[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 2 (Friday, January 5, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H96-H100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EARLY ACTIONS OF NEW DEMOCRAT MAJORITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McHenry) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this is a nice occasion at the end of the
week to wrap up what we have been doing and talk about how we have been
active this week, but before I start, I would like to yield to the
distinguished former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my
colleague from California (Mr. Hunter), to discuss points that he
illuminated in his first 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Mr. McHenry, and again, I thought
it was important, as we move into this new era and my great friend Ike
Skelton takes over the Armed Services Committee to reflect on where we
stand and what we did in the last Congress.
Again, just to reiterate, we culminated a 40 percent pay increase for
the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the United States Marine Corps, and
the National Guard in this last 8 years. Along with that, we increased
family separation pay, which is the pay a family receives when the
loved one is separated, maybe is in theatre, or maybe is deployed far
around the world in this global war against terror. We increased that
from $150 to $250 per month. We increased combat pay. We increased a
number of our insurances. And also, Mr. Speaker, we increased TRICARE
coverage for National Guard personnel and for their families.
Along with that, we did something that was really the special project
of the outgoing readiness chairman, Mr. Hefley of Colorado, which was
to bring in to full flower this privatization of housing on military
bases across the country so that military wives and family members
could move into really great housing.
I have to tell you, in visiting bases across America, it has been
heartwarming to see these military families coming into wonderful new
housing that often has an entertainment area in maybe a common area
with a pool and tennis courts and reading rooms in the center of one of
these housing projects where the families can go for entertainment and
take their children for good quality time.
So the quality of life for America's military families has been
greatly increased over the last 8 years.
Now, what have we done in terms of firepower? Mr. Speaker, I can tell
you that beginning with this administration and meetings that we held
with the Secretary of Defense and with the President, one concern that
I had, and a number of members of our committee had, was the amount of
what I would call precision firepower. That is the ability to deliver a
smart bomb or a precise system. Instead of, for example, having to drop
100 bombs on a bridge to knock a bridge out, to be able to send a smart
bomb in, hit one strut on that bridge, and bring the bridge down.
We all know now that this is the age of precision firepower, and we
wanted to greatly expand our precision firepower because that gives the
United States the capability to project enormous power around the world
when we have to. So, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to report to the people
of the House, to our great colleagues and to the American people that
we have in the last 8 years more than doubled, more than doubled our
precision firepower.
A lot of that is manifested in what we call LGBs, or laser-guided
bombs. A lot is manifested in what we call JDAMs, or joint direct
attack munitions. But for our adversaries, that means that America has
the power now to send in more than twice the firepower in precise
places, at precise targets with enormous effect. That is very important
for America's troops and for America's strength.
Now, Mr. Speaker, also people have asked what have we done in terms
of enlarging the size of the two ground elements of America's military,
the primary ground elements, the United States Army and the United
States Marine Corps? We have increased the size of the Marine Corps now
from 175,000 personnel to 180,000 personnel. We have increased it right
at, in fact, exactly 5,000 Marines. And the last time I checked, we
were something like 100 Marines under that limit. But we have gone from
175,000 Marines to 180,000 Marines. We are right at that exact number,
a few people short, but we have those Marines actually on the ground,
deployed, showing up for roll call each day in their particular
position in the war against terror. So we have increased the size of
the United States Marine Corps. Now, we may need further increases, but
at least at this point we have a 5,000 troop increase.
With respect to the Army, we took the Army end strength from 482,000
to 512,000. That is a 30,000 person increase in the United States Army.
Now, a number of us on the Armed Services Committee have done an
analysis parallel to the QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and we
feel we may have to increase the Marine Corps and the Army further, and
you can see those recommendations manifested in that report. But we
have actually increased the Army and we have increased the size of the
U.S. Marine Corps.
Now, if you ask, and a number of people have asked since Ronald
Reagan
[[Page H97]]
made that speech in 1983 and said, in essence, we are entering the age
of missiles, and the United States, to secure its people, has to have
the ability to shoot down incoming missiles, a number of people have
asked us and asked regularly where are we in terms of missile defense.
And I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in the
history of the United States, we actually have a very small, very
limited, but nonetheless very real missile defense for the first time.
It is manifested in the interceptor missiles that we have in place on
the Pacific coast and Alaska that could handle, on a very limited
basis, a rogue missile or several coming into the United States.
Now, some people may say, well, that is not much. And my answer is,
that is more than we have ever had in the history of this country. We
have deployed a missile defense and we will be building on that
deployment.
So, Mr. Speaker, I just thought it was important to lay out some of
the things that this Congress has done and that this Armed Services
Committee has accomplished for the American people. A 40 percent pay
increase for our troops, increasing the size of the U.S. Army and the
U.S. Marine Corps, putting together the first missile defense in the
history of the country, and more than doubling the precision firepower
of our armed forces.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the President will be making a statement very
soon about this adjusted policy on Iraq, and I just wanted to once
again tell my colleagues the recommendation that I have made. I know a
lot of us have made recommendations to the President and to the
Secretary of Defense.
Right now, there are 18 provinces in Iraq. And in half of those
provinces, nine of those provinces, there are virtually no attacks
taking place. They average less than one attack a day. In those quiet
peaceful provinces, there are 27 battalions of Iraqi soldiers located
and stationed. Twenty-seven battalions is a lot of soldiers, Mr.
Speaker. It is a lot of firepower. It is a lot of personnel.
My recommendation to the President and to the Secretary of Defense
for the last several months, and I hope that this has been a part of
their conversation, I have urged them, and a number of other of my
colleagues have joined with me in urging them to take the 27 Iraqi
battalions that we have trained and equipped and move them into the
battle. Now, that means that the Ministry of Defense is going to have
to give orders to those battalion commanders and those brigade
commanders in the quiet peaceful sections of Iraq and tell them to
saddle up their forces, get them on the trucks, and move them to
Baghdad.
They need to do that. That should be nonnegotiable. It should be a
requirement by the American war fighting commanders that cannot be
delayed, cannot be finessed, and cannot be put aside. That is something
that should be nonnegotiable, especially against the backdrop of the
enormous American effort that has given birth to this new government in
Iraq.
So I know the President is going to come out with his suggested
policy soon, but I thought it was important to lay out this fact, that
right now we have 27 Iraqi battalions in quiet areas which can be
utilized in the fight, can be put into the fight. In my estimation,
their value in an urban setting, especially one like Baghdad, where
speaking the language is important, and where knowing the communities
is important, their placement in those positions before we move any
additional American troops into those urban situations is, I think,
something that we should do, and that we should require of the Ministry
of Defense of Iraq.
{time} 1445
I want to thank Mr. McHenry for letting me come out and talk a little
bit about these issues and take some of his valuable time. I certainly
appreciate the gentleman's allowing me to come out and say a word or
two.
Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. I certainly appreciate my good
friend from California, your friendship in my brief service in the
House. It has been wonderful learning from you, and I appreciate your
willingness to show national leadership and national involvement as
well, far beyond these House walls. Thank you so much for your
leadership and friendship.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank you. I also want to thank the gentleman for his
great service on our committee. He did a wonderful job.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting moment in our Nation's
history, an interesting moment indeed, with a new Democrat majority
coming to these hallowed halls of Congress. The American people spoke
in November and they wanted a change.
As someone who was formerly in the majority party, now in the
minority party, I respect the power of democracy to change our Nation
and change the direction of our Nation in important policy areas. I
think some of that is going to be beneficial to our economy, and other
proposals that the new Democrat majority are putting forward are going
to be hurtful to our economy and to our national defense and our family
security. But I think it is important that we talk today about some of
the early actions of this new Democrat majority.
During the campaign season over the last few years, the last 2 years,
the Democrats campaigned on openness and accountability. They
campaigned on many things.
In the opening days of Congress, we have seen a far different reality
than what they campaigned on over the last 2 years. It is disheartening
to me as an American citizen and someone who is hopeful and optimistic
about this new Congress, hopeful that we can work on a bipartisan
basis, and I think it is important that we talk about these opening day
actions and the actions they have taken over the last 2 days of this
new Democrat majority.
The first action and the first course of business of this new
Congress was to pass a very closed-off process for consideration of the
so-called 100-hour agenda of the Democrat party put forward by the new
speaker, Ms. Pelosi of California.
What we see in this closed-off package is far different than when
they campaigned on. They campaigned on an open process, open and fair
debate, a dialogue across the aisle, so that we could work in a
bipartisan way for the American people. The first action they took was
to lock out all dissenting voices, even within their own party, but
also among the Republicans represented here today. The Republicans
represent 140 million Americans here in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Their first action after campaigning on openness and
bipartisanship was to close out dissenting voices, to close out the
amendment process.
I was surprised by this, because looking at then-Minority Leader
Pelosi's words, I believed that Minority Leader Pelosi would be a very
open Speaker Pelosi. What we see with her words and actions, and I have
a visual aid here to that effect, now, Speaker Pelosi, then Minority
Leader Pelosi, said a few things about the minority having rights here
in this institution.
Then-Minority leader Pelosi said in 2004, her Minority Bill of Rights
includes fair principles. ``There is a very excellent chance that the
Republicans will be in the minority next year, and what I am saying is
this is the way the House should be conducted, in a bipartisan way, and
whether he,'' meaning Speaker Hastert at the time, ``agrees to it or
not, this is the course of action that I will take.''
What is striking to me is the date on that is June 2004. We are in
the second day of a Democrat majority and we have, instead of a
Minority Leader Pelosi, a Speaker Pelosi. What is striking here is
``that is the course of action that I will take.'' Those are the
Speaker's words.
To that end, I took the very letter that Minority Leader Pelosi wrote
at the time and we filed that legislation and we offered it here on the
House floor yesterday, and it was flatly rejected. Every Democrat to
the person voted against it.
It is striking to me that in their first day as a majority, as a
Democrat majority, they are already going back on the words that they
campaigned on, they campaigned on in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
What did they say in 2005? Then minority leader Pelosi said, ``Mr.
Speaker, I implore you to end the repeated abuses of the rules by the
Republican majority to ram legislation through in such a secretive and
unfair manner.'' That is 2005.
[[Page H98]]
What we see today and yesterday by this new Democrat majority is that
they have a secretive process, because it says that we cannot offer any
amendments on the legislation that we will soon be able to see. We
can't even see the legislation in their 100 hours. They have not let us
or the American people or even many in their own party see the
legislation which we will be voting upon and for which we gave initial
approval to today. That is very striking to me, especially after the
language and rhetoric used in 2004 and 2005 by Speaker Pelosi.
``Additionally, in 2006, so 3 years running, more than 2 years ago, I
first sent Speaker Dennis Hastert Democrat proposals to restore
civility to the Congress. I reiterate my support for those proposals
today. We must restore bipartisanship to the administration of the
House, reestablish regular order for consideration of legislation and
ensure the rights of the minority, whichever party is in the minority.
The voice of every American has to be heard.''
Now, 2004, 2005, 2006, Minority Leader Pelosi talked about openness
and bipartisanship. Speaker Pelosi, the first act of office, goes
completely back on these very words. This rhetoric did not become
reality on the first opening hours of the Democrat majority. I am
hopeful, as all Americans should be, hopeful that there is openness
tomorrow. As Americans, we are an optimistic people.
I think it would be amazing, in fact, I think we would all be amazed,
if their second act was for openness when their first act, their first
principle, was closing off debate and closing off any input from rank
and file Members of this body and the people that we represent at home.
What I would say is that beyond just the words, we need to look at
the values and the principles of this majority. We offered this
minority bill of rights that then minority leader Pelosi proposed, and
it simply says that legislation should be considered in the committee
process and we should have full open debate and discourse.
In essence, we outlined what all fifth graders in this great country
are taught about the legislative process here in the House of
Representatives, that a bill is filed, it is sent to committee, it is
amended and debated and compromised there, it goes to the floor and
goes through that same process, when in fact that is not always the
course of operation of this House.
So the problem is that it is not simply about the process. The issue
today is that the process corrupts the policy. When you stack the deck
on the outcome, you corrupt the policy of this House Chamber and the
laws of this land. So process and policy are intertwined. When one is
corrupted, so is the other. With the Democrats shutting down debate at
a critical moment in our Nation's history, we have to question their
judgment.
There are a number of proper proposals they are putting forward in
the initial 100 hours of debate here in the House of Representatives.
One thing that is very important to Americans and our national security
is the 9/11 Commission recommendations outlined in the fall and over
the last few years. We have heard them very well.
The Democrats campaigned that they wanted to and would, if they were
given the majority, fully implement the 9/11 recommendations. No matter
whether or not they were good public policy or not, they are going to
implement all of them.
Well, as it turns out, the Washington Post reported on November 30,
2006, that ``With control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders
have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would
affect them most directly, a wholesale reorganize of Congress to
improve oversight and funding of the Nation's intelligence agencies.''
It is striking that just days after the election, they are already
going back on their proposal to implement the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations. Now they are saying that they will implement some but
not all. It is kind of surprising, because the American people heard in
an almost unanimous voice from Democrats that they were going to
implement all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I didn't hear
candidates out there and Members of Congress on the Democrat side
saying some, but not all. No, they said all 9/11 Commission
recommendations.
Only through press reports do we know what this legislation says.
They have not given this out, other than their allies on K Street and
the lobbying community. But they haven't given this out for the
American people and for the press and for all Members of Congress to
see. So we have some concerns about this, because there are many of us
who want to offer perfecting amendments, to make sure this policy is
right and secures our Nation in a proper way.
Thomas Kean, who is a former distinguished Member and Governor of New
Jersey, was a cochair of the 9/11 Commission. He called these important
overhauls in the congressional process of oversight and intelligence
vital.
What we have to do is make sure that the Democrats uphold their
promise. We don't want broken promises. We don't want them to campaign
on good ideas and be corrupted by an ugly process here that results in
bad policy. National security is, of course, of key and utmost
importance, and I am glad they are at least bringing that up in the
first 100 hours.
Additionally, many of us in this Nation are concerned about research
and ensuring that we have medical cures that comfort, that our
government policy upholds not just ethical and moral research, but
lifesaving research.
Next Thursday, from press reports, the Democrats will vote to enact
legislation to expand Federal taxpayer funding for research that
destroys human life and human embryos, and they call this stem cell
research.
Well, while I don't support the destruction of human life, I do
support stem cell research, adult stem cell research that has led to
cures. Unfortunately, due to the process that they have here in this
new Democrat majority, we are not going to be able to offer amendments
to ensure that life is not destroyed and that human embryos are not
destroyed in this process of research.
But if you look at embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem
cell research, there have been wonderful cures coming out of adult stem
cell research, but no cures coming out of embryonic stem cell research.
And we are not even questioning whether or not embryonic stem cell
research should come about. It is a question of whether our taxpayer
dollars should be used to destroy human life, or what many Americans
believe to be a destruction of human life.
Even if not all of us agree on whether or not life should be
protected at its most basic and precious moment, we should all agree
that we shouldn't have unethical processes and research funded by our
Federal taxpayer dollars. In fact, the National Institutes of Health
spends roughly $600 million per year on stem cell research already,
including $40 million for research involving certain types of embryonic
stem cell research. But the type of research they conduct does not
destroy human life.
{time} 1500
Additionally, nearly 100 million of it is for nonhuman embryonic stem
cell research. So this is already being done, yet it is a nice
rhetorical device, just like the Democrats campaigning on implementing
all the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations and just like openness
and fairness. American people like the sound of that. But what is
concerning, whether it is embryonic stem cell research, the 9/11
Commission, or openness and fairness, is that it was only rhetoric. The
Democrats didn't want to implement it and make it reality here in
policy and in law for our Nation.
Beyond that, we have another provision that we voted on today, and
this is Pelosi's PAYGO legislation. Now, PAYGO is a shorthanded word
for pay-as-you-go. It is a nice way that we talk about it here on
Capitol Hill. We call it PAYGO. Now, it sounds very good. The American
people want us to pay for government policies as we enact them, and so
that is a great rhetorical device as well. Pay-as-you-go. Well, what is
devilish about this proposal is that it will lead to a backdoor tax
increase down the line.
As the Wall Street Journal editorial said today: under Pelosi's PAYGO
plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would have to be
offset by either cutbacks and other entitlement programs or tax
increases. This version of Pelosi's PAYGO is a budget trapdoor designed
to control expenditures but to make it easier, easier, to raise taxes
while blocking future tax cuts.
[[Page H99]]
That is from today's Wall Street Journal.
Now, the fundamental budget problem is not spending too little and
taxing too little; it is the fact that right now in our country Federal
revenues climbed by $550 billion over the past 2 fiscal years, and that
is as a direct result of the economic support and economic growth of
the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. As the economy grows and more people
are employed, fewer people use government services. As fewer people use
government services and are making money on their own, they actually
begin to pay taxes. When people are paying taxes, revenue to government
goes up. It is a basic process. And through this robust economic growth
that has come out of these tax cuts, we have had more revenue come into
government.
So pay-as-you-go is a way for the Democrats to establish later the
reasoning to go to the American people and say we need to raise your
taxes. Now, I think it is a faulty and flawed policy, because the tax
cuts of 2001 and 2003 have not limited income to government; in fact,
what the American people must know, Mr. Speaker, is that the government
revenue to the United States Government is the highest it has ever been
in the history of our country. The highest revenue of any time in our
country's history. Beyond that, actually to say it more broadly, we
have more government revenue coming into the U.S. Treasury, your tax
dollars coming into the U.S. Treasury. Even after tax cuts, we have the
most government revenue in the history of man and the history of the
Earth. No government has ever received as much in tax dollars as ours
does today; yet, still, the Democrats put a proposal on the floor today
that will let them raise taxes later.
It is so shocking and so surprising that they would do this in their
opening week in Congress. Now, I knew there were tax-and-spenders on
the other side of the aisle, and that is a liberal focus, to grow the
size of government, increase the revenue to government; but I didn't
realize they would do this at the very beginning of their new majority
in Congress. I think the American people should be shocked by that.
But what this pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, proposal ignores is that all
the appropriations we have made in the past, the current government
programs that we have will not be under this rule. So we won't analyze
the entitlement programs to see where they need to be reformed; we
won't analyze existing government programs to see that they are getting
the proper result or they are being efficient with their dollars. It
will only apply to new spending.
So let's look at the 100-hour plan and total up the tax value of it
and the spending value of it. And what you see as a result of this plan
is pretty simple: $800 billion of new spending in this 100-hour plan.
Now, think about that. I think the American people should stop for a
second, Mr. Speaker, and think about the fact that in 100 short
legislative hours, over just a few days, the new Democrat majority will
spend $800 billion. That is shocking.
Now, I know that there are these free-spending ways in Washington,
and as a conservative I am opposed to that, especially as someone who
considers themselves a fiscal hawk. But to spend that much money in
such a short period of time has got to strike the American people as
egregious, especially when you campaigned as the Democrats tried to in
the last election as fiscal conservatives and a party that wants to
balance the budget. Yet, they are offering $800 billion worth of new
spending in their first acts of office.
So how do they get that money to pay as they go? They are going to
come to our tax dollars, our personal tax dollars. They are going to
ask more from every American. That means that when you get your
paycheck, whether you work in my district in Hickory, North Carolina,
or Mooresville or in Cherryville, where I am from, you are going to pay
more out of that paycheck to fund the programs that the Democrats who
are in control of this place want to implement. So the average working
man and woman in this country will pay more under Democrat leadership
than they will under Republican leadership.
Beyond that, this 100-hour proposal completely, completely ignores
some of the most pressing issues in our country, certainly ensuring
that our troops in the field are funded fully. Now, that is very
important. Completely ignored in the 100-hour plan in the Democrat
agenda for this Congress. What about entitlement reform? Because, after
all, that is the largest section of the budget of our Federal budget,
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Very important programs. But we
need to make sure that they are fiscally efficient, that they are
fiscally sound, and it is clear that they are not either efficient nor
sound.
So we need to look at entitlement programs, yet the Democrat majority
has completely ignored entitlement reform in their agenda. They have
completely ignored making Social Security solvent for future
generations. And as someone who is eligible for retirement the same
year that Social Security goes finally broke, I am concerned about
that, and my generation of Americans should be concerned about that as
well as all generations of Americans.
What else is missing? Well, obviously the cost of litigation on small
businesses across this country, completely ignored that, certainly
because the trial lawyers I think have helped write the Democrat agenda
for this Congress and there is a big difference between what trial
lawyers seek and what the average small businessman or the average
family doctor in this country seeks. And so they have completely
ignored reforming and limiting litigation and the cost of litigation on
the American society. Completely ignored that.
They have also ignored helping small businesses with health care
either through health savings accounts where individuals can save tax
free, something that we as Republicans have worked very hard, and free-
market conservatives like the idea of people being able to save tax
free without Uncle Sam reaching into your savings and pocketing that
money; or association health plans where small businesses can come
together, link up, and increase their affordability and their buying
capacity to give their employees health care. Completely ignored with
the Democrats' agenda.
In fact, the Democrats came on the floor, some of these that
campaigned on the other side of the aisle as helping small businesses,
one of their first votes was to vote against letting small businesses
pool their resources to buy health care. That hurts. That hurts in the
opening days of Congress.
Beyond that, they have ignored border security. I think the American
people have demanded border security and a sane immigration policy for
this country. There are many leaders on my side of the aisle on the
issue of border security, and I think we need to engage in that
discussion on how we reform our immigration policy in this United
States and how we plan to do that. I think most Americans agree that we
must begin with the border, to ensure that we have an immigration
policy that is enforceable, realistic, and real for this country.
So though we are just in a few opening hours of this new Congress,
some things are clear. Some things are very clear. The rhetoric that
the Democrats campaigned on was good. It was good. The American people
supported it. The American people put new Democrats in office,
Democrats that campaigned some as fiscal conservatives, others as
social conservatives, most certainly as moderates in this last
election. But their opening hours, their opening hours go back on those
pledges for fiscal sanity due to the high cost of their opening plan
and proposals, $800 billion worth of spending in just 100 hours.
It goes back on this openness concept. It goes back on fiscal sanity
by covering up with this Pelosi PAYGO plan that will raise our taxes
later in the year or later next year, certainly tax increases in the
future, though. It fully ignores their proposal to fully implement the
9/11 Commission proposals by kind of sort of doing a few of them that
they think are politically palatable rather than following through on
their promise. It uses a great rhetorical device of stem cell research.
But when they come here and they vote, they ignore the cloning issue,
whether or not we are funding human cloning, whether or not we are
destroying human life.
[[Page H100]]
So the rhetoric in the campaign is very much removed from their
actions in this new Congress.
They also ignore their pledge to work with all sides on issues of
importance to the American people, to work in a bipartisan way. They
even go back on their pledge and demand for minority rights here in
this institution. So we see hypocrisy from the Democrat majority. Many
would say it is ironic that you campaign as a conservative, yet come in
and govern as a liberal, which we are already seeing in just two days
of Democrat control.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are an optimistic and
hopeful people. We have a new week, we have a new day coming where the
Democrats can change, and I am hopeful that they will, that they will
go back to what they campaigned on that the American people endorsed in
the last election for bipartisanship, for openness, for national
security and the defense of our country, for good strong family values,
and fiscal sanity. And when that happens, I will be happy to reach
across the aisle and work with my colleagues in the Democrat majority
to ensure that these things happen.
But until that day comes, I will point out the fact that they are
going back on their words to the American people, and I will not
restrain myself from calling it as I see it, and I think as the way the
American people should see it as well, that in order to govern
effectively you have to fulfill your promises, you have to make sure it
is not empty campaign rhetoric, that in fact it is a full
implementation of the agenda that you sought in the election.
I think the American people want change in Washington. I don't think
they got change in the last two days, though. I think what you saw with
this new Democrat majority is this same type of abuse of power that
they had in 1993, in 1992, through the 1980s and the 1970s. The
majority may be new today, but the Democrat chairmen are the same as
they were 20 years ago, on the larger part of the Democrat majority and
for the larger part of the committees that they have organized. And the
policy proposals that they offer going forward after this 100-hour
proposal will be much the same as they offered in the early 1990s and
the 1980s and the 1970s.
{time} 1515
Those policy proposals are pretty simple: Raise your taxes, weaken
national defense, and go the opposite way on family values. But I hope
that we can work with moderates on the other side of the aisle,
moderates on the other side of the aisle that are willing to look at
fiscal sanity, willing to stand up for traditional values and willing
to do the right thing for the American people and will work together. I
am very hopeful that we will have that opportunity after this 100-hour
proposal is done. And hopefully, it will be done quickly.
____________________