equipment to be successful in
accomplishing their mission.
Many of us have been concerned about the lack of armor available for
our Humvees and other trucks. This bill addresses that concern by
providing $674 million for an additional 2,996 up-armored Humvees, and
$198 million for ballistic protection. These improved ballistic Humvees
will protect our soldiers from anti-personnel armor-piercing munitions,
and improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.
In the near term, the outcome of our war against terror depends on
the courage of our personnel on the frontlines.
I am pleased that this bill makes significant improvements in the
quality of life of the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces.
These improvements include a 3.5 percent military personnel pay raise,
and increased levels for basic allowances for housing by eliminating
service members' average out-of-pocket expenses from 3.5 percent to
zero in 2005. We can never pay our men and women in uniform on a scale
that matches the magnitude of their sacrifice, but this bill reflects
our respect for their selfless service.
Today, more than ever, we also owe those in uniform the resources
they need to maintain a very high state of readiness. Our enemies rely
upon surprise and deception. They used to rely upon the fact that they
thought we were soft. Well, they have gotten the message that we are
not. Our forces must be ready to deploy to any place around the globe
on short notice, and this bill provides over $120.6 billion for
operation and maintenance. This Nation must have and will have ready
forces that can bring victory to our country and safety to our people.
The world's best soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines also deserve
the world's best weaponry. To ensure this, our Nation must invest in
procurement. This defense bill contains $77.3 billion for procurement.
The continued development and procurement of the M-Gator is also made
a priority in this year's bill. The U.S. has deployed the M-Gator to
the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq, providing our troops with the
support and the mobility they need to successfully wage war.
With the continued support and commitment from Congress, researchers
will be able to enhance the M-Gator's capabilities with silent
operation, precision control, and machine intelligence. These
technological enhancements will continue to help make the United States
military the most technologically advanced and best prepared force in
the world.
This Nation must give our military the weapons it needs to meet
future threats. If the war against terror means that we must find
terror wherever it exists, pull it out by its roots and bring people to
justice, our military must have the means to achieve that objective.
Now, more than any time in our Nation's history, we are relying on
the men and women who so faithfully serve our country in the National
Guard. H.R. 4613 contains language that will help us continue to
provide strong support for our National Guard.
In my State of North Carolina, universities and community
organizations are coming together to help develop a comprehensive
program to effectively support our citizen soldiers. This bill
recognizes the importance of this program and provides language to help
integrate the National Program For Citizen Soldiers Support with the
Defense Department's ongoing efforts to support our men and women in
uniform.
Some of our greatest defense resources are found in the classrooms
and the labs of our universities. This bill continues to recognize the
important role our universities play in research and development for
the Department of Defense. Funding in this year's bill will help
researchers at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte study
optoelectronics and superlattice nanotechnology, two technologies that
are on the cutting edge of defense R&D. To that end, I urge my
colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying bill. Now,
more than ever, we must improve our national security.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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, the annual Department of Defense
appropriation bill is one that can truly be called bipartisan. It is
developed on a bipartisan basis in the Committee on Appropriations, and
it usually enjoys bipartisan support on the floor of the House. It is a
bipartisan bill because it is of importance to our country.
Providing for our national defense is one of our most important
duties as Members of Congress. Providing funding for our troops to
ensure their safety and success of the war on terror is our obligation.
{time} 1315
This year's bill is no exception. The Committee on Appropriations has
put together a good bill, one that that provides vital support for our
troops in times of war. This bill gives our troops a much deserved 3.5
percent pay raise. It gives the Department of Defense $25 billion for
emergency supplemental funding for the war on terror.
These funds directly and significantly aid our servicemen and women
by providing them with the tools they need to fight the war on terror
and return home safely. It will provide every soldier with body armor,
allow for more armored Humvees, and increase the size of the Army to
relieve the burden on our overworked soldiers.
The Department of Defense appropriations bill not only aids our
troops overseas, it also helps our communities here at home. The bill
before us today funds several defense and weapons programs manufactured
in north Texas. Lockheed Martin will receive $4.1 billion for 24 F-22
Air Force fighter aircraft, and $4.4 billion for the Joint Strike
Fighter. Just over $200 million is provided for three Global Hawk High
Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, a program supported by Vought
Aircraft Industries in Texas. And Bell-Textron will receive over $1.1
billion for 11 V-22 aircraft.
By funding the continued development of these weapons systems, we are
not only providing for the long-term support and protection of our
troops, we are preserving good jobs for hard working Americans in my
part of the country.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of Congress for more than 25 years.
And each and every one of these years I voted in favor of the
Department of Defense appropriations bill and its rule. But this year,
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has snuck a last minute
provision to raise the debt limit into the bill.
The so-called ``full faith and credit'' clause will allow this House
to raise the debt limit by nearly $700 billion as part of the
conference report on the Department of Defense appropriations bill.
$700 billion is almost twice as much as we are spending on the entire
Department of Defense under this bill.
Some Members on the other sides of the aisle will tell you that this
clause does not mean anything, it is just a procedural item. But I have
been here long enough to know when someone is trying to pull the wool
over your eyes. And this House leadership is trying to pull the wool
over the eyes of the American people.
So this year, Mr. Speaker, although I will vote in favor of the
underlying bill, I will vote against the rule. I am incensed at this
underhanded move to raise the debt limit, and shortly I will attempt to
defeat the previous question by offering a motion to strip this
deceptive provision from this important bill. I hope my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle will join me.
The defense appropriations bill has always been a bipartisan
initiative. Introducing partisanship into the war on terror is
absolutely inacceptable. I resent that anyone would use this bill as a
political tool to raise the national debt and threaten the possibility
of its passage. Shame on all of you.
A vote on the debt limit deserves a separate vote. If consideration
of the defense appropriations bill is rejected or delayed because you
insisted on playing petty political games, you will
[[Page H4676]]
be held accountable by the American people and by our troops.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Granger).
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I
thank the Committee on Rules for quickly getting the fiscal year 2005
defense appropriations bill to the floor. I strongly support the
defense appropriations bill.
I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis), the ranking member the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha), and the entire Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on
Defense for their outstanding work during this critical time for
America. They had to balance many difficult needs and did a great job.
The last several months have been very difficult for our military.
First the actions of a few at Abu Ghraib prison, and then the barbaric
murders of Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson. They have reminded us of the
true nature of our enemy and why we must win this war.
Our troops are on the front line fighting this war for each of us,
and they deserve our full support and gratitude.
The bill contains $416 billion in discretionary spending for the
Department of Defense. It includes many important provisions for our
troops and our military operations. More specifically, the bill
increases the intelligence budget, supports national missile defenses,
provides program increases to support the military transformation
process.
The bill also provides $25 billion in supplemental funding to ensure
that our men and women fighting in Iraq have all the resources they
need.
Finally, it funds many important weapons programs that will ensure
our military strength for decades to come. Some of those critical
weapons programs are the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the V-22 Osprey,
and the FA-22 Raptor.
This bill provides funding levels at $4.4 billion for the Joint
Strike Fighter, $1.9 billion for the V-22 and $4.6 billion for the FA-
22. These programs are critical to military transformation. And I want
to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Murtha) and all committee members for
supporting these programs.
I want to conclude my remarks by offering sincere appreciation to our
armed services for their service and sacrifice to bring freedom to the
oppressed and protection for our Nation. For this they deserve the very
best we can give them for the quality of life and their protection and
their support.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the majority is currently planning to include
a provision in this rule that will effectively allow an increase in the
Nation's debt ceiling. In my view, this procedural gimmick is an abuse
of the troops that this bill is meant to support. It abuses the troops
in order to hide responsibility. It epitomizes the total lack of shared
sacrifice that this administration and the Republican majority have
hoisted on the American people.
This administration has taken action in Iraq on the basis of
misguided, misinformed, and manipulated intelligence. It has exposed
American troops to greater risk than necessary because of poor post-war
planning. It has so stretched the Army that it has effectively
reinstituted the draft for those in the Guard and Reserve who are now
being told that they will have to extend their service in Iraq beyond
their original hitch.
While this administration has been asking for so much sacrifice from
those servicemen and women, it has asked for virtually no sacrifice
from the most well off and the most well connected members of this
society. The administration has run up huge additional debts in order
to give those people supersized tax cuts averaging over $80,000 for
people that make $1 million or more.
The majority is then using the defense appropriations bill as a
vehicle to enable them to continue the reckless additions to this debt
brought on by those tax cuts. It is a cynical game that should shame
even those who run this Congress.
A vote for the previous question on the rule is most certainly a vote
to increase the debt ceiling by almost $1 trillion. People ought to
vote no. You ought to strip this rule of the extraneous material and
allow us to vote up or down on the defense bill if we are indeed trying
to accomplish the purposes which the defense bill is presented to us to
accomplish.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule that will
provide consideration for H.R. 4613, the defense appropriations bill.
This legislation focuses on force protection and personnel benefits for
the soldiers and airmen in my district at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force
Base. The ability to adequately execute the mission for which they are
called and to care for their families are the two issues that are
second to none.
I believe this legislation makes significant progress in these areas
and will enable our men and women in uniform to continue successfully
prosecuting the war on terrorism.
My trip to Iraq this past March, the second I made, did nothing but
reinforce my admiration and pride in our Nation's warfighters. These
brave men and women serve with honor and distinction as they have
liberated a Nation.
Troops from the 8th District of North Carolina have been at the very
tip of the spear that ended the dark reign of Saddam Hussein and
continue to lead the way in post-conflict resolution in Iraq and Afghan
span.
This legislation first and foremost takes care of our most vital
asset of our military: Our people. It provides every service member
with an across the board 3.5 percent pay raise. It also includes $2.3
billion for individual soldier equipment and critical force protection
requirements. It also funds and restructures Army brigades which will
be rotated into theater.
I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight two very
important projects at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
H.R. 4613 funds the completion of the Optoelectronics Center, a project
which will focus on the development of fiberoptic devices and
interconnects necessary for chip-to-chip and board-to-board optical
connection needs to achieve the high-speed, low-powered devices.
This will enable miniaturization and integration of optical
transceivers and sensors. Additionally, H.R. 4613 provides funds for
superlattice nanotechnology that will enable a next generation of wide
band, high power, and digital systems to become a reality.
I appreciate the committee's recognition of the great work and
research that UNCC performs and look forward to bringing these
technological advances to the battlefield.
Currently about 3,500 members of North Carolina's National Guard are
deployed in support of operation Iraqi freedom. It is the largest
deployment in our State's history. And it is vital that we take every
measure to care for their families while they are away.
I am happy that this legislation funds efforts designed to help ease
some of the hardships of these families. Mr. Speaker, it is a gross
injustice and misfortune that it took the tragedy on September 11 to
focus the public eye on the needs for a more robust defense budget.
I feel the legislation in front of us today will help our troops
accomplish their mission, establishing a clear and strong course of
support for our troops and continue to successfully prosecute the war
on terror. I encourage my colleagues to send a message loud and clear
to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, coasties and terrorists that
we will strongly support our troops and give them the resources
necessary to perform the mission at hand. I urge strong support of this
legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, the majority leader, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), stood on this House floor and here is
what he said: ``Here we are being asked this week to raise the debt
ceiling so that this government can go on borrowing
[[Page H4677]]
money to take care of its spending habits, and I think that is
outrageous. I hope Members of the House will vote against raising the
debt ceiling.'' So said the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) the
majority leader.
He went on to say, ``And I hope the American people will contact the
Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, and urge them to vote against
raising the debt ceiling.''
Now, the Chair of the conference, Republican conference said this:
``You see, certain lawmakers around this place have hopes of hiding a
debt limit increase in a jungle of budget resolutions and conference
reports. Mr. Speaker,'' said the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce)
chairman of the Republican conference, ``before we give them license to
start construction, we must demand a separate vote on increasing the
debt limit.''
I ask the distinguished lady from the Committee on Rules, are we
doing that?
Well, my friends, the Republican leadership, is that your position
today? Are you urging Members to vote against raising the debt ceiling
for the third time in three years under your watch? Under Bill
Clinton's watch in the last 4 years of his Presidency, we raised the
debt limit not once. Not once. Under Ronald Reagan we raised it 17
times. In the 4 years of George Bush 1 we raised it 10 times. Under
this president, this is the fourth increase and it is going to be
probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 trillion additional debt
that the children of America will be called upon to pay. And we do it
without a vote.
This rule is a good rule. It should be passed unanimously. But just
as they did last week in trying to pass their awful tax bill, they put
things in to try to sweeten the pot. But this time you put it in to try
to hide it.
Contrary to what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, contrary
to what the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) said, contrary to what
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has said, you are going to hide
this vote because you do not have the courage to stand up and say I
want to increase the debt, I want to undermine Social Security, I want
to undermine Medicare. I do not want to be honest with the American
public.
{time} 1330
It is called situational ethics. It is not about ethics; it is about
the situation. It is about whether we think it works. We ought to
reject this rule. It is not right. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
said vote ``no.'' The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) said no. Let us
vote ``no.''
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for the time.
Now, there is a lot of concern here about the mechanics of what we
are about to do: pass a rule, increase the debt limit, provide for the
welfare of our young men and women in uniform. But I think when we are
moving forward, mostly through all this rhetoric, we need to step back
and look at the history of our economy, see how we got into this
position and why it is important that we move forward.
I know a lot of my colleagues remember back in the late 1990s, we had
an overheated economy. The Federal Reserve reacted by raising interest
rates. Then we had the tech bust of 1999, followed by the beginnings of
a recession in November of 2000. Then September 11, 2001, hit. We saw a
huge blow to our economy. In my hometown of Wichita, Kansas, we had the
highest percentage of jobs lost in the total community compared with
any other city in the United States. Our aerospace community, the air
capital of the world, saw more layoffs in aerospace than we have seen
in a short amount of time since World War II.
During that period of time, the Federal revenue has dropped 14
percent. There have been increased demands on the Federal budget. We
have increased homeland security to make our Nation safe. We have
increased our spending on defense to fight the worldwide war on
terrorism; but when our revenues dropped, nobody down here complaining
today about how we are doing business said, well, let us cut Medicare
by 14 percent so we do not have to raise the debt. Nobody came down
here and said let us cut Social Security by 14 percent so we do not
have to raise the debt. Nobody came down here and said let us cut
education by 14 percent so we do not have to raise the debt.
Well, let us do the math: decreasing revenue because of the impact of
terrorism and a recession that started around the year 2000, increasing
demand on the battle to fight terrorism around the world and a higher
Federal debt. So if we do not address this problem, if we do not use
the most expedient means available, we will not be able to fund Social
Security. The threat of not having checks going to seniors in America
would become reality. No one wants that.
So where is the grief here? Where is the contrary opinion? Do those
who advocate a different solution here want to come down and say let us
not raise the debt? I think they know the practicality of what we have
to do.
We have to move forward and conduct the business of the United States
Government, and that includes addressing an issue that is very
difficult for many of us to address. I did not come to Washington to
raise the debt. I doubt if anybody came to Washington for the purpose
of raising the debt, but we are pragmatic. We are realists. We know
that there have been attacks by terrorists against our very culture,
using our own technology against us. We know that we are being
sabotaged around the world. We know that there is an increased demand
on what the Federal Government is trying to protect our Nation.
Now, there has been some implication on the floor that there has been
some misleading of Americans that perhaps we are not telling the truth.
This is a free and open society. Everything we do is a matter of public
record. There is no deceit here on the floor of the House, not when it
comes to this issue, this bill, raising the Federal debt limit.
So I do not want to leave anybody with the impression that we are
trying to hide a thing. It is all a matter of public record, and I
think it is very important that as Americans we acknowledge that we
have some tasks that are not easy to handle, but, yet, this is
something necessary. The circumstances demand it.
So Mr. Speaker, I say that we should vote for this rule and that we
should move forward with this legislation to continue the function of
the government.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the refreshingly honest
statement of the gentleman from Kansas and what he just said because he
stated quite clearly this is a vote to increase the debt ceiling.
I want to ask the gentlewoman from North Carolina if she concurs with
that statement, that by voting for the previous question and this rule
it is a vote to increase the debt ceiling through $8 trillion?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, this really is a very simple procedure to
add language to the bill and that will allow for the possible future
consideration of an increase in the national debt limit. That is what
this does is allow for that to happen in the future. It is the same
language that was done in 2002 in the supplemental.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and I thank the
gentleman from Kansas for making it very clear by voting for this rule,
by voting for the previous question my colleagues are, in fact, voting
to increase the debt ceiling. That is critical because there are those
that want to avoid that at all costs.
Now, we should not be using this Defense bill for this purpose
because it is an open rule. There is strong bipartisan support for
supporting the troops. We should not be mixing politics up in this
issue.
My friends on the other side would like folks to believe that the
debate we are having today is simply about partisan politics and
procedural tactics. That could not be more wrong.
The only thing I disagree with the gentleman from Kansas, if my
colleague wants to say all of these things
[[Page H4678]]
that happened in the past created the deficit and that, therefore, we
have to increase the debt ceiling, my colleague could persuade me if we
were setting in place a policy that would do something about the
deficit next year and the year after that and as we prepare for the
baby boomers. But to continue the economic policy that has driven this
country to borrowing $2 trillion in a period of 4 years and then to
come on and say, well, we are trying to put it in the Defense bill,
that is wrong.
It is wrong for those that we prepare to spend the money to back our
young men and women who are over in Iraq and Afghanistan today. It is
wrong for us to say we want you to win, we pray every day you are going
to be safe, but by the way, we are going to keep borrowing $500 billion
a year under the economic policy that we have not got the guts to
change on this floor and then add it to a Defense appropriation bill.
But it is nice to have somebody to come on this floor and to clearly
identify for all 435 of us, if my colleagues vote for this previous
question, they are voting to increase the debt ceiling. That is why I
will vote ``no,'' and I will encourage all of my colleagues to vote
``no.''
Separate the two issues. Let us support the troops with a rule that
could pass unanimously, but let us deal with the economic policy of
this country by having an honest debate on how we are going to do
something about these deficits that we are talking about.
I rise in opposition to this rule which will allow Congress to
increase our national debt limit to more than $8 trillion without a
separate vote on this issue. We should not use a spending bill intended
to support our troops to hide a long-term increase in the debt ceiling
so we can leave more debt for our troops and other young men and women
to repay in the future.
My friends on the other side of the aisle would like folks to believe
that the debate we are having today is simply about partisan politics
and procedural tactics. They could not be more wrong. This debate is
not about politics or procedure. Rather it is about the financial
condition of our nation and whether we will continuing piling on more
and more debt on our children and grandchildren.
A vote for the rule is a vote for using parliamentary tricks to sneak
through an increase in our national debt more than $8 trillion. I would
say to my Republican colleagues that if you honestly believe that tax
cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, you should be willing
to stand up and vote to borrow the money to pay for their tax cuts
instead of relying on undercover parliamentary tricks. While an
increase in the debt limit is necessary to avoid a default, it would be
irresponsible to provide a blank check for increased borrowing
authority without taking action to stem the tide of red ink.
Before Congress votes to approve a substantial increase in the debt
limit, the President must work with Congress to put the fiscal house
back in order, just as a family facing financial problems must work
with the bank to establish a financial plan in order to get approval to
refinance their debts.
Congress has an obligation to re-examine our long-term budget
policies in light of the dramatic reversal in our nation's fiscal
condition before approving a substantial increase in our borrowing
authority. At a minimum Congress should restore discipline and
accountability in the budget process by reinstating budget enforcement
rules which make it harder to pass legislation which would put us
further into debt. Adoption of this rule approving an increase in the
debt limit will allow the government to continue on the path of deficit
spending, borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and a
ballooning national debt.
I urge members to vote against the previous question and against this
rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just remind the gentleman, when we passed the bill through
the House recently for the budget, we did put a freeze on discretionary
spending for the first time in a long time which is the beginning of
paying that down.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
I think it is very interesting that the gentleman from Texas would
like us to do something about what is going on. Well, we have done
something. It is hard to ignore that when we look at the economy today.
We passed tax relief that did one of three things for Americans, when
putting money in their pocket. They either spent it, which was demand
for goods and demand for more jobs; or they saved it, which made money
available in the form of home mortgages, which drove the home building
industry and created more jobs; or they invested it, which has allowed
many American corporations to expand.
Right now, in the State of Kansas, unemployment just dropped three-
tenths of a percent because we have an expansion in our economy. Well,
what happens when we have an expansion in the economy is we have more
Federal revenue, and our Federal revenue is going up. We are doing
something about Federal revenue, but right here on the floor of the
House we also passed a Republican budget that froze domestic spending.
The results are that we now have more Americans working than we have
ever had in the history of our country. We have the lowest unemployment
and lower than average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s; and we have one
of the fastest growing economies, growing so fast that the Federal
Reserve is now considering raising interest rates so they can slow it
down a little bit.
We are doing something about this Federal debt. We are very proactive
in that, but the gentleman from Texas said he was willing to do
anything at any cost. He said at any cost. Is he willing to cut Social
Security? Is the gentleman willing to cut even education? Is the
gentleman willing to cut Defense? What does ``any cost'' mean?
I think a vote against this rule is a vote against funding the
government and threatening Social Security, veterans benefits, and all
of those things that we are doing right to protect our young men and
women in uniform.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my fellow Blue Dog, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), that votes on the debt ceiling
should not be part of the rule and will oppose it; but the underlying
legislation, the fiscal year 2005 Defense Department appropriations
bill, is worthy of support. Given Congress' constitutional
responsibility to provide for the common defense, this is perhaps the
most important appropriations legislation we consider each year.
We could not ask for two more capable colleagues to have as managers
of the bill. As in previous years, the gentleman from California
(Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member
Murtha) have risen above partisan politics and brought a Defense bill
to the House floor that reflects America's defense priorities.
Specifically, I applaud the committee's work in funding the Future
Imageries Architecture program, the Arrow Weapon System, and in fully
funding the F-15C radar upgrade. I also appreciate the committee's
robust support for missile procurement. I am concerned that the bill
reduces funding for some important classified satellite programs, but
remain hopeful that any issues can be resolved prior to conference with
the Senate.
The centerpiece of the Defense appropriations bill is, of course, $25
billion for the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the administration only
requested funds to get us through the first quarter of fiscal year
2005. They say additional funds will be requested after the November
election. Nonetheless, the Committee on Appropriations is working on a
bipartisan basis to make sure that our soldiers are well-trained and -
equipped.
In contrast, the Intelligence authorization bill, which we will
consider later this week, significantly underfunds critical
counterterrorism programs. We need an authorization bill that fully
funds the intelligence community's requirements. The bill voted out of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on a party-line vote
last week funds less than one-third of the American counterterrorism
needs.
Mr. Speaker, this continuing practice of funding the intelligence
community in bits and pieces has been roundly criticized by Members on
both sides of the aisle. The intelligence agencies tell us this
practice makes it impossible to plan, forcing them to rob Peter to pay
Paul until additional funding is available.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge support for the Defense authorization
bill
[[Page H4679]]
and hope that later this week we will do better to build a bipartisan
Intelligence authorization bill that fully funds our counterterrorism
needs.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the
Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen it all. When it comes to the deficit, I have
seen this House duck, and I have seen this House dodge; but this rule
takes the cake. They pull out at a must-pass bill, Defense
appropriations, and deep within the rule they bury some vague language
on our national debt. Later, when the doors are shut, the conference is
started, the cigars are lit, this language will be transformed into a
$690 billion increase in the ceiling of our national debt. No audit
trail, no fingerprints, no responsibility.
Our Republican friends cut taxes, they raise spending, they run up
the debt; and if that were not bad enough, now they want to escape
responsibility for the actions they have taken.
Let me say to our children and grandchildren, when they ask who left
us with this mountainous debt, on President Clinton's watch in the
years 1998, 1999 and 2000, we ran a surplus in 1998 of $236 billion, a
surplus in each of those years and we paid off debt. We paid off $362
billion of debt on his watch.
In 2001, when President Bush came to office, he inherited a budget in
surplus; and he predicted that under his policies there would be no
need for a debt ceiling increase, that was the President's prediction,
until 2008. That was a prediction of what the debt would be in 2008. He
also predicted in this book called a ``Blueprint For New Beginnings,''
page 201, Table S-16, that in the year 2011 there would be no statutory
debt of the United States left. It would all be paid off.
{time} 1345
Well, here we are in 2004, and the Bush administration has had to
raise the debt ceiling two times already. One to go. Three increases in
4 years that total $2.124. Three increases in 4 years that total $2.124
trillion. And if you take the Congressional Budget Office's projection
of the President's budget, done last March, you will see this is
another in a series of debt ceiling increases; not by any means the
last.
In fact, CBO projects that the President's budgets will require the
Federal Government to incur, get this, $5.571 trillion of additional
debt between now and 2014. As a result, this will bring our total debt,
these numbers are too hard to even imagine, to $13.645 trillion. That
is the course this administration has put us on.
This is some legacy to leave our children. And it is a cruel irony
that it comes to us wrapped in the flag, buried inside a defense bill,
to which it has no relation, provided we pass this rule and put it
there. And we should not pass this rule. This rule is a travesty. We
should not pass it. There is no difference between this rule and the
off-balance sheet financing that Enron did to hide its liabilities.
If we want to stand up for the House, stand up for the process, stand
up for self-respect in this institution, we should start by voting down
this rule. Be on notice, however, if you vote for this rule, this rule,
make no mistake about it, will raise the debt ceiling of the United
States to $8.074 trillion. Remove the smoke, remove the mirrors, and
that is what this rule will do. It will increase the statutory debt
ceiling by $690 billion. Vote against the rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor to
raise my objections to taking the bill that is supposed to be funding
the most honorable and the bravest Americans, buying the weapons they
need, paying their salaries, taking care of their families, and being
used by the sneakiest and the most cowardly Americans to sneak through
a $700 billion increase in our Nation's national debt. At some point,
even my most hard core Republican friends have to ask themselves: Is
there any shame left? Is there anything that you won't foul, by taking
a bill that is meant to see to it that fewer American lives are lost in
combat and seeing to it that those people, if they make it home, are
straddled with the bill?
Now, I notice the gentleman from Kansas made a point of saying, no,
the problem is Social Security. Sir, I beg to differ. In the past few
years, this administration, this Congress, of which you are in the
majority party, has taken $1.580 trillion out of the Social Security
Trust Fund, and what folks back home know already is that Social
Security more than pays itself. In fact, some of the tax breaks you
have been giving to the wealthiest of Americans have been paid for by
excess social security taxes, monies that should have been set aside
for future needs but instead have been borrowed and spent.
You have done the same thing with the Federal Employees Retirement
System, with $612 billion taken out of the system. If a private sector
employer had done that, they would go to jail. The Medicare trust
funds, $287 billion of money that was collected should have been set-
aside for Medicare, but spent so that you can give your wealthy
contributors a tax break.
So I would ask any of the people of the 228 who are probably going to
vote for this, tell me it is not cowardly. Tell me it is not sleazy to
take what is probably the most important, what is undoubtedly the most
important function of this Nation, which is providing for its defense,
and using that in a cynical attempt to hide an increase in the national
debt.
See, I happen to have watched the speech where the President said he
could cut taxes, increase spending and pay down the national debt. I
would remind my colleagues that since he made that speech, and since
May 9, 2001, when your side passed that budget with those tax
decreases, with those spending increases you have added
$1,567,995,916,652.32 to the debt.
But that is not enough, because your intention is, obviously, to
bankrupt this Nation. There can not be any other purpose for running up
this much debt. And someone is going to say, well, we have a war to pay
for. That is right, but I would remind you if you took the
Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the
American Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the first World War,
World War II, Korea and Vietnam, the Nation borrowed $1 trillion for
all of those wars and everything else that happened in the first 200
years of our Nation. In the past 3 years, you have borrowed $1.5
trillion.
So, again, I ask the question: Have you no shame? Is there nothing
that you will stoop to in an effort to hide your sneaky agenda?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am a little amazed by the comments made by
the gentleman from Mississippi. He said that we were cowardly
Americans. Now, I know that words have been taken down for a lot less
than that, and I think that that kind of language does not have any
place on the floor of the House.
We have a free and open society. Everything we do is a matter of
public record. There is nothing cowardly about what we are doing here.
To try to turn this into something to be called a cowardly act, I
think, is really incredible and it is grounds for taking someone's
words down.
Let us talk about this Federal debt a little so we can define what
Federal debt is. There are two parts to Federal debt: One is the public
instruments held by people, like treasury bonds, like savings bonds.
Those are financial instruments with a financial obligation that is
hard and fast. It is in writing. It is black and white. The rest of the
public debt is projections on the future; about how much we are going
to need for my Social Security, for your Social Security, for my
children's Social Security, for Medicare for all of us, for Medicaid
for all of us that require it in the United States. It is a future
projection.
Now, if you wanted to do something about the Federal debt, we could
change the law. We could cut the benefits for Social Security. Are any
of you
[[Page H4680]]
suggesting that we should cut the benefits for Social Security to
manage the Federal debt? It is just a future obligation. Well I don't
hear any of that. In fact, I hear zero solutions.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. No, I will not yield. I think you referred to me as
cowardly, so I do not think I am going to give you any time.
Cowardly Americans. I cannot believe it, Mr. Speaker. I think it was
something that should not be tolerated on the floor. And as a warning,
if I hear it again, I will ask for the words to be taken down.
Now, another allegation was made that we had cigars lit; that when it
was time for the Committee on Rules to meet, that cigars were lit.
Well, I was not in the Committee on Rules room. There were people here
that were in that room. The last time I was in the Committee on Rules
room, it was a no smoking policy. I saw no cigars being lit. In fact,
there is a no smoking policy in the Capitol. We have places outside for
people to smoke, but there are no cigars lit in here.
I think it is a little misleading to say we are in some dark room in
the dark of night lighting cigars and dreaming up ways we can gouge
people. Nothing of the sort is going on. We are conducting the business
of government. And sometimes it is difficult. There is an old saying
about how you do not want to see sausage, or laws being made. Well,
this is the part they are talking about. Now. Right now. This is the
difficult part.
If we do not address this issue, the rule happens to be the most
convenient vehicle, but if we do not address this issue, there will be
a shortage of funds in the United States Treasury. Now, what does that
mean? The gentleman from Mississippi before me talked about funding the
needs of our young men and women in uniform. And he is right, we have
to do that. We have to provide them with the bullets and the backup and
the vests and the hardened Humvees. All those things we have to provide
for them but we cannot if there is nothing in the Treasury.
What we are doing here are the hard cold facts of trying to protect
Americans, trying to keep the lights on in this government, trying to
make sure that we are safe in our homes, where our kids are going to
school, where we shop, where we go to church. And the way we do that is
by addressing these tough issues. It is not cowardly. It is the
furthest thing from cowardly. It is up front.
People are saying do not vote for the rule because it has this in it.
Of all the Members I have heard speak, I do not think any of them have
voted for any of the rules this year. It is standard practice for the
opposition to vote against the rule. It is standard policy for the
majority side to vote for the rule. That is not a reason to call
somebody cowardly or to suggest cigars were lit in a dark room. That
has not occurred around here.
What has occurred is we have moved forward on carrying out the
business of the United States Government.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire about the time remaining on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) has 8 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick) has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I hope that people are paying attention in
this country to what is going on here today. Let us review the records
of many here. We have collectively in this body borrowed with this
bill, or this rule passing, over $2 trillion since July of 2002.
Now, let me say one or two things. When this administration came to
town with a Republican House and a Republican Senate, all we heard is
less government, lower taxes. And everybody agrees to that. But what
have we gotten? We have gotten reduced revenues, more spending, and we
are hocking this country to anybody in the world that will buy our
debt.
The gentleman a while ago said we have to provide for the troops. You
are not providing for the troops. What you are doing is borrowing the
money from them and giving them the bill for it with interest when they
get home from fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are not
providing anything because we do not have the courage to do what every
administration and every Congress has done since the War of 1812; and
that is when we are in war, we have at least had the courage, we have
at least had the honor, we have at least had the decency to ask people
that are not risking their lives and dying and having their arms and
legs blown off to help pay for it. You will not do that.
You come here, you borrow $450 billion in July of 2002, $980 billion
in May of 2003, and today you want to borrow another $690 billion. Two
trillion dollars. Interest at 5 percent is a tax increase on the
American people of $100 billion a year every year. In the name of
cutting taxes, you have increased taxes more than any Congress in the
history of this country. One hundred billion dollars a year every year
that has to come right off the top, for which we get nothing and for
which we are sending checks, interest checks overseas.
Right now, we owe in hard money, not Social Security money, not
anything, in hard money, $4-plus trillion. Since you have taken over
the economic lifeline of this country, you have increased the debt that
we owe foreigners from 31 to 37 percent of that.
You know who is financing the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq? It
is the Chinese, the Japanese, OPEC themselves, Caribbean banking
centers, $70 billion. Just Beijing alone has increased their holdings
of American paper, that our taxpayers pay into the Treasury and then we
send an interest check to Beijing, over 100 percent in the last 20
months. And you come down here with no plan to get out of it except to
cut revenue, increase spending, borrow it all, and put this country in
hock to anybody in the world that will buy our paper.
{time} 1400
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the concerns
of the previous speaker; but I think everybody should be very aware
that for the 8 years under the previous administration, there was not
one year that we reduced the debt held by the public as defined by law.
Not one year. We have increased spending every year two and three and
sometimes almost four times the rate of inflation, so a decision has to
be made. Do you want to start cutting down spending, or do you want to
increase taxes? If we increase taxes, what we do is we put our business
at a greater economic disadvantage, competitive disadvantage with
businesses that we are trying to compete with in other countries.
I agree with the previous speaker that there is a danger of going
deeper and deeper into debt. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I ask people to
guess what percentage of our marketable debt is now held by foreign
interests. The answer is 45 percent. I just finished a meeting with the
Canadian Parliament. The Canadian Parliament now for the last several
years has paid down their total debt, not just paid down part of it but
paid down so that their net debt has been decreasing. At the same time
over the last 10 years in the United States our debt has been
continuing to increase.
Let me just say that the language in this legislation that opens the
door in conference committee to increase the debt limit might be
acceptable. I would be adamantly against it if it set the debt limit in
this bill. It does not set the debt limit in this bill. Sometime we are
going to have to face up to our overspending and that means discussing
increasing the debt of this country. Today, interest on the debt of
this country, what it costs to service this debt, the interest on the
debt, is $300 billion plus this year. It represents a little over 14
percent of our total Federal spending.
I think both sides should agree, let us start balancing spending with
the revenues coming in. Let us not make promises as far as unfunded
mandates and unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicaid and
Medicare.
[[Page H4681]]
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this House is entitled to have an
open debate and an open vote on raising the debt ceiling. Any family or
any business or corporation that applies for debt or to be able to
borrow money is going to have to apply for the credit and going to have
to make the case. This Congress should do the same.
The truth of the matter is our Republican colleagues do not want to
have an open debate or an open vote on raising the debt ceiling because
it points to the failed fiscal policies of this administration which
has placed this country in the worst financial condition that we have
been in our history. We are going to pass 13 appropriations bills to
fund the government this year. We are going to borrow an amount equal
to 60 percent of all of the appropriations that we vote on this year to
run our government. We are in a ditch. We need to face up to it. We
need to get honest.
It is particularly objectionable to me to try to hide it in the
defense appropriations bill because the truth of the matter is we have
sent young men and women to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan; and we are
telling them that someday when they come home, they will have to pay
for the war that they have been sent to fight. That has never happened
in the history of this country. We have always paid our bills in time
of war. It is time to do the moral thing, the right thing by our troops
and pay for this war with current dollars and not pass it on to the
next generation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be urging Members to vote ``no'' on the previous
question in order to strike from this rule a provision that the
Republican leadership would rather Members did not know about. When the
Committee on Rules voted to report this rule last night, they slipped
in an unrelated self-executing provision that allows for an increase in
the debt ceiling. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) made a
motion in committee to strike this provision, but it was defeated.
So Members of this House should be aware that when they vote for this
rule, they will be voting to increase the statutory debt limit by
almost $700 billion for the next fiscal year. It is no wonder that they
do not want Members to know about this. They would rather not have a
separate vote or even a debate on the inescapable fact that their
budget raises our national statutory debt limit to the highest level in
history, to a staggering $8 trillion, an amount that is almost
incomprehensible to most of us.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there is an honest disagreement in this
House over our Nation's fiscal priorities. Many of us believe that,
with record deficits and the high cost of the war on terror, we need to
reevaluate our budget priorities and find a better way to match our
revenues with our spending needs. It seems as though my Republican
colleagues do not think there is a problem. They think it is just fine
to continue on with the budgetary policies that have brought us into
our current fiscal mess. They seem to think it is fine to keep driving
up our national debt and let our children and grandchildren figure out
how to pay for it.
If that is how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to
proceed, they should at least have the political courage to vote up or
down on this issue instead of relying on undercover parliamentary
tricks. If you truly favor the fiscal policies that are sending the
national debt through the ceiling, you should be willing to stand up on
the floor of the House and vote for them.
I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from
taking up the Defense appropriations bill. I do not oppose that portion
of this rule. A ``no'' vote will simply strip this self-executing smoke
screen from the rule so that we do not slip the debt increase through
the House with no debate and no separate vote. However, a ``yes'' vote
will allow this record-breaking increase to be enacted without a
separate up-or-down vote.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FROST. Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my profound
opposition to House Resolution 683, a piece of legislation that should
be limited to providing for consideration of the FY 2005 Defense
Appropriations Act. However, true to form, the Rules Committee has
reported a rule under cover of darkness that goes well beyond the
normal procedural provision.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership of this House talks a lot
about fiscal discipline. It talks a lot about the success of its
economic policy. The chairman of the Budget Committee boasts about the
success of his budget, about reining in spending, and about reducing
the deficit.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, as this rule makes clear, all that talk and
stated pride is little more than smoke and mirrors, and this rule is a
shameful abuse of the prerogatives of the People's House.
I am appalled that the Republican leadership of this House would try
to hide its budgetary shortcomings by sneaking an increase in our
Nation's debt limit into a bill to provide for our national defense and
the needs of our Nation's service men and women. The leadership of this
House should not use such an important legislative vehicle to mask its
failings, and that is exactly what this rule attempts to do. It's just
wrong.
Mr. Speaker, there are few pieces of legislation that the Congress
considers each year that are as important as the annual Department of
Defense Appropriations Act. This legislation is vital to ensuring that
the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for this
country have the resources they need to protect our Nation against its
enemies at home and abroad and to preserve our Nation's most precious
resource--freedom--for posterity.
I heartily support the Defense Department appropriations bill to
which this rule applies and will join with the vast majority of my
colleagues in voting for it.
Mr. Speaker, if there is one issue about which all of us can agree,
it is that we must provide all the resources necessary to a robust
national defense. Our national security--and the very security of our
families and homes--depend on it. This legislation is almost never--and
should never be--a partisan measure. In Congress, despite frequent
partisan rancor, we historically stand united behind our nation's armed
services. Speaking with one voice on such a critically important matter
has extraordinary value for friends and foes alike--at home and abroad.
It makes clear that our resolve is firm and our commitment sure.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is especially appalling that this
legislation, on which we should be united, is being cluttered with a
completely unrelated provision increasing our nation's debt limit
beyond its already crippling size. This is among the most cynical acts
undertaken by the Republican leadership of this House during my time in
Congress, and that says a lot.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to anyone observing this debate
why the leadership of the House has been forced to do this. The
Republican leadership of this House does not want a simple up-or-down
vote on increasing the debt limit. They do not want to admit to the
budgetary woes that our nation feels as a consequence of their failures
to live up to the promises of their press releases.
Mr. Speaker, since coming to Congress, I have advocated an open and
honest budget process, an open and honest debate on the economic
choices before the country in the light of day. The cynical and covert
tactics we are witnessing today fully vindicate my view. And so I say
to the supposed fiscal conservatives on the other side of the aisle,
``Come out! Come out, wherever you are.'' You should be disgusted by
this rule, by this process, as I am.
Just last year, the Republican leadership pushed through an increase
in the debt limit of almost $1 trillion, by far the largest increase in
the debt limit in history, without an up or down vote in the House of
Representatives. Appallingly, this sneak attack on our children and
grandchildren came less than 8 months after we raised the federal debt
ceiling by a whopping $450 billion.
Well, Mr. Speaker, once again, the spirit of Yogi Berra appears to be
guiding the leadership of the House. ``It's deja vu all over again.''
Today, we launch another sneak attack on future generations--hiding
behind the brave men and women who put their lives on the line to
preserve freedom for our children and grandchildren--by slipping
through another $700 billion increase in the debt limit without any
debate.
[[Page H4682]]
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt will
exceed $10 trillion in just over 4 years under the budget policies of
which the House leadership claims to be so proud. What better way to
underline the sacrifice of our Nation's service men and women, than to
compromise their and their children's futures with an ever-increasing,
staggering ``debt tax.''
Mr. Speaker, this House should have a full and open debate and vote
up or down any increase of our national debt limit. It is a breach of
the compact we have with the American people to hide behind
parliamentary maneuvers to statutorily increase the debt limit without
addressing the grave, structural budgetary problems our nation
confronts.
If the Republican leadership honestly believes that tax cuts with
borrowed money is a 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 undercover parliamentary tricks.
Mr. Speaker, today should have been a day to discuss our national
defense priorities and to send a clear signal to the rest of the world
that the United States is strong and will not shrink from challenges to
its security. However, this rule has cast a cloud over that message,
and that is a shame.
I will proudly stand up for our national defense and the brave men
and women who risk their lives every day to protect us and our
families. I will proudly cast a vote for the Defense Department
Appropriations Act because of its critical importance to our national
security.
But, Mr. Speaker, I deplore this rule, urge my colleagues to oppose
this underhanded abuse of the procedures of this House, and urge the
Rules Committee to report a clean rule for the consideration of this
vitally important legislation. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
Marines deserve better.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, well, here they go again. The Republican
Leadership in the House is once again attempting to sneak through a
back-door increase in the federal debt limit. Hidden within the
resolution before the House is a provision that would allow the debt
limit to rise without even requiring Members to have an up-or-down vote
on it. This is the same procedural sleight-of-hand the Majority
attempted last month in the budget resolution.
Actions have consequences. What it is it about the consequences of
their economic policy that members of the Majority Party are afraid to
confront? When the Bush Administration took office, the federal
government was looking at a projected ten-year budget surplus of $5.6
trillion. In less than four years, the Majority's economic policies
have turned that record surplus into a projected deficit of nearly $2.9
trillion. That's a fiscal reversal of over eight trillion dollars.
Instead of gradually paying down the public debt as we were during
the Clinton Administration, the policies of the current Administration
have resulted in record budget deficits that require Congress to once
again raise the limit on the nation's credit card and pass even more
red ink along to our children.
To all my colleague who voted to adopt these unsustainable budget-
busting policies over the last four years, I would ask why you are so
reluctant to face up to the consequences of your actions. You should at
least have the courage to hold a separate up-or-down vote to raise the
ceiling on the debt you helped create. Instead, you try to sneak the
debt increase into the defense budget without a vote. The defense bill
should be about protecting our troops on the battlefield, not
protecting politicians from the consequences of their votes. This is
the height of fiscal irresponsibility and I urge my colleagues to vote
down this rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 683--Department of Defense Appropriations
for FY05
In the resolution strike the following:
``The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.''
Mrs. MYRICK. 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 clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 683 will be followed by 5-
minute votes as ordered on adopting H. Res. 683, and on the first two
motions to suspend the rules postponed earlier today.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 196, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 279]
YEAS--220
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
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
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
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
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
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
[[Page H4683]]
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--17
Bereuter
Berman
Carson (IN)
Collins
DeMint
Deutsch
Dreier
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Jones (OH)
McInnis
Miller, George
Mollohan
Rangel
Reyes
Schrock
Tauzin
{time} 1431
Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, ORTIZ and DOOLEY of California changed
their 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 (Mr. Simpson). 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. FROST. 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 221,
noes 197, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 280]
AYES--221
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
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
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
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--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
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--15
Bereuter
Berman
Carson (IN)
Collins
DeMint
Deutsch
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Hastings (FL)
McInnis
Mollohan
Rangel
Reyes
Schrock
Tauzin
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Two minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 1439
Ms. KAPTUR changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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.
____________________