[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H4873-H4880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 365 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 365

       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 April 28, 2009, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of a conference report to 
     accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting 
     forth the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 
     2014.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 365 permits same-day consideration of a rule 
providing for consideration of the conference report on the budget 
resolution, S. Con. Res. 13.
  This budget is a critical document and comes at a critical time in 
our country. We all know this budget is a blueprint of the priorities 
of the Obama administration and this Democratic Congress. This budget 
sets the framework for most of the legislation that we will consider 
this year--everything from the annual spending bills to improvements in 
education to health care reform to deficit control.
  I'm not surprised that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
aren't pleased with this budget. Republicans voted against the recovery 
package, and now they are going to oppose this budget.
  It's no secret that the Republicans have fundamental differences in 
the way they would govern this country. But that's why we have 
elections, Madam Speaker, and the American people spoke loud and clear 
about what they want their country to stand for. And those principles 
are set in this budget.
  Madam Speaker, this budget must be adopted in order for this Congress 
to start working on the agenda the American people want us to enact. I 
am proud to support this budget.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my very good friend from Worcester for yielding 
me this customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am really somewhat puzzled as to 
why it is that we are here debating a same-day rule for consideration 
of the Federal budget's conference report. As we all know, a same-day 
rule is a mechanism to circumvent House rules in order to hastily cram 
through legislation.
  Why in the world would the Democratic leadership want to rush through 
passage of the Federal budget? I recognize that same-day rules have 
taken place when either party has been in the majority, but why in the 
world would the Democratic leadership want to do this, Madam Speaker, 
for the Federal budget?
  As I say, we often use this procedure when the government might run 
out of money. Well, although we know, as of last Sunday, April 26, we 
saw the deficit day actually created, Debt Day created, as of Sunday, 
we ran out of money. We now are in deficit spending as of today.
  Last year that date was August 4. We spent all of our money up until 
August 4 of last year. This was last Sunday, the 26th of April. So we 
are now into borrowed money. But as we all know, Madam Speaker, our 
appropriations bills that we have passed for this calendar year exist 
until the next fiscal year begins.
  Is there some hard and fast deadline that needs to be met under the 
Budget Act? The budget resolution should have been completed by April 
15. The Democratic leadership wasn't in a hurry when that deadline came 
and went, and there is no new deadline at all that needs to be met 
right now.
  Maybe, Madam Speaker, Congress is getting ready for a prolonged 
congressional recess, a district work period. Well, the next recess, as 
we all know, is about a month away. We are supposed to be working here 
for another 4 weeks.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I ask maybe, just maybe it's the end of a very 
long, hard workweek of ours here, and we want to complete action before 
a long 3-day weekend, except today is Tuesday, and there is plenty of 
time to get this done before we finish legislative business on 
Thursday. So why, Madam Speaker, are we denying Members and the public 
the chance to read this budget, a budget, which as we all know now, at 
least we know the outside numbers, spends $17.8 trillion.
  We have been listening to people over the past several weeks talk 
about what the number a trillion is. Somebody was saying it totals 
31,000 years, longer than recorded history, in seconds. I mean, it's 
just amazing to contemplate that in this budget it is $17.8 trillion 
over a 5-year period of time.

  The only thing that I can figure out, Madam Speaker, is that tomorrow 
marks the conclusion of the President's first 100 days. Now, this is a 
milestone the press has observed since Franklin Delano's Roosevelt's 
presidency. It's a very symbolic moment that every President 
understandably likes to highlight.
  The problem rises, Madam Speaker, when his party cares more about 
symbolism and photo opportunities than taking the power of the purse, 
our constitutional responsibility here in the people's House, and 
taking that seriously. We have a profound responsibility to spend the 
taxpayers' money wisely.
  During a time of great economic challenges, when every working family 
is trying to make every penny count, the responsibility here for us to 
deal with those tax dollars as wisely as possible is even greater. I 
would hope that the Democratic leadership would care more about fiscal 
responsibility than a photo opportunity.
  Unfortunately, this is not a new pattern for the House Democratic 
leadership. Just a few weeks ago we turned the process upside down to 
try to pass the GIVE Act so that it could be signed by the President 
just before he left for Europe.
  Now, cooler heads did prevail, but it looks like we are headed down 
that exact same path now. This photo opportunity deadline in the first 
100 days is leading us to not go through the regular order for 
consideration of this budget conference report.

[[Page H4874]]

  Now I understand why they would like to pass their budget prior to 
the completion of the first 100 days. And in many ways, Madam Speaker, 
it is a very, very clear definition of what it's about.
  My friend from Worcester talked about the fact that elections have 
consequences, the people have spoken, and this is what they want? Well, 
I have got to say that from what I have heard from my constituents and 
from what I have seen in polling that has been done across the country, 
and as I have participated in telephone town hall meetings and heard my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle talking about this, including 
the President's cabinet meeting, when he has now been referring to the 
fact that we need to focus on restraining spending, I clearly don't 
believe that a budget that is $17.8 trillion of spending over the next 
5 years is what the American people want or wanted when they cast their 
votes last November.
  But I will say that if you look at the first 100 days, this is a 
clear, clear signal of what it is that we have gotten in this 100 days. 
And it would make a very nice press story, I know, to have this 
accomplished from their perspective by the completion of the 100 days.
  I do believe that there are things that are much more important than 
press conferences and photo opportunities. The Federal budget happens 
to be one of them. The Democratic majority should, I believe, take 
taxpayers' money and the spending of that more seriously than has been 
done in this budget or what we have seen with the stimulus bill, the 
1,100-page bill that we dropped on a table around here and pointed out 
very widely that people hadn't read.
  Both the President and the majority promised that Members would be 
able to read the bills we are voting on. I remember when candidate 
Obama talked about that throughout the campaign. We have had the 
Speaker of the House regularly point to that.
  Nowhere, Madam Speaker, is that more important than when we are in 
the midst of debating the Federal budget. The last time, we all know 
this very well, because we have seen amazing gymnastics take place 
around here, the last time we rushed through a major piece of 
legislation like this is the one I just referred to, and it was the so-
called economic stimulus bill. And that was when we discovered the 
Federal Government was enabling bonuses for companies funded by the 
U.S. taxpayer.
  Now, I ask, as we look at this $17.8 trillion package over the next 5 
years, what's in this budget, Madam Speaker, that the Democratic 
leadership does not want us to read?
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this same-day rule. 
We need to proceed under regular order for consideration of this budget 
process, and I personally believe that we should do everything within 
our power to completely overhaul this badly flawed budget structure 
that we have.
  So reject this rule, go at least through regular order, and I hope 
very much the Democratic leadership will fulfill its constitutional 
obligations with both responsibility and accountability.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, it's a little difficult to hear lectures from a member 
of the other party, the party that inherited from Bill Clinton a record 
surplus and then over the next 8 years presided over an economy that 
turned that surplus into a record deficit, that ruined, that forced 
this economy into the ditch that we are now trying to dig ourselves out 
of.
  I want to apologize to the gentleman for the Democratic leadership's 
desire to actually accomplish something, to get things done. That's 
exactly what we are trying to do here. We have done enough talking. 
There has been enough speechifying. The American people voted for 
action. They voted for change. They voted for a new direction.
  They didn't vote for more speeches. They didn't vote for more 
obstructionism. They didn't vote for more of the same of what we had 
over the last 8 years.
  On this budget, just so it's clear, we had more than 14 hours of 
markup in the Budget Committee. I was there, because I am also on the 
Budget Committee.
  We had a full debate on the House floor. Four substitute amendments 
were made in order. People had an opportunity to vote for budgets to 
the left and to the right and everything in between. So there was ample 
time for discussion. We had an open conference meeting.
  The gentleman is going to have over 24 hours to read the budget. Now, 
for someone who hasn't read the budget, he is spouting out a lot of 
facts and figures. But he is going to have over 24 hours to read what 
the conference committee produced, because we are not going to vote on 
the budget until tomorrow.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me make a couple of points here. First, as my friend began, he 
said that it was difficult for someone who was part of increasing 
deficits over the past 8 years under President Bush to stand here 
lecturing on this issue.
  Well, I have to stay, Madam Speaker, that it's very, very convoluted, 
I believe, to say that we criticized the spending that took place under 
President Bush. And I will acknowledge we could have done better, even 
though, with the exception of Defense and Homeland Security, we were 
able to bring about real dollar spending cuts in every appropriation 
bill for the last few years.
  But I will say that it's convoluted to conclude that if we want to 
criticize what took place then, we quadruple the size of the deficit 
and the national debt, which is exactly what this budget does.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time, Madam Speaker.
  I appreciate the gentleman's commentary. The fact of the matter is 
that we are in such trouble right now that in order to get out of this 
ditch, in order to get out of this terrible debt that we are in, we are 
going to have to grow our economy, which means in the short term we are 
going to have to invest in our people and invest in our country.
  That is the rationale behind the Democratic budget, behind the budget 
that President Obama has put forward. But, look, one thing is clear, 
Madam Speaker, the same old, same old is not what the people want. And 
for the last 8 years, the Republicans and President Bush have driven 
this economy into a direction that people have rejected soundly during 
this last election.

                              {time}  1515

  At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts mentioned the fact that, over the last few years, we'd 
gotten ourselves into the ditch. This shows the ditch that we're 
actually in.
  In 1993, we passed a budget that dug ourselves out of a ditch and 
created surpluses, as far as I could see. In fact, in 2001, when we 
came into session, we had a surplus sufficient to put us on track to 
paying off the entire national debt held by the public by last year. 
Instead, we had a complete collapse of the budget beginning in 2001, 
and there is no telling where this line is going to end up. It took 8 
years to get into this ditch.
  During the good years when we had fiscal responsibility, not only 
were we on the way to paying off the national debt, but we created 
record numbers of jobs. We had a median income increase of about $7,000 
per family, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average more than tripled. Now 
we have a situation where we have had the worst job performance since 
the Great Depression, where the median income is actually down when 
adjusted for inflation and where the Dow Jones Industrial Average is 
worse than it was when it started. It took us 8 years to get into this 
ditch.
  We have an urgent situation. This budget will cut the deficit in half 
in 4 years. Now, that is not the end of it. That's not enough. Cutting 
the deficit in half is not enough, but for one year's work, that is 
certainly a good step toward getting us out of a ditch that took 8 
years to get us into.
  Now we have a situation where the new budget will restore PAYGO, that

[[Page H4875]]

is, that any new program will have to be paid for. The reason we could 
get it in this kind of ditch was we passed tax cuts that we hadn't paid 
for, and we had spending that wasn't paid for. But under this budget, 
any new initiative will have to be paid for, and that's going to be 
hard. We're talking about energy initiatives. We're talking about 
health care initiatives and education initiatives that will be very 
expensive, but none of them can go into effect unless they're paid for 
with other spending cuts or with tax increases. Everything will be paid 
for. This is in stark contrast to what happened in 2001 when we didn't 
pay for anything. We went right into a ditch, and we didn't create any 
jobs.
  It is urgent that we pass this budget to get back on the track that 
we were on in 1993 when the budget created jobs, when the median income 
was up, when the economy was good, and when we were on the way to 
paying off the national debt, instead of the ditch we're in today where 
we have had, in the last 8 years, the worst job performance since the 
Great Depression and huge deficits as far as the eye can see. We're 
taking a major step in the right direction.
  So, Madam Speaker, I would hope that we would adopt the budget so we 
could get on to the job of restoring the economy and of balancing this 
budget.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I would like to congratulate my good friend from Virginia, Mr. Scott, 
for in the chart that he had before us it illustrated the fact that the 
economic downturn actually began in the last quarter of the Clinton 
administration, and that chart correctly points to that. So I 
congratulate my friend for recognizing that. It was the policies put 
into place in 2001 and in 2003 that brought about 55 months of 
uninterrupted job creation and economic growth and a dramatic increase 
in the flow of revenues because of the growth-oriented tax policies 
that we did, in fact, implement.
  I also would point to the fact, and while my friend proceeds to 
malign the Bush administration, that it's obviously very clear, too, 
that we as Republicans had the majority when we saw the economic growth 
that took place in the late 1990s.
  I'd be happy to yield to my friend Mr. Scott.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Is it not a fact that the job performance during the 8 years of the 
Bush administration was the worst since the Great Depression?
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, the answer to that is ``no.'' 
The answer to that is ``no.'' To say that job creation during President 
Bush's administration was the worst since the Great Depression, I have 
no idea where that number comes from. I do know this: We saw 55 months 
of continued job creation and economic growth because of the policies 
that were implemented in 2001 and in 2003, which were growth-oriented 
tax cuts.
  With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend 
from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to the rule that led to this 
budget proposal.
  Let me just say that, first of all, this Congress is facing some very 
grave challenges, along with the President, and I think the President 
has rightfully singled out health care, energy and education as areas 
that have to be addressed with substantive reform, but I have to say 
that I vehemently disagree with the prescribed approach. Let's look at 
a couple of points here.
  First of all, let's take energy. This energy proposal lays out a 
prescription for singling out a number of serious oil and gas tax 
increases, at the very minimum, totaling $31.5 billion. Now, this is 
going to devastate an industry, a domestic oil and gas industry--
independent companies, not the big companies like ExxonMobil and Shell 
and others that do work overseas but, rather, those independent 
companies that work in the Gulf of Mexico and that supply a major 
source of oil and gas energy for the United States and for every single 
American family.
  What does this mean for the average family? They're going to pay 
higher gas prices at the pump. They're going to pay higher costs in 
electricity. Also, we're going to see massive job loss.
  Now, we did have hearings, yes. Oh, we had hearings. I sit on the 
Ways and Means Committee. I remember Secretary Geithner coming in front 
of us. I asked him: How many jobs will this budget kill? He could not 
answer the question. I asked: Do you realize that the oil and gas 
industry employs about 1.8 million people in the United States with 
about 6 million additional jobs associated with this industry? A lot of 
these jobs are going to be killed; we're going to lose them, and they 
don't come back right away. This is at a time when our energy 
dependence on foreign oil is serious.
  What is our transition strategy as we try to get to a green economy? 
Well, it's natural gas. Well, guess what? Thirty-five percent of the 
natural gas used in this country comes from wells that were drilled 
within the last 2 years. The rig count is now down over 50 percent 
since September. Do the math. We're going to see higher gas prices.
  So I have to say, if the Secretary comes before the committee and 
offers this budget proposal but cannot answer simple questions such as 
``What is going to be the impact on unemployment across multiple 
sectors?'' that's a serious concern.
  The CBO. I asked the same questions of the Director of the CBO and 
got the same answer. They have not done the analysis. Well, I think 
that's incomplete work.
  Don't you think we need more information as to what the impact of 
this budget is going to be on unemployment and on jobs if it's 
implemented in its entirety? We're talking about good, high-paying 
jobs. I'm not talking about white-collar executive jobs. I'm talking 
about pipe fitters, electricians, painters, people who work on boats, 
across-the-board manufacturing jobs, small manufacturing companies that 
do fabrication and so forth. These are serious jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. This is a serious issue. It needs to be well-thought-
out. Throw on top of those specific tax increases that are proposed on 
the oil and gas industry this massive cap-and-trade proposal which is 
still not well-thought-out, and of course, we have more work to do on 
it, obviously.
  I have to say the American people deserve to know what this is going 
to do in terms of job loss. They really deserve to know, and they 
deserve to know what this is going to do to the cost of electricity in 
their hometowns and what it's going to do to the cost of gasoline at 
the pump and what it's going to cost in heating oil and so forth. That 
is information we ought to have.
  So, before we start proposing these types of expansions of taxes that 
are going to kill jobs, that are going to create higher unemployment 
and that are going to run up the costs, we're talking about a recipe 
for more borrowing, for more spending and higher taxes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just so that the record is clear--and this is according to The Wall 
Street Journal--as for jobs created per year in Office, George W. Bush 
was the worst since the Great Depression. Let me read them.
  Jobs Created Per Year in Office: Truman, 1.1 million; Eisenhower, 
438,000; Kennedy, 1.2 million; Lyndon Johnson, 2.3 million; Nixon, 1.7 
million; Ford, 745,000; Carter, 2.6 million; Reagan, 2 million; Bush I, 
625,000; Clinton, 2.9 million; George W. Bush, 375,000.
  This is the very conservative Wall Street Journal, hardly a paper of 
liberal ideas and thoughts.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I suspect that that was a news story and not necessarily an 
editorial. I seriously question those numbers, but I would ask my 
friend the following:
  As we look at this issue of accountability and responsibility, I 
would remind him that this economic downturn, the slowing economy that 
we've

[[Page H4876]]

witnessed, began after my friend's party won the majority. I would ask 
my friend, if I might, Madam Speaker, if he feels that accountability 
and responsibility should lie not solely with the President of the 
United States but also with the party in power here in this 
institution.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  I would say to the gentleman that I not only hold President Bush 
accountable for the last 8 years and for the disastrous economy that we 
now have, but I also hold accountable the Republican leadership in 
Congress, which voted for some of the worst economic policies that have 
literally driven this country into debt and into a ditch.
  At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Budget Committee.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from 
Massachusetts for yielding.
  First, Madam Speaker, the consistent reference to the so-called 
``cap-and-trade policy'' from the other side is not in the budget. That 
will be debated another day. It is not here.
  My friend from California talks about the number of months that there 
was job growth in the prior administration. Madam Speaker, I think most 
Americans are worried about the number of months they've been out of 
work and about the number of months until their unemployment benefits 
expire, and this budget is a part of addressing that concern.
  Shortly after taking office, this President signed an economic 
stimulus law, the benefits of which are now being seen in communities 
around the United States as construction workers go to work, as first-
time home buyers get help with their down payments, hopefully as more 
cars and trucks are sold, as people can deduct their sales tax, as 
schools are given more opportunities not to lay off teachers, lunch 
aides and other personnel.
  The President also put forth a long-term economic proposal that we're 
addressing today in this budget. It's not the number of months that 
President Bush did this or that. It's other questions about how many 
months people have been without health insurance. This budget puts us 
on a track to finally deal with that problem and to get health care 
costs under control for all Americans and to get coverage for the 47 
million who do not have it. This budget, in a very robust way, talks 
about helping to pay for college education. It will make the largest 
investment in college and technical training in the Nation's history as 
a result of what is in this budget.
  The gentleman is concerned about the process by which this is being 
done. We're concerned about the process by which it wasn't done in the 
previous 8 years.
  Now, having said that, if anyone wants to read the budget, it's on 
the Internet. Read it. If someone is concerned about the lack of 
alternatives from the minority, there were dozens of amendments when 
the committee worked on this budget. Mr. McGovern and I were part of 
that. There were two full alternatives from the minority that were 
debated on the floor a couple of weeks ago when the minority had a 
chance to set forth its views, and those views were considered.
  So we think there is a problem with the timing of these plans. We 
think the American public shouldn't have to wait 8 years for someone to 
finally address health care and education and the budget deficit, which 
is cut by two-thirds under this budget. The process is right. The plan 
is right. The right thing to do is to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I would say to my very good friend from New Jersey that it's 
interesting to listen to his argument. I've heard the President of the 
United States. I've heard the Democratic leadership--Speaker Pelosi and 
Leader Reid--and Democrats all the way across the board say that the 
Republican Party is simply the party of ``no,'' that they have no 
ideas, that they have no proposals that they come forward with. I do 
appreciate the fact that my friend has acknowledged that, in the markup 
in the Budget Committee and here on the House floor, there were both 
amendments and alternatives brought forward.
  Now, it is true that those ideas were rejected by a vote here in this 
House, but what we're debating right now is whether or not we should 
have a same-day rule which proceeds with the consideration of a measure 
that does not, in fact, give the appropriate amount of time. This 
package, this conference report, was filed at 11:37 p.m.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Of course I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Is the gentleman aware of the fact that the vote on this 
is tomorrow?
  Mr. DREIER. I do understand that the vote on this is scheduled for 
tomorrow, but right now, we are debating a same-day rule that allows 
for the consideration of this.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, the fact is that this measure 
was filed at 11:37 p.m., and we were told, up until just a short time 
ago, that we had to do this same-day rule because we were going to be 
voting on this measure today. So it was not until just the last moment 
that we found that the debate will take place throughout today and this 
evening but that the actual vote will take place tomorrow.
  So I don't know exactly what has led to this, if it's an awakening 
about the notion of some kind of fairness and about the idea of 
allowing for greater deliberation; but I've got to say, Madam Speaker, 
that this budget, which dramatically increases, as we all know, the 
size of the deficit is a budget which, I don't believe, the majority of 
the American people supported or wanted when they came forward.

                              {time}  1530

  The American people are hurting.
  I will say, Madam Speaker, that I represent the Los Angeles area part 
of San Bernardino County. We have an unemployment rate that is well 
into double digits now both in the Los Angeles area, the Inland Empire. 
People are hurting. They very much want us to take action to get the 
economy back on track.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I will yield in just a moment if I can complete my 
thought.
  There are many Democrats who I know in southern California who have 
indicated to me that when they voted for President Obama, for Barack 
Obama to become President of the United States, they had no idea that 
we would see this kind of dramatic transformation--which is something 
that he talked about--of government that is tripling, quadrupling the 
size of the government and the national debt.
  And it is not just my constituents. There are a number of very 
thoughtful people who have come forward in the past 4 weeks. They 
include the likes of Stuart Taylor who writes regularly for the 
National Journal. He describes himself as an Obama-friendly centrist, 
and what he has said is that this dramatic surge to the left--which is 
exactly what this Obama budget does which is being supported by Speaker 
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership--is really beyond the pale. And 
there are a number of other people who have been very supportive of the 
President up to this point who have demonstrated clear disappointment 
in this kind of direction.
  With that, I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.
  So my friend is acknowledging, is he not, that Members who wish to 
read the budget will have over tonight to do that before there is a 
vote tomorrow, correct?
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, the answer to 
that is no. When is it that the debate will take place on this issue?
  I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. ANDREWS. The debate is starting today and concluding tomorrow. 
The conclusion of debate will be tomorrow.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, this bill was filed at 11:37 
p.m. last night, just about midnight, and we are standing here at this 
moment debating something that I guess really isn't necessary.
  The fact is what we have done is we've thrown out standard procedure

[[Page H4877]]

for one reason and one reason only: not because the government is about 
to run out of money, not because we've got an important recess upon us, 
not because it's the end of the week, but simply because we want a 
photo opportunity for the completion of the first 100 days of this 
Presidency.
  I understand that optics are important. I recognize that. But I do 
believe that since we have begun already at this moment the debate on 
this budget conference report, merely hours--12, 13, 14 hours--after it 
was filed last night, you can say that the vote is going to take place 
tomorrow but Members who might want to have the chance to debate, 
deliberate and think about this issue are not going to have the 
allocated time to read this.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Of course I am happy to yield.
  Mr. ANDREWS. How many of the gentleman's Members from his side are 
here to deliberate and debate this right now, out of curiosity?
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, we are at this 
moment debating this convoluted, unnecessary same-day rule. We are here 
to debate whether or not we should proceed with consideration of the 
budget conference report under a totally unnecessary same-day rule.
  We have had some very thoughtful remarks by my friend from Lafayette, 
and I know if my friend would like me to send someone to the cloakroom 
to call the lode of Republicans to come over and engage in this debate, 
I know that there would be many more who would join us.
  The fact is we have begun this process prematurely. We are not being 
provided what was promised by the Speaker of the House on her opening 
day and promised by Barack Obama when he was a candidate to be 
President of the United States, and that is an adequate amount of time 
to deliberate over this process.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume.
  Let me apologize to the gentleman, again, for him getting what he 
wants. The Democratic leadership promised 24 hours for Members to be 
able to review this bill before there was a vote. They are going to get 
more than 24 hours. Let me also point out to the gentleman when he 
talks about this kind of unpopularity of President Barack Obama's ideas 
and his budget, maybe he hasn't seen the recent polls. By a 56 percent 
to 32 percent margin, Americans believe that the Obama budget sets the 
right priorities.
  I think what is difficult for the gentleman to accept and members of 
his party is that the people have spoken. The people have had it with 
Bush economics. They've had it with the Republican priorities of the 
last 8 years. They want a change. This budget represents a change, and 
they are going to get it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes at this time to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report for 
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010. The 
previous administration left us with a tremendous challenge to overcome 
the largest budget deficit ever, the highest unemployment rate in 25 
years, housing values in freefall, consumer confidence at record lows. 
This budget encapsulates a bold vision for making crucial investments 
in righting our economy and helping our working families.
  I am pleased that, at my request, the budget reflects an investment 
in our Federal workforce, including parity between civilian and 
military Federal employees. Pay parity ensures equitable treatment for 
all Federal employees.
  I applaud the conference report's increase in the level of funding 
for international affairs, Madam Speaker. Defense Secretary Robert 
Gates said in July, under the Bush administration, ``It has become 
clear that America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development 
have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long.'' 
Secretary Gates understands, and understood then, the value of 
diplomacy as a national security tool and we would be well served to 
support that critical investment. I am delighted the conference report 
has added back funds for the 150 Function.
  This budget is transformative and provides for the critical 
investments in America that have been neglected for too long. Deficit 
reduction, middle-income tax relief, health care reform, education and 
energy independence are the linchpins of this budget.
  With this budget, we will cut in half the current deficit of more 
than $1 trillion, most of it inherited from President Bush. It would 
further reduce that deficit by 2014 by two-thirds. This budget reduces 
non-defense discretionary spending over the next 10 years to its lowest 
level as a percentage of the gross domestic product in almost a half a 
century.
  This budget supports the middle class by expanding the child tax 
credit, maintaining the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, 
carrying forward the Making Work Pay tax credit, maintaining the estate 
tax and capital gains tax reductions and ensuring that the alternative 
minimum tax does not hit the millions of working Americans in danger 
otherwise of being affected.
  This budget supports meaningful health care reform. During the last 8 
years, the number of Americans without health insurance increased from 
13.7 percent to 15.3 percent of the population at the same time health 
care costs were skyrocketing. Under this budget, Madam Speaker, we will 
be able to offer health care to the 46 million Americans currently 
without insurance.
  This budget invests in energy independence and promotes a clean 
energy economy creating jobs. Increasing our investment in energy 
efficiency and renewable energy technologies will promote America's 
energy independence and safeguard our environment.
  In recognition of the critical role that education plays in our 
economic productivity, this budget also builds upon the classroom 
support provided in the Recovery Act. From enhancing Head Start and 
other early childhood learning opportunities to making college more 
affordable through Pell Grants, this budget will prepare our children 
to become productive, contributing members of the global economy.
  This budget is the product of the hard work of Chairman Spratt, 
Chairman Conrad in the other body, and the budget conferees; and it 
carries forward the bold investments in America that President Obama 
has promised this country.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I am glad my friend from New Jersey has remained here on the floor.
  First of all, I have just got to say that on this notion that we 
somehow are doing this in a very fair way, my time travel skills have 
become a little rusty of late, and I will say that the bill was filed 
at 11:37 last night, and a number of us are just starting to read it, 
the conference report, that is. I don't know whether we're going to 
have the vote today or tomorrow, but the fact is we are debating it 
today. So Members should have an opportunity to do that.
  Now my friend began his remarks in the well by saying that this 
conference report has no mention whatsoever of the issue of cap-and-
trade.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Of course I am happy to yield.
  Mr. ANDREWS. That is not what I said. I said that the conference 
report does not enact cap-and-trade.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, I will say 
that during the debate that we had on the budget process, we regularly 
had Members say that there was no mention of this whatsoever. I know. I 
managed the rule when we had the first budget. I am just saying that a 
number of Members did, in fact, on the other side of the aisle make 
that very clear during debate.
  What I would like to do is commend to my colleagues sections 302 and 
323 of this conference report, both of which make mention of that.
  I would like to yield 30 seconds to the hardworking member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany).

[[Page H4878]]

  Mr. BOUSTANY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I think it's important to recognize that this budget proposes to 
enact cap-and-trade legislation. It's one of the assumptions in the 
budget.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned that the American people 
have spoken about this, but I want to remind him that, again, there are 
a lot of unanswered questions about the inherent proposals in the 
budget, such as the impact on unemployment based on some of the 
assumptions in this budget.
  I've got data from the oil and gas industry that shows pretty 
devastating results across the board on the gulf coast and in 
manufacturing in other States around the country as a result of the 
assumptions in this budget.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend.
  Madam Chair, let me just say that as interesting as we regularly have 
the finger of blame pointed at Bush, what President Obama has inherited 
came from President George W. Bush and, Madam Speaker, as you know very 
well, a Democratic majority here in the House of Representatives.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I would say to my friend from California that the Democratic majority 
with a Democratic President will demonstrate to the gentleman what we 
believe in and will enact it.
  With respect to the issue of cap-and-trade, the two sections that are 
referenced in the budget conference report say this: If the Congress 
enacts cap-and-trade legislation, then the budget numbers will be 
adjusted to reflect that being enacted. If this conference report 
passes, there will be no limit on carbon enacted. There will be no 
revenues raised to enforce that limit. It simply says that if the 
Congress in subsequent consideration does that, then, in fact, the 
budget would be adjusted.
  The minority has consistently frankly used a number of tax increase 
per household that the authors of the study on which they rely have 
said was a misrepresentation.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me inquire of the Chair how much time 
is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, for too many years, 
administrations of Congress honored our veterans with speeches on 
Veterans Day, yet dishonored them with inadequate budgets every other 
day. Then 2 years ago, when the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Pelosi, became Speaker of the House, she promised it would be a new day 
for America's veterans. Speaker Pelosi has kept her promise to those 
who have kept their promise to serve our Nation in uniform.
  The results are historic and unprecedented. In just 2 years, the 
Democratic Congress has increased veterans' health care and benefits 
funding by over $17 billion. That is a larger increase than the 
Republican-controlled House passed cumulatively over 12 years. This 
Democratic funding increase for veterans means better quality health 
care for 5.8 million veterans and shorter waiting times for doctor 
appointments and earned benefits for combat wounded veterans. It means 
more extensive mental health care services for veterans suffering from 
PTSD.

                              {time}  1545

  Then, candidate Obama last year said he would, if elected President, 
keep our Nation's sacred trust with our veterans. President Obama 
fulfilled that promise when earlier this year he asked for a larger 
increase in the VA budget than any President in American history.
  This budget resolution on the floor of the House right now reflects 
the President's priority for honoring our veterans. It increases VA 
discretionary spending for veterans' health care and benefits by $5.6 
billion in fiscal year 2010, and by $27 billion over the next 5 years. 
And at the President's request, it allows forward funding for the VA 
health care system, the highest of priorities for our veteran service 
organizations.
  Listen to what respected veterans' organizations have said about this 
budget resolution. The American Legion said--
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. No. I would rather quote the American Legion.
  The American Legion said ``it applauds the Conference Committee.'' It 
goes on to say, ``This funding will help cover the ongoing cost of war 
to care for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and 
their families.''
  The Veterans of Foreign Wars said this, in a letter to Chairmen 
Spratt and Conrad, ``The VFW salutes your strong leadership in quickly 
coming to an agreement, especially one that makes so many meaningful 
and valuable improvements to the Department of Veterans Affairs. We 
strongly encourage all in Congress to follow your lead and adopt this 
conference report.'' Those are the words of the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars.
  They went on to say, ``An advanced appropriation for veterans' 
medical care is among the VFW's highest priorities, and we sincerely 
appreciate that you brought this excellent proposal forward.'' That is 
the proposal that we will vote yes or no on in this House.
  The Disabled American Veterans said this spending blueprint ``is good 
news for our Nation's veterans. Not only does it provide a record 
increase for the Department of Veterans Affairs, this resolution clears 
the way for much-needed legislation to ensure sufficient, timely, and 
predictable funding for veterans' health care.'' Those are the words of 
the DAV.
  By significantly increasing funding for the VA and by allowing for 
the first time advanced appropriations for VA medical care, this 
resolution meets the highest priorities of America's heroes, our 
veterans.
  A vote for this budget resolution is a vote to honor and respect 
America's veterans. They deserve that vote. They have earned that vote 
with their service and their sacrifice.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, my friend refused to yield 
to the gentleman from Lafayette, who wanted to engage in debate, which 
is what this is all about, so I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend 
from Lafayette.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman.
  I think it is a mischaracterization to say that we cut veteran 
spending. We actually raised veteran spending each year we were in the 
majority. But I want to point out something else, and that is----
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. No, I am not going to yield to the gentleman. I want to 
complete a thought.
  The gentleman was standing here at the podium saying that we are 
going to spend this and we are going to spend that on veterans; but at 
the same time, my friend from New Jersey was earlier saying that this 
is a budget proposal that doesn't enact anything. So I think we are 
seeing a double standard being discussed over here.
  We all recognize this is a proposal, it is a political document, but 
I have to say that we oppose it because it proposes to borrow too much, 
it proposes to spend too much, and it proposes to tax too much.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, first let me say to the 
gentleman, if he had listened to my words, he would have heard I didn't 
accuse the Republicans of cutting the VA budget. I did accuse them--
rightfully so, and the veterans organizations would agree with me--of 
underfunding VA health care and benefit needs during the 12 years. You 
had the ability to increase the VA budget to adequate levels, and you 
never did it. And the fact is that this budget resolution authorizes an 
historic increase in VA health care and benefit spending. If the 
gentleman disagrees with that increase, then he certainly has a right 
to vote ``no.'' For

[[Page H4879]]

me, I am going to stand on the side of the DAV, the American Legion, 
and the VFW, who strongly support this budget resolution and its 
support of America's veterans.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. We 
are standing here today doing something that is absolutely unnecessary. 
As I said in my opening remarks, why would we throw the rules out the 
window and have consideration of what is on occasion needed to rush 
through legislation, a same-day rule?
  The notion of a same-day rule undermines what was promised by 
candidate Obama, by Speaker Pelosi, and others in the Democratic 
leadership, and that is, that we would have a higher degree of 
deliberation. This conference report was, as I said, filed at 11:37 
p.m. last night, some 15, 16 hours ago.
  We are in the midst of beginning the debate, and we are going to 
proceed to debate this. And now we have heard, in the last hour or so, 
that a decision was made that we will vote tomorrow, and that somehow 
will allow this to look as if it's fair. Well, again, Madam Speaker, we 
are in the midst of debating a document which Members have not had an 
adequate enough time to see.
  Now, that aside, it is clear that the American people are hurting. I 
mentioned the fact that I just got back last night from Los Angeles. We 
have serious problems in our city, in our county, and in the State of 
California. We have serious problems all across this country. People 
are losing their homes, people are losing their jobs.
  And what we hear from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
is the finger of blame is pointed at George W. Bush, in large part 
because of deficit spending. And now, what was, as I said, inherited by 
President Obama from President Bush, yes--and a Congress that has been 
controlled by Democrats for the last 2 years--they have inherited an 
economy which is facing serious problems, an economy that is clearly in 
recession. Madam Speaker, the solution is to do what economists across 
the board, Democrats and Republicans, not Republican political 
operatives, but many Democratic economists have said is not the right 
solution.
  My friend from St. Louis, Mr. Akin, has come to quote the Treasury 
Secretary under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Henry Morgenthau, who, in 
testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, said, ``We've 
tried spending money. We've spent more money than we've ever spent 
before. Now, after 8 years of this Roosevelt administration, we have an 
unemployment rate that is just as high as when we started and an 
enormous debt to boot.''
  We know what the economic answer is to the challenges that we have. 
And I have regularly talked about it here, Madam Speaker, and that is, 
we need to take what has been promised by our friends on the other side 
of the aisle, but is totally ignored on a regular basis, and that is a 
bipartisan approach. And when I say a bipartisan approach, I believe we 
should take the ideas that were put forth by President John F. Kennedy 
in the early 1960s and Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, and what we 
need to do, Madam Speaker, is we need to have a growth-oriented tax 
rate reduction that will stimulate the economy and generate the kind of 
revenue flow that is needed.
  We need to pursue market opening opportunities for us around the 
world rather than sticking our head in the sand and ignoring things 
like the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and the South Korea Free Trade 
Agreement. That would go a long way towards creating jobs, good jobs 
right here in the United States of America if we can again pry open 
those markets. Those are the kinds of things we should be doing. And 
all we are getting, Madam Speaker, is a package that dramatically 
increases the size of the annual deficit and the national debt.
  Madam Speaker, in this budget, the deficit alone for the next year is 
larger than the entire budget was a mere 10 years ago.
  So Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to work hard to get the 
economy back on track. The best way that we can do that is to reject 
this same-day rule and reject this conference report and get back to 
the table with something that will get our economy back on track.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me first begin by saying something 
about the process. The Democratic leadership promised that Members 
would have 24 hours to review the budget before it was voted on. There 
will be more than 24 hours to view this budget.
  This budget has gone through a long process. We had more than 14 
hours of markup in the Budget Committee. I've lost count of how many 
amendments were offered. Again, there were four substitutes that were 
made in order and debated and voted on this floor. We had an open 
conference committee meeting that produced this final product. We are 
going to have over 24 hours to review it.
  So I guess if people want to complain for the sake of complaining, 
there is not much we can do on this side to deal with that. But the 
fact of the matter is this has been a fair process and this has been a 
good process. I want to commend Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan 
and the staffs, both Democratic and Republican staffs, for their 
incredible work, their tireless work on this budget.
  I am proud of the budget we are going to vote on. This is a budget 
with a conscience for a change. This is something that our constituents 
from the east coast to the west coast, I think, are going to find 
things in here that they can cheer about.
  This is a budget that creates jobs with targeted investments in 
affordable health care, clean energy, and education. It cuts taxes for 
middle-income families by more than $1.7 trillion over 10 years. It 
cuts the deficit by nearly two-thirds in 4 years. And it cuts 
nondefense discretionary spending as a percent of the economy.
  We are going to deal with health care. For years, ever since I came 
to Congress--I got elected in 1996--the number one issue that every 
poll shows that Americans want us to deal with is health care. We are 
going to be able to deal with it, I believe, this year. We are going to 
deal with college affordability so that everybody who wants to get a 
college education can get one, and nobody is denied a college education 
because they can't afford to get one.
  We are going to deal with the issue of clean energy. We are going to 
actually begin to invest in renewable, clean, alternative sources of 
energy so we are not reliant solely on the oil industry or on foreign 
imports for our energy. So there is a lot in this budget I think that 
we all can be very proud of.
  You are going to have 24 hours to review the budget. Even if you had 
124 hours, my guess is that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
would be against this budget. They have been against virtually 
everything this new President has proposed. I think their kind of 
rationale there, their philosophy for regaining political power is to 
deny this new President any victory, any accomplishment.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am not going to yield at this time. I didn't 
interrupt you during your closing statement.
  The fact of the matter is that people are tired of a party that says 
``no'' to everything. That was demonstrated loud and clear in the last 
election. We need to move in a new direction.
  I think what the American people are hearing, quite frankly, is they 
are hearing that help is on the way. That is why 56 percent of the 
Americans polled agree with the priorities in this budget. They are 
hearing that help is on the way for all Americans, not just the wealthy 
few, the wealthy few who have benefited greatly over the last 8 years.
  Things are different. Change is happening here in Washington, and I 
am proud to be part of this process.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and 
on the rule.
  Madam 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.

[[Page H4880]]

  Mr. DREIER. Madam 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.

                          ____________________