[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 3038]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 78 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 78

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of Wednesday, March 7, 2001, for the Speaker 
     to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     relating to the following measures:
       (1) The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 31) expressing 
     the sense of the Congress regarding the importance of organ, 
     tissue, bone marrow, and blood donation and supporting 
     National Donor Day;
       (2) The bill (H.R. 624) to amend the Public Health Service 
     Act to promote organ donation; and
       (3) The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 47) honoring 
     the 21 members of the National Guard who were killed in the 
     crash of a National Guard aircraft on March 3, 2001, in 
     south-central Georgia.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and passed this resolution, 
providing that it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day 
of Wednesday, March 7, for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend 
the rules relating to the following measures: The concurrent 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 31, expressing the sense of Congress regarding 
the importance of organ, tissue, bone marrow and blood donations and 
supporting National Donor Day; the bill, H.R. 624, to amend the Public 
Health Service Act to promote organ donation; and the concurrent 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 47, honoring the 21 members of the National 
Guard who were killed in the crash of a National Guard aircraft on 
March 3, 2001 in south-central Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution allows us to consider three important 
bills today under the expedited suspension procedure.
  I must stress we have had several days to examine these bills, and 
they have been on the floor schedule for some time and they are 
noncontroversial. They are also important pieces of legislation.
  We recently celebrated National Donor Day to encourage people to 
become organ donors. Today we will pass legislation to promote National 
Donor Day and help States organize their organ donor programs.
  We will also honor, unfortunately, 21 members of the National Guard 
who died last week in the line of duty.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule and urge my colleagues to 
do the same. By passing this rule, we will improve organ donation 
programs and hopefully save some more lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats have no objection to this rule, which will 
allow the consideration of three bills under suspension today. Those 
bills include a concurrent resolution honoring the 21 members of the 
Virginia National Guard who were killed in a plane crash on March 3. I 
know firsthand how important the National Guard is to our national 
defense, and the tragic and untimely death of these fine Americans is 
tribute to the dedication and selfless service so many Americans make 
each year through their service in the National Guard.
  The rule also permits the consideration of measures designed to 
promote organ donation, something Democrats on the Committee on Rules 
know about through the brave testimony of our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
  However, Mr. Speaker, I must take a moment to express our grave 
concerns about what may happen in the Committee on Rules some time 
later today. I am referring to the rule the Committee on Rules may 
report on the tax bill and how whether the majority will deny Democrats 
of all stripes the opportunity to offer alternatives to the Republican 
tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we must object in the strongest possible terms to any 
plans the majority may have to cut off the ability of Members to offer 
one or more substitutes to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, not only are we going to consider a tax bill of huge 
proportion and consequences without the ability to offer alternatives, 
we are going to consider it without the benefit of having debated a 
budget which would place this tax cut in context with the other matters 
this government funds.
  We are going to consider a tax cut without fully understanding what 
its implications are on the rest of the Federal budget. So not only 
have we not received a budget from the new President, we have no 
congressional guidelines in place to help the Members of this body 
determine which priorities are more important.
  Is it cutting taxes a lot, some or not at all? Is it paying down the 
national debt, which, I remind my colleagues, is a debt that is 
collectively owed by all the people of our great Nation?
  Is it funding education, improving our schools, reducing class size 
or funding new teachers? Is it providing a real Medicare prescription 
drug benefit for our seniors, shoring up Social Security and Medicare 
or improving our national defense forces? No one knows the answer to 
those questions, Mr. Speaker.
  Democrats in this House are very concerned that the Republican 
majority seems to not be concerned in the least that we are blindly 
proceeding down a path we have been on once before.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleagues, most of whom were not 
Members when we last considered a tax cut of these proportions, of the 
old adage, the definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and 
expecting different results. There are many of us here who fear we will 
see the same results as we saw after the passage of the 1981 tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, but Democrats on the Committee on 
Rules and in the Caucus at large want to go on notice right now that we 
believe it is imperative, if we are not to proceed in regular order in 
this body, that our Members be given a chance to be heard. All this 
talk of bipartisanship is meaningless, Mr. Speaker, if there are no 
actions behind the words.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that this rule is 
not about a tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. 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 resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________