[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2680-H2687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1345
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 815 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 815
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported on the
legislative day of May 17, 2006: (1) providing for
consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 376)
establishing the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011; or (2)
addressing budget enforcement or priorities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman
[[Page H2681]]
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such
time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 815 is a same-day rule that
waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which requires a two-thirds vote to
consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee
against certain resolutions reported from the Rules Committee. It
applies the waiver to any resolution reported on the legislative day of
May 17, 2006, providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution,
H. Con. Res. 376, establishing the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we pass this same-day rule. This
resolution will prepare the ground so that the House may complete its
business and pass a budget resolution. We are working to moving this
process along toward the goal of setting the spending priorities for
the next fiscal year.
The House is prepared to begin consideration of several
appropriations measures to fund our government's activities, but we
must pass this budget first. We must set the priorities in funding
levels before we proceed with the appropriations process. The budget is
our congressional spending blueprint. We must complete its
consideration to move on with the business of the House.
The Committee on Rules will meet later today to provide a rule for
the consideration of H. Con. Res. 376, the budget for fiscal year 2007,
and I am pleased that this same-day rule facilitates the timely
deliberation of this important legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support the same-day rule so that we can move
forward to a serious discussion about the budget legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Putnam), my very good friend, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and
in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague this
House. Apparently the Republican leadership has twisted enough arms and
broken enough legs to try to ram through their mystery budget package.
And I call it a mystery because, aside from a select few chosen by the
leadership, no one has actually seen this budget.
We are not talking about naming a post office here, Mr. Speaker, or
congratulating a sports team. What we are talking about is the budget
priorities that will affect every single American on issues like health
care, education, veterans care, environmental protection, national
defense, and it goes on and on and on.
So what is in this thing that we are going to see sometime later
today? If it is anything like the last version of the budget, which
came up a few weeks ago that was pulled, it is probably full of
misplaced priorities, broken promises, and empty rhetoric. If it is
anything like the last version, it will bankrupt our children and our
grandchildren at the expense of the very wealthy. If it is anything
like the last version, it will be an assault on our veterans. And if it
is anything like the last version, it slashes critical programs in the
areas of education, job training, environmental protection and
conservation funding, public health programs, medical research, and
social services.
But, Mr. Speaker, we do not really know what is in this budget
because the leadership of this House would prefer us not to know. They
would prefer the American people not to know.
To make a bad situation even worse, we have before us a martial law
rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the
House and the procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law
is no way to run a democracy. Mr. Speaker, no matter what your
ideology, no matter what your party affiliation, no matter what you
believe about what the budget priorities of this Nation should be,
every single Member of this House should have the opportunity to review
a bill of this magnitude before voting on it.
Mr. Speaker, we really are in the Land of Oz here with the leadership
saying, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. We know
somebody is back there, and we know they are putting together a budget,
in my opinion probably a lousy budget, but we really do not want anyone
to know the truth. We do not want anyone to know the facts.
Mr. Speaker, those across this country who are watching these
proceedings on their television must be wondering how and why the House
of Representatives, the greatest deliberative body in the world, could
be bringing a budget to the House floor without allowing all Members,
even supporters and those who probably will oppose this bill, the
opportunity to be able to look at it, to be able to understand what the
implications are. But the fact is this much talked about budget, this
much talked about but rarely seen budget, will be working its way to
the House floor sometime today. I hope the Members will have an
opportunity to look at the budget. They are not going to be given
enough time, but I hope they will be given some time to see what it is
before we begin the debate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I agree with my friend from Massachusetts about the magnitude of this
budget process and its importance and how we establish priorities in
this government, how we lay out a spending blueprint.
My friend from Massachusetts has referred to this as the greatest
deliberative body in the world on a couple of occasions, and I would
just offer a slight correction that perhaps the Senate is the greatest
deliberative body in the world, and we are the greatest legislative
body in the world. They talk about it, and we act. We move forward on
the agendas that are important to Americans, and we do it in a bold and
decisive way, while perhaps the more deliberative body talks things to
death and produces nothing.
The budget of the Federal Government works a bit differently than it
does for those Members who came from a State legislative background or
from local government background. It is a two-step process. The budget
lays down the markers, the fence lines, if you will, around the big
numbers: X amount for Defense, X amount for Transportation, X amount
for Health and Human Services. And the second step of the process then
is the appropriations process, which consists of 11 separate bills
moving to fill in the blanks: How many tanks and jeeps and bullets and
bombs do you buy within the budget framework for defense? How many post
offices do you construct or repair within the Postal Subcommittee? How
many bridges and roads do you get within the Transportation? They put
the meat on the bones.
The skeletal framework is this budget, this blueprint, this spending
priority for the Federal Government. And the rule that we are here to
debate, and I suspect that this will become a proxy debate on the
budget itself, which is not what we are considering before the Speaker
today; what we are considering is the procedure that allows us to move
forward with the budget that is a hugely important blueprint for this
Nation. It is important that we get going on it. We have now been
considering it for several weeks. The committee mark has been available
for over a month. The substitute amendments that undoubtedly will be
presented to the Rules Committee as alternatives have been available
for weeks.
So there is no mystery here. There is no secret. We are attempting to
facilitate the work of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for his comments.
And we should be the greatest deliberative body in the world. We should
be the greatest legislative body in the world. But to be the greatest
legislative body in the world, I think, requires some deliberation. And
that is why so many of us have strong objections to this martial law
rule.
[[Page H2682]]
We are faced with some very serious challenges in this country. The
fiscal irresponsibility and misplaced priorities, I think, of the last
several Congresses and by this administration have resulted in an
incredible debt that I think is probably the biggest debt that this
country has ever seen in our history. We are concerned about whether
our veterans are going to be treated with the respect that they not
only deserve, but they have earned. We are worried about whether or not
these unfunded mandates that are contained in No Child Left Behind will
get adequate funding. We are worried about health care, over 43 million
Americans without health care in this country. We are worried about
environmental protection and job creation and so many other things. We
are worried about the high cost of energy and whether or not we are
going to invest appropriately in alternative forms of energy.
But the gentleman is correct that what we are debating right now is
not the budget, but the process under which that budget will be
considered. And it just strikes me and a lot of other people on this
side somewhat astounding that a bill of this magnitude would be brought
to the floor under this proceeding.
The gentleman says that the budget has been available, that people
know what is in the budget. Well, we know what was in the last budget
that was brought before the House floor and that it was pulled when we
did not have the votes. The question is what is new in the budget
brought forward today? I assume that there are going to be some
changes. If there are no changes, then I can understand the gentleman's
point about this is not that big of a deal. But my understanding is
that there are changes; that as we speak right now, there are back-room
deals being negotiated and secret negotiations going on that most
Members of this House, Republican and Democrat, have no clue about its
content.
So this is a very, very serious matter. I do not think it is
unreasonable to demand that every Member of this Chamber, Democrat and
Republican alike, should be given the opportunity and the courtesy to
be able to know what they are voting on, to know the implications of
what they are voting on before this moves forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and
also strong opposition to the budget resolution that we will be dealing
with later this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that we will be debating is wrong
and very bad public policy for at least three reasons: First, it is
grossly unfair at a time when the middle class is shrinking, when the
incomes of ordinary people are not keeping up with inflation, at a time
when under President Bush 5 million more Americans have slipped into
poverty, and at a time when the wealthiest people in this country have
never had it so good, it is wrong, wrong, to continue to give tens of
billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America.
They do not need it.
Frankly, Mr. Lee Raymond, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, who received
a $398 million retirement package, can survive. He will just about make
it okay, trust me, without another Republican tax break.
Secondly, while the middle class is struggling, it is just plain
wrong, as Mr. McGovern has just indicated, to cut back a desperately
needed program. At a time when the cost of college education is
soaring, when middle-class families are finding it harder and harder to
afford a college education for their kids, how do we cut back on
financial aid for college education at the same time as we give tax
breaks for billionaires? That is wrong.
Everybody knows that the Veterans Administration is undergoing
enormous financial stress. There are waiting lines for veterans in the
State of Vermont, all over this country. 17,000 American soldiers have
been wounded in Iraq.
{time} 1400
More and more are coming back with post-traumatic stress disorder. At
a time when the VA is already underfunded, we cannot cut back on the
needs of our veterans.
Thirdly, thirdly, we presently have a $8.3 trillion national debt, a
heck of a legacy to be leaving to our kids and our grandchildren. This
budget resolution will increase the national debt.
This is bad public policy. This martial law rule should be defeated
and the budget resolution should be defeated.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Vermont for raising the points
that he did. They are very timely in that almost as we speak, the White
House signing ceremony will be occurring, where the President, along
with the congressional leadership, will be celebrating the fact that we
have prevented taxes from automatically increasing, something that the
other side would have advocated by virtue of opposing the tax plan.
Now, let's talk a little bit about this tax issue.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PUTNAM. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, how does my friend feel about a tax bill,
the one that the President is signing, which will give $43,000 in tax
breaks to millionaires and a $10 a year tax cut to people making
$50,000 a year or less? Does my friend think that that is a fair
proposal?
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time to answer the gentleman's
question, I would answer the question with a question, which is how
does the gentleman feel about the fact that 40 percent of American
taxpayers end up with no tax liability, and the fact that the top half
of all taxpayers in this country contribute almost 97 percent of all
income tax revenues to the government? So you have to have a situation
where the people who pay taxes are getting tax relief, because we have
created such an upside down system where 40 percent of Americans have
no tax liability. How is that sharing in the burdens of democracy? How
is that contributing to the needs of the Federal Government?
Let me go into this a bit. Up to 40 percent of Federal tax filers
cannot receive further tax relief because they have no tax liability.
Millions of families in the bottom 20 percent have either zero tax
liability or get money back from the government after April 15 through
the Earned Income Tax Credit or the child tax credit. In 2003, as I
said, the top half of taxpayers, the top 50 percent of taxpayers,
contributed 96.5 percent of all Federal individual income taxes, while
the bottom 50 percent, the bottom half, contributed less than 3.5
percent. This reflects the early effects of the Republican tax reforms
under the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act and the Jobs and
Growth Tax Reconciliation Act.
The top 1 percent, the top 1 percent of tax filers paid 34 percent of
all Federal personal income taxes in 2003, while the top 10 percent
accounted for 66 percent of those taxes.
So this is not just about going after athletes and rock stars and
Hall of Fame pitchers. It is small businesses who pay at the individual
rate that are receiving the benefits of these tax reforms. It is
married couples who have benefited from seeing the marriage tax penalty
eliminated. It is families with children. It is an extension of the 10
percent bracket. It is the increase in the AMT, the alternative minimum
tax, the Rostenkowski tax that was put in place under the Democratic
leadership of the Congress, that now, like the insidious effects of the
Federal Government, has found its way into the pockets of millions of
middle-class Americans.
The tax bill the President is signing today prevents those taxes from
going up on middle-class Americans, it prevents the AMT from taking
effect on millions of people who don't know what AMT even stands for
but are going to get stuck with a tax bill for it and it encourages
investment in this strong economy.
Frankly, the results have been staggering, where revenues to the
government have gone up 14 percent because of the fact that we have had
in place capital gains rates, dividend tax rates, AMT relief, sales tax
deductions, that allow people to continue to invest and
[[Page H2683]]
take on new employees and take risks, which is the heart of a free
enterprise economy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his presentation, but
when you talk about who is paying what in income tax, you are
forgetting a very important part of the equation, and that is who is
making what in income.
As the gentleman knows, or should know, in the United States today we
have the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major
country on Earth. The gentleman knows, or should know, that the
wealthiest 1 percent in America own more wealth than the bottom 90
percent. And the gentleman should know that the wealthiest 13,000
families earn more income than do the bottom 20 million families.
So when the gentleman said, my goodness, look at how much the wealthy
are paying, those are the people, and in many cases, the only people
who are seeing an increase in their income. The gentleman knows that
family household income is stagnant, that working people are working
longer hours for lower wages because the jobs that are being created by
and large in this country are low wage jobs.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my very good friend from Florida talk
about the signing ceremony at the White House today where the President
is supposedly celebrating his tax bill. I would argue that what they
are celebrating is increased debt on the American people. I don't think
that is anything to celebrate over.
I want to get back to process here for a minute, if I can. Democrats
and Republicans differ on a whole range of issues, and we can argue
that appropriately when the full budget comes before the House. But
what is troublesome is the fact that we don't know what you are going
to bring to the floor later today, and I have to believe that if the
roles were reversed here and the Democrats were in control of the
Congress and we were to rush a budget to the floor today without you
having seen it, that you wouldn't be too happy either, that you would
think that is not an appropriate way to do business.
This is May 17. We have been here 127 days this year, and we have
only been in session 41 of those 127 days. To argue that we don't have
the time or that we need to rush to get this budget passed or we don't
have the time to deliberate, to even be able to read what is actually
in the bill coming before us, I just think is hard to defend.
Also in this budget, unless it changes, but I am assuming it will be
similar to the last budget, is that when we pass this plan, there will
be an automatic passage of a $653 debt limit increase by the House. We
would not have a separate debate or a separate vote on that.
When I go home and people want to know why aren't we doing more to
control the spending, why aren't we doing more to control the debt, why
don't you have a debate on the debt limit, my answer has to be, well,
the issue of the debt limit is hidden in a budget. It is automatic. We
don't even get a chance to vote up or down on something like that. That
is an important issue, I would think, that even my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle would agree with.
So putting the policy disagreements aside for one moment, the main
objection to this martial law rule is the process, a process that
doesn't even allow Members of both parties to have the opportunity to
review what is in it. And deliberation is important, I would say to my
friend from Florida. It is important that we debate issues seriously,
that we debate important issues seriously, and not just the trivial
ones. And this is important. Increasing the debt limit, the
implications of this budget, this is important, and we should have that
opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask, why are we resorting to
this extraordinary procedure, where we override all the rules of the
House, on a matter of this magnitude including a rule that requires
that a bill of this kind, a budget resolution, lay overnight for our
examination before we bring it to the floor? The martial law rule mows
down all exceptions, all of those procedural guards and guidelines, and
makes something immediately subject to consideration by the House.
We have no idea what is going to be in that resolution when it comes,
yet we are put to a vote here on a martial law resolution. It simply
isn't good procedure, a good way to run the House.
I think that the reason we are playing this game of ``hide the ball''
is that the Republicans cannot muster the vote in their own ranks,
still not yet, to pass their own resolution. Democrats aren't going to
vote for it, because we haven't found it to be worthy of our support.
But the reasons for their reluctance are they can't close the deal on
their side either, plainly because it is a bad deal.
I want to show you just a few highlights, Mr. Speaker, of this
particular bill to understand exactly why it is not a good piece of
legislation and why we should adopt the Democratic substitute, a far
superior approach to the problem at hand.
First of all, let's go back to what Mr. McGovern just said. When this
Congress passed President Bush's first budget, we were assured by the
Office of Management and Budget, that even with their tax cuts, $1.7 to
$1.8 trillion, even with their tax cuts, they would not be back to us
to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling, the limit to which we can
legally borrow, for at least another six or seven years. 2008 was the
year they indicated.
But the next year, hat in hand, June of 2002, they came back and
said, we erred a bit and we will need to increase the debt ceiling by
$450 billion. This Congress, with Republican support, voted for that
debt ceiling increase.
The next year, May of 2003, they were back again, and this time they
wanted a phenomenal sum of money, $984 billion, the biggest single
increase ever in the debt ceiling of the United States. You would have
thought that would have taken us for some period of time. But under the
budgets of this administration, in order to accommodate those budgets,
the debt ceiling had to be raised again in November of 2004, within 15
months after this huge increase of $984 billion, by another $800
billion.
Two months ago, just 2 months ago in March, this Congress raised the
debt ceiling of the United States by $781 billion. That was 2 months
ago, last March.
Now, in this resolution, when you vote for this, and I will show you
an excerpt from the budget resolution right now, when you vote for
this, everyone should read and be aware of page 121 of this resolution
because it effectively says in voting for this, you are voting to
increase the legal debt ceiling of the United States by $653 billion.
Don't take it from me, look at the hard copy, the black and white print
shown here on this poster, reproduced from page 121 of the budget
resolution.
This resolution will increase the debt ceiling of the United States
by $653 billion, or at least it will be the action of the House must
take. The Senate would have to follow through. This will be the vote in
the House, raising the ceiling by $653 billion.
When you add those increases, $450, $984, $800, $781 and finally
$653, all of which have been necessary to make room for the budgets of
the Bush administration with their enormous deficits, when you add all
these together, you get $3.668 trillion, $3.7 trillion since June of
2002. In 5 years, 5 years, we have had to raise virtually by 50 percent
the debt ceiling of the United States, by $3.7 trillion. That is why we
have got a martial law rule now. This budget won't stand scrutiny.
These numbers simply are indefensible.
Let me show you, for example, what has happened to the deficits since
the Bush administration took office. Over the last 5 years, with this
budget we will experience the five largest deficits in nominal terms in
the history of the United States.
{time} 1415
Once again, this is why, not only on our side are we not supporting
it, but on their side, too, the votes are not
[[Page H2684]]
there to pass this resolution, because it will not bear scrutiny.
Now, one of the things the administration and also the Budget
Committee is attempting to do in order to begin squeezing this budget
back into balance is they are coming down hard on one particular sector
of the budget known as domestic discretionary spending.
Domestic discretionary spending includes education, it includes
highways, it includes the government basically as we know it, including
the operation of the government. It does not include defense, it does
not include foreign affairs, it does not include entitlement programs;
it includes the money we appropriate every year in 10 appropriation
bills.
That is the one sector of the budget which constitutes less than 15
percent of the budget which they are bearing down on, and here is what
is happening to those different functions in that particular part of
the budget.
Over the next 5 years, the purchasing power, the real value of the
amount of money that we appropriate for education, for health care, for
research, for scientific endeavors, for the operation of the
government, the park system, the court system, you name it, will
decrease in value by $167 billion cumulative over that period of time.
This will begin to hurt. Let me illustrate how. Education. Surely
this is a time in our national history when we should be unstinting in
what we spend on education, because our survival in the global economy
depends critically upon it. Education will be cut $45.294 billion below
current services, $45 billion over the next 5 years.
This budget will lay the basis for what the President has proposed,
namely to eliminate 42 programs in education, and, for the second time
in a row, to cut what we appropriate for education below the level of
the previous year.
Veterans. If there is ever a time when we should appreciate what our
veterans do for us, it is now. There were 17,000 grievously wounded in
the Persian Gulf. Surely, surely we should be providing amply for
veterans health care. But this budget is $6 billion below what we call
current services, maintaining what we provide now over the next 5
years. It cuts veterans.
Health. Now, that is a broad category, a big category, because it
includes the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease
Control. It includes a number of rural health care initiatives, a whole
host of health care programs. This budget cuts those programs $18
billion.
Just 5 years ago, when we had a surplus, a $236 billion surplus in
the year 2000, we resolved, Democrats and Republicans, House and
Senate, that we would double the budget of the NIH, but we are now
reneging on that commitment. We achieved that goal; we are now backing
back down the slope, and each year NIH is going to take a hit under
this budget because it is $18 billion short of current services for
health.
And then finally the environment. The Environmental Protection
Agency, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Water Drinking Act, the Corps of
Engineers, which has extraordinary demands on it because of Katrina,
the National Park Service, this budget imposes a cut of $25 billion
below current services over the next 5 years.
Why are we here? Why are we seeking a martial law rule? Why? Because
this budget will not stand scrutiny. Thank you.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from South
Carolina's diligent efforts on the Budget Committee as the ranking
member. He, along with our chairman, have forged a very strong working
relationship. I respect his efforts on these issues, and he has
certainly been working on them for years.
Let me take a moment, though, to scrutinize the Democratic
substitute, where, if our budget is the Land of Oz, theirs is worthy of
a good Sherlock Holmes novel, a who-done-it and where-did-they-put-it,
because they seem to rely on revenues that just do not exist.
For example, the key component of their revenue in the Democratic
substitute is over $700 billion in what the IRS calls the tax gap. In
other words, it is the difference between what people owe the IRS in
taxes and the collections that actually come in.
They assume, my friends on the other side of the aisle, in their
budget projections that all $727 billion of that so-called tax gap
shows up. Now, if they know where it is now to project it in their
budget, please share it with us so that we may meet these needs, these
unmet needs that have been described with great elaboration.
You seem to know where it is, because you know for a fact such that
you budget for it, that it will appear, poof, that it will show up in
time to make your budget balance.
They allow the important tax reforms that we have worked so hard to
implement over the past several years to expire. They allow taxes to go
back up. Their budget, their budget, provides for only $150 billion in
tax relief, which I am glad to see that they are coming around to the
concept that tax relief can be an important economic stimulant, as we
were just hearing the opposite view in congratulating the President for
signing $70 billion in tax relief, and yet they account for $150
billion, but say that our $70 billion was reckless and irresponsible.
They would allow the child tax credit to expire, or the 10 percent
bracket to expire, or the death tax to expire, or the marriage penalty
to expire to make their numbers work.
And so when we get tied up in all of the rhetoric about this issue,
it is important to remember that the budget debate that we will be
moving forward with today is about choices. It is about a different set
of priorities as represented by the two political parties for the
future of this country. Our budget deals with both sides of the ledger.
Our budget recognizes that over half of the Federal spending today is
on the mandatory side of the ledger. It is on automatic pilot.
That is unsustainable. Both parties know that Social Security needs
help. Both parties know that Medicare needs help. Both parties know
that Medicaid needs help or it will sink the entire Federal budget. It
makes up 55 percent of spending today. Within the decade it will make
up two-thirds of Federal spending. Their budget does not address 55
percent of the Federal budget, a $2.17 trillion budget; just ignores
it. That is not responsible. That is not dealing with the problems that
we know exist and will only grow in magnitude and scale as time moves
on.
These are the challenges that our budget attempts to deal with and
deal with in a very responsible and balanced way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida is absolutely correct when he
says that this budget is about choices. And there are clear differences
between what Democrats believe are the right choices and what
Republicans believe. But the vote we are going to have on this martial
law rule is also about choices, and the choice is, should Members of
Congress, Republicans and Democrats, be afforded the opportunity to
know what they are voting on, to be able to see what is in the budget
that they are going to bring to the floor later today?
I do not think that that is unreasonable. I mean, even if you
disagree with me and people on the Democratic side on all of the
budgetary issues, I mean, do you not think that it is reasonable to
require that Members should be able to know what is going to be in your
budget, what changes you are going to make?
I mean, as I said before, when you vote for your budget, it is an
automatic increase in the debt ceiling. I mean, what else is going to
be put in there that we are not going to know about until when it is on
the floor?
Mr. Speaker, I think the process is indefensible. We can argue the
policy later, but the process is indefensible. We need to do much
better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this martial law same-day rule,
and in opposition to the budget resolution.
Every landmark budget reform enacted by Congress was intended to make
the process more efficient so we
[[Page H2685]]
can go about the business of funding programs important to the American
people, particularly aid and relief to those who need our help the
most.
We can all agree that a budget is supposed to be the congressional
blueprint for funding America's priorities. Regrettably, however, the
Republicans have abrogated this responsibility on at least two counts.
First, this resolution comes halfway into the calendar year, and
halfway into the third quarter of the current fiscal year, way too late
to responsibly budget for America's priorities.
Second, this budget comes sandwiched between $70 billion worth of tax
cuts for the most comfortable among us, and $100 billion in off-budget
supplemental funds. It is this kind of fiscal irresponsibility that
drives people to disapprove of the 109th Congress and why a change of
leadership is needed before our country sinks deeper into red ink and
before the budget resolution becomes completely irrelevant.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the
Joint Economic Committee, the gentlemen from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening a few minutes ago when I heard an
exchange about taxes and the President's signature being placed on the
tax cut extension bill today. I just wanted to share very quickly with
the Members the thought that has been placed behind this over the last
number of years.
If you believe, as I do, that tax policy can be useful in stimulating
economic growth, then one might look for opportunities to show that
that really worked. As a matter of fact it really worked. It really
worked in 1962, when John Kennedy was President and he recommended that
we cut taxes, and in 1962 and 1963, the Congress did cut taxes, and it
worked. The economy grew.
Ronald Reagan suggested that we do the same thing, because the
economy was not growing very well. And we did cut taxes, and the
economy grew. And in 2003, when we were having very slow economic
growth, following a shallow recession in 2001, President Bush suggested
that we cut taxes, and we did, and the economy has been growing great,
robustly ever since.
As a matter of fact, since 2003, we have had great economic growth,
culminating last quarter with a 4.7 percent increase in GDP. Now, if we
are going to cut taxes, then we have to cut taxes on people who pay
taxes. Otherwise, by definition it will not work.
This chart to my left is a chart that expresses figures that have
been compiled by the IRS. And it shows, as Mr. Putnam had pointed out,
that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, wage earners, pay 35 percent of
the taxes, 34.2 percent to be more exact. And it shows that the top
half of the taxpayers in terms of their income levels pay 96.5 percent
of the taxes.
Therefore, as we look at these figures, and the top 5 percent pay
over 50 percent of the taxes, the top 10 percent pay 65 percent of the
taxes, and as I said a minute ago, the top 50 percent of the wage
earners in this country pay 96.5 percent of the taxes.
So I ask you, if John Kennedy believed that cutting taxes would make
the economy grow, and he was right, and Ronald Reagan thought cutting
taxes would work, and turned out he was right, and President Bush
thought cutting taxes would work, and it turned out the economy grew as
a result of his policies, then where are we going to cut the taxes?
Obviously the bottom half of the wage earners in this country paying
3.5 percent of the taxes, it will not do a lot of good to the economy
if we reduce that even further. We have to cut it in the area of wage
earners who pay taxes. And so it is very clear to me that today's
signing of the tax cut extension bill is a well thought out, good
economic policy venture, which will continue, as has been shown
throughout history, to provide for a stimulus for economic growth.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from New Jersey and
some of the previous speakers that if these Republican policies are so
wonderful, and if it is so obvious that they work, then why have you
been struggling for months trying to get a budget together? Why are we
here debating a martial law rule to bring up a budget that nobody has
seen yet because you are still trying to work out deals within your own
party, because you do not have the votes within your own party to pass
this? This goes back to the point I had made at the very beginning.
{time} 1430
We can argue and argue about the policy, and that is totally
appropriate. But how do you defend this process? I mean, how do you
defend this process? And I think that that is a question that is yet to
be answered.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida 20 seconds.
Mr. PUTNAM. Well, I thank the gentleman for his generosity.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, in his use of the term
martial law, the fact that we are here in a democratic process arguing
about it for an hour and then going to have a vote on it, under which
chapter and verse of Webster's is that martial law where there is
debate, discussion, transparency, and a vote?
Mr. McGOVERN. Well, I would say to the gentleman, I define this as a
martial law rule because what it is doing is enabling the leadership of
this House to bring a budget to the floor that nobody has seen. And I
don't think that is democratic. I don't think that is respectful of the
deliberative process here in this House. I don't think that that is
something, if the shoes were on a different foot, the gentleman would
want to tolerate. And I hope that, given the opportunity to be able to
take control of this House, that we can demonstrate a different
standard on some of this stuff.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, just in quick response to my good friend and colleague
from New Jersey and his income tax chart, that really shouldn't be
surprising to anyone here in this Chamber, because the whole basis of
our income tax system is based on progressivity. Meaning, those who can
afford more, those who are most wealthy, are asked to contribute more,
and that is the fair and decent thing to do in our society.
But the one thing that that chart does not show is one of the most
regressive taxes in the entire country, which is the payroll tax, the
FICA tax, which is cut off at $90,000. And that is something that
everyone under that 50 percent category is paying taxes on based on
every single dollar that they earn. Yet they conveniently ignore that
fact, and the fact that they are robbing those trust funds right now,
both Social Security and Medicare, which comes from the FICA tax in
order to help pay for the tax breaks for the most wealthy.
I agree with my friend from Florida, who I serve on the Budget
Committee with, that we do have a challenge with entitlement spending.
We have to lock arms in a bipartisan fashion to get those growing costs
under control. But his party has forfeited any basis of fiscal
responsibility related to entitlement spending by passing the largest
expansion of entitlement funding in over 40 years with the new
prescription drug plan, something that is not paid for, something that
in fact has no cost containment measures in; it specifically prohibits
any price negotiation with the drug companies, and it is blowing a hole
in the Federal budget. And that is outrageous.
And what is even more outrageous is something that my ranking member
on the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, pointed out on page 122, and that
is the fifth increase in the debt limit ceiling in the last 6 years.
This has been the largest, the fastest expansion of national debt in
our Nation's history under this Congress and this current
administration. And what is even more alarming is we no longer owe this
debt to ourselves. China is the number one purchaser of our government
deficits today, and they are soon to be followed by Russia and Saudi
Arabia. Why? Because of the petro dollars that are flowing to those two
countries and who are
[[Page H2686]]
in turn starting to buy more of our debt.
The amount of debt that is being accumulated is truly staggering, and
deficits do matter. And this is something I am going to point out
during general debate, because of who suffers when we run deficits? I
will tell you who suffers. It is the children and the students of this
country who are suffering, when we are going to see another $4.5
billion worth of cuts based on current funding levels for higher
education programs under this budget, where they are defunding special
education funding, going from 17.8 percent down to 17 percent when the
bipartisan goal has been funding it at a 40 percent federal cost share.
Those are the people who are suffering when we run deficits. We have a
better alternative with the Democratic substitute, a substitute that
pays-as-we-go and I hope our colleagues support that.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my friend
and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and support
of the budget, and I support the budget for a number of reasons. But I
do want to say, as I listen to the arguments from the other side, they
are a little bit all over the place. And yet that is not unusual,
because if you are in the minority party, you can pick and choose your
relevancy. And generally the message that we are hearing from that side
is it cuts too much here, it doesn't spend enough there, I don't like
this, I don't like that. And yet they don't have a unified plan except
to vote ``no'' on everything. We won't pick up a vote, you guys know
that. The only thing they are unified by is a ``no.'' They cannot even
within their own caucus support a budget that could get a majority. And
we would like to work with them.
We just heard they don't like the Medicare prescription drug
benefits, so they are, I guess, against the Medicare prescription drug
benefit and want to return to the days when seniors were choosing
between food on their table and medicine that they needed from their
doctor.
We have heard they are supporting a Social Security tax increase.
Well, I had a lot of Social Security town meetings; I didn't hear
anybody who wanted to increase taxes on Social Security. I don't know
if that is an official view or just one Member, but I do know that in
terms of Social Security, there again it was a big ``no'' vote because
they did not want to participate.
Now, what they also don't like is the economic prosperity that we are
enjoying right now, because their whole view is if somebody is making
money, then they are bad and they are evil, because they have this
obsession with the wealthy in our society; unless they are a union,
business agent, or a Barbra Streisand and some of the big wheels of
Hollywood who fund their coffers, then it is okay to be rich and
wealthy.
The interesting thing, though, is that under Republican Party policy,
the economy has done so well. And think about this: that the domestic
gross product grew by 8 percent the first quarter of 2006, and in the
month of April alone 138,000 new jobs were created. We know, because it
is an economic fact, that since our tax reductions went into play for
farmers and small businesses, that 5 million new jobs were created. And
there is a very important thing in there, business expensing, that
allows the bicycle shops back home and the clothes store and the pet
shops to expand and get a tax deduction for doing so. I know the
Democrat Party doesn't like business, which would include small
business. I think it is okay to have a healthy distrust of some of the
big Wall Street guys. Some of those firms, after all, are Democratic.
So we should kind of distrust some of those. They were big Clinton
supporters, as I remember some of that crowd. But small businesses need
this, because they can grow, and we need to give them some tax
incentives.
In terms of tax receipts, as I sit in the Appropriations Committee,
and bill after bill the Democrats want to spend more on and they want
to take away this mythical tax cut for the rich, and the idea is
because the rich are paying their taxes that the deficit is down. And
yet the Treasury Department has reported that the receipts are up $137
billion, that is 11 percent, in the first 7 months of the year, of the
fiscal year of 2006 which started October 1. So receipts are up 11
percent and yet taxes are down.
Now, why is that? Well, you could put it this way. If a business was
doing three or four transactions a day and we were getting a tax on
each transaction, now they are doing eight or nine, ten transactions a
day, and we are still getting that tax. So we are taxing more because
there is more activity and there are more transactions in the business
world. And, again, because of that, the revenues are up $137 billion.
Now, last year they were up $274 billion, or an increase of 14.6
percent in fiscal year 2005. That is very significant for folks to
remember. And, as Mr. Saxton said, President Kennedy, President Reagan,
and now President Bush have shown the American people spend their money
better than we do in Washington. And, again, I want to speak as an
appropriator. I am in these meetings and I am convinced the American
people can do better with their own money than we can. It stimulates
the economy, it creates jobs, it is good for all of us. And then, in
Washington, we do get more revenues.
Do I want to cut spending? Yes, I do. Do I think we need to reform
entitlement? Yes, I do. I want to work on a bipartisan basis to do
that, though, because I think that is the way the American people want
to see us cooperate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from
Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Florida has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I again rise in strong opposition to this
martial law rule. We have rules and procedures in this House, and today
by bringing this martial law rule to the floor and by bringing a budget
bill to the floor, sight unseen, we are breaking those rules. We are
basically making a mockery of the procedures that are in place to
ensure that Members of Congress, at a minimum, know what in fact they
are voting on when some of these bills come to the floor.
This is not a trivial matter. The budget is a big deal. It sets out
our priorities. And it is totally appropriate for people to be able to
debate all different issues openly and on the House floor. And I would
again, after listening to the gentleman from Georgia, I guess my
question to him is, again, if things are so wonderful, why can't you
even get Members of your own party to get behind a budget?
But putting that aside, this vote we are about to have is on process,
it is on whether or not Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats,
should have the right to read what is in the proposed budget. I don't
think that that is too much to ask for. I don't think that is
unreasonable. I think most Americans who are watching this debate are
scratching their heads saying, why can't you show us what is in this
bill? What is the big secret? When are we going to have this budget
available to us? When are we going to know what is in it? When are we
going to find out what deals have been negotiated behind closed doors?
I don't think that is unreasonable.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this martial law
rule, and let us demand that we have a process in place in this House
and have some integrity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. He does have a way
with words and continues to refer to a process whereby, in order to
waive the rules of the House, you must come to the floor, introduce a
resolution, it must be given an hour of debate, which we have been
engaged in very vigorously, and be voted on. I mean, Pinochet and
Castro would laugh at the notion that that has anything to do with
martial law. This is a process under our rules that requires a vote. It
requires debate. It requires transparency.
The simple fact of the matter is we have to move a budget. This
Nation needs the spending blueprint, it needs the discipline, it needs
the restraint
[[Page H2687]]
that a budget provides. Then the appropriators, as my friend from
Georgia has discussed, the appropriators take over. And they can pass
within that box that we have put Federal spending in, in the Federal
budget, 11 different bills that deal with each component of government:
defense, veterans, transportation, energy and the environment, military
quality of life, the whole range of issues that then are debated again
in committee, in subcommittee, on this floor, in the conference with
the Senate.
This is a transparent process, a patently transparent process where
people are free to watch their Members actively, aggressively, work to
take language out of bills, to put language in the bills, to shift
formulas around to benefit high-growth States or to protect low-growth
States from having those monies shifted around; to put more money into
veterans and less for the arts, or more into the arts and less for the
Corps of Engineers, or more for the Corps of Engineers because of
Katrina; to set aside emergency funds because we know that every year
there will be a drought or a wildfire or a hurricane or an earthquake.
All of those huge issues that are embodied in over $2 trillion in
Federal spending are here today in the form of the Federal budget.
This bill, this resolution, allows us to move forward with that
process that began months ago, that began on a bipartisan basis in the
Budget Committee, that was debated extensively in the Budget Committee,
that was marked up in the Budget Committee, and will end up on the
floor of this House today.
This is an open process, it is a transparent process. Anyone who has
observed this debate can see that it involves a great deal of
viewpoints about a great deal of very important issues. And that is the
position we find ourselves in here today. It is a healthy process
because it is a fundamental decision about the direction that
Americans' hard-earned tax dollars will be taken.
{time} 1445
Will those tax dollars find their way into bloated bureaucratic
programs? Will they find their way into duplicative programs? Will they
find their way back into a surging economy? Will they find their way
into investments in the cure for cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease and a
whole host of other ailments? Will they fund our troops in the theater
of war?
That is the decision we are positioned to move forward on here today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________