[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.

                          ____________________