[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9270-9276]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


 WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO SAME 
 DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON 
                                 RULES

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 190 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 190

       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 10, 2003, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of a conference report to 
     accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) 
     establishing the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 2004 and setting forth appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 190 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Committee on Rules against certain resolutions 
reported from the Committee on Rules. The waiver authorized by this 
resolution applies to any special rule reported on the legislative day 
of April 10, 2003, providing for the consideration of or disposition of 
a conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution, H. Con. 
Res. 95, establishing the congressional budget for the United States 
Government for fiscal year 2004, and setting forth appropriate 
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013.
  Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleagues that adoption of this 
resolution is made necessary because the work of the conferees on the 
budget resolution has taken longer than anticipated. Fortunately, 
however, the conference has now completed its work, and it is 
imperative that the House consider the proposed conference report on 
the budget before beginning its April district work period.
  So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 
190.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. I thank the 
gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this undemocratic rule that 
will impose martial law on this House. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this 
assault on regular order is appalling. The conference report was filed 
only a couple of hours ago, and here it is, hundreds of pages. Just a 
few minutes ago, the Committee on Rules met and reported the conference 
report to the floor.
  I would only ask, have Members had the opportunity to read or review 
this conference report? Were Members briefed on the details of this 
conference report? How about an outline? Have they read the summary? 
The answer, sadly, is no.
  I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, this is not 
the renaming of a post office we are working on tonight. This is not a 
Sense of Congress resolution commending a football team. This is the 
budget of the United States. This is a big deal, and we owe it to the 
American people to treat it that way.
  I know there are even Members on the other side of the aisle who have 
grave concerns about hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for 
the wealthy during a time of war, recession, and deficits. These are 
important issues, and they deserve to be debated fully.
  For anyone who may have questions about what exactly is going on 
here, let me try to explain.
  The majority has brought a rule before the House that forces Members 
to consider the conference report on the budget resolution on the same 
day as the report is filed. In other words, if this unfair rule is 
approved, Members will be voting on the conference report without 
having any chance to read and study the language.

                              {time}  2300

  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle will undoubtedly say, 
``This is basically the same budget we debated and voted on a few weeks 
ago. Trust us, you do not need to see all the details,'' they will tell 
us. I would only say to them that over the past few years I have seen 
too many bills rewritten behind closed doors, too many important issues 
decided by a handful of Members and their staffs, to take comfort in 
their assurances.
  The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 mandates that a budget 
resolution be in place by April 15. Today is April 10. I would be 
delighted if someone could please tell me, what is the rush to complete 
the conference report tonight. We will be here in session tomorrow 
trying to finish the energy bill, as well as considering the conference 
report for the supplemental appropriations bill.
  Why can we not wait at least 1 day before we consider this bill?
  I would be more than happy to work through the weekend if necessary 
on a matter that is so important to our country's future. Even the 
distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Budget conceded during the 
Committee on Rules meeting just a few minutes ago that this process was 
indefensible.
  Mr. Speaker, I fear that the leadership just wants to get this over 
with, to shove this mess through the House as quickly as possible 
before anyone has a chance to really study it.
  If the majority has nothing to hide, then I urge every Member to 
oppose this rule. Let this House and the people we represent read the 
budget conference report. Let us study and understand it. Let us 
fulfill our responsibilities as Members of Congress. Let us do the job 
we were elected to do.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this undemocratic rule. I would 
say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, out of respect for 
this House, both Democrats and Republicans, and out of respect for the 
American people, vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a conference report, but 
everyone should understand there has been no conference in which the 
House or Senate Democrats have had any role or any part whatsoever.
  This conference report comes to the floor in the same spirit, under a 
cram-down rule. Take it or leave it, here it is, a conference report 
that will spend $2.2 trillion, one-fifth of our gross national product, 
which we have had less than 30 minutes to look over, 30 minutes to give 
the most cursory sort of examination to.
  The rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, prohibit such unseemly haste 
when things are this important. The rules of the House require that a 
budget report of this kind lay over for at least 1 day before being 
called up. But our Republican colleagues, by this martial law rule, 
would take a chain saw to the rules of the House.
  That is why this is called a martial law rule, it brooks no dissent. 
It mows right over the speed brakes we have set up to make sure that 
our decisions made here in the great House of Representatives of the 
United States are made carefully and deliberately and thoughtfully. 
This rule rips up those cautionary measures, those speed brakes, so 
that this budget resolution can be railroaded through this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I choose my words carefully. That is what is happening 
here

[[Page 9271]]

tonight in the cloak of darkness when this $2.2 trillion budget 
resolution is being brought up. This resolution shows a disdain, indeed 
a contempt, for the process of deliberative government which we are all 
sworn to defend. It says, essentially, the majority has made up its 
mind; the minority should get out of the way.
  There is a reason for this unseemly haste. It is not that we are 
about to go on the Easter vacation and do not have enough time to get 
it done tomorrow. No, that is not the reason we are pushing this thing, 
railroading this budget through the House.
  The real reason is that it will not bear scrutiny. Republicans do not 
want a lengthy debate because it would reveal that this budget will 
raise the national debt by $5 trillion, more than $5 trillion over the 
next 10 years. That is right, this budget will raise the national debt 
from $6 trillion to $11 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Everybody who votes for it should understand that this budget entails 
deficits of that size, debt accumulation of that amount. It raises the 
national debt of the United States from just over $5 trillion to over 
$11 trillion over the next 10 years. Those are the plain consequences 
of it. That is the arithmetic of this budget resolution. There is no 
way around it. That is why it is being railroaded through here.
  There is another reason, I think, that our colleagues on the other 
side do not want this budget debated. This budget is their economic 
policy. Their economic policy will not stand scrutiny. The economy is 
sagging, the number of jobs is decreasing, and rather than propose a 
budget that deals with these problems, they are bending the rules, they 
are distorting the process, they are doing whatever it takes to pass 
another round of tax cuts almost as large as the last round, which will 
go primarily to the wealthy and will drive deficits out of sight.
  The objective is obvious: it is to pass this budget as quickly as 
possible and cut off debate before people realize the contents and, 
even worse, the consequences.
  When they adopt a rule like this, Mr. Speaker, they diminish the 
minority and the role we play as the loyal minority, adversaries, 
ferreting out problems, thoughtfully going through major decisions like 
this. They diminish our role.
  When they diminish my role and my colleagues' role, they do not 
diminish us or our party, but they diminish this great institution 
called the House of Representatives. They take that well, which should 
be a forum for ideas, a crucible where we grind out great policies for 
the good of this country, and they stifle debate, they cut off debate, 
they truncate debate.
  When they do that, they do not just cut us off, they stifle this 
institution, this great institution. They violate the Constitution of 
the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution should be defeated by every thoughtful, 
respectful Member who respects the prerogatives of this House. We 
should not be taking this matter up in such haste and we should not be 
taking it up without an opportunity to see it. We should not be rushing 
this through, railroading it through to passage. This is the wrong way 
to deal with a matter of such gravity, a budget that will spend $2.2 
trillion.
  Some would say, spend it in such a fashion and provide for tax cuts 
that will leave us with deficits that are almost intractable for the 
foreseeable future, well into the future, and will accumulate nearly $6 
trillion of debt over the next 10 years.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, just about an hour before the 
Committee on Rules meeting, the Democratic side got one copy of the 
budget, so it is impossible to coherently discuss the budget. That is 
why this process is unfair.
  Let us discuss the best way we can where we are and where we are 
going. This chart shows the deficit over the years showing Johnson, 
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan. We went into a surplus under Clinton, and 
in 1 year under the Bush administration we are back into serious 
deficits. This does not include the war, so if Members actually wrote 
the amended numbers, it would be off the chart.
  Let us see how we got in that mess. That is because we passed all 
these tax cuts. Who got them? The bottom 20 percent, 20 percent, the 
top 20 percent got the lion's share of the tax cuts. They call it a 
growth package. Give me a break. Private sector jobs created since 
World War II, we go over, administration by administration, the worst 
job creation since World War II, the worst economic growth in an 
administration, the worst economic growth since World War II. Do not 
tell me this is a growth package.
  This has implications, because when we run up all that debt, we have 
to pay interest on the national debt. We are paying about $4,500 a year 
for a family of four's proportionate share, $4,500 interest on the 
national debt. That is going to go, under this budget, up to $8,500 
each and every year, interest on the national debt. So every time they 
cut another tax they have to pay interest, and this number is going up.
  They are also cutting spending. Education, up about 12 percent every 
year, the last 5 years. They are cutting education. They say it is 
waste, fraud and abuse. We are budgeting. We have to have a line item. 
We are cutting, in this budget, school lunches, school lunches, student 
loans. They are cutting the line item that says school lunches, student 
loans, veterans' benefits. They are cutting those line items in the 
budget.
  The fact of the matter is that this is an irresponsible budget. This 
is caused by the tax cuts, and this is a bad process. It is a bad 
budget.
  This rule, which requires us to take this budget up tonight in the 
middle of the night, after virtually no notice, we have gotten the 
budget here in the middle of the night, it is an impossible process.
  I would hope that Members would defeat this resolution and take the 
bill up tomorrow, where we can discuss it and point out even more 
problems with the budget.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask, does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) have any speakers who want to defend this indefensible rule?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I think this is a very fair rule because, as I pointed out right from 
the start, we have to comply with the law which says we have to have a 
resolution passed by both bodies by April 15.
  We all know that the Easter break we have is always a week before and 
a week after Easter. I congratulate the conferees on both the House and 
Senate for getting a budget done this year.
  I would remind the gentleman, if he recalls, last year we did not 
have a budget. We did have a budget in the House, we did not have a 
budget in the Senate. As a result, we had a very difficult time putting 
the appropriation bills together. So I think that the conferees have 
done an excellent job.
  This rule simply provides for consideration of the budget today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I take the gentleman's comments to mean that he does not 
have any other speakers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel), a member of the committee.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said: Facts are stubborn 
things. Since the economic management in the last 2 years, 2\1/2\ 
million Americans have lost their jobs; 5 million Americans are without 
health care who had health care before; $1 trillion worth of corporate 
assets, small and large, have been foreclosed on; and 2 million 
Americans have walked out of the middle class to poverty. Those are the 
facts of the economic performance of the Republican administration and 
the Republican Congress.
  Tomorrow, we are going to be asked to vote for reconstruction for 
Iraq. They will be provided funds for 20,000 units of housing in Iraq. 
Yet in this

[[Page 9272]]

budget, in this economic plan for America's, there are only enough 
dollars for 5,000 units of housing.
  There will be 13 million Iraqis who will get universal health care in 
tomorrow's vote. In this, not a single dollar for the working uninsured 
in America. Twenty-five thousand schools in Iraq will be rebuilt; not a 
single dollar to modernize a single American school will be provided 
for in this budget.
  There are 12,500 schools in Iraq that will get basic books and 
supplies. In this budget, we are asking teachers to take it out of 
their wages here in America. Four million Iraqi children will be given 
early childhood education; yet this budget, this economic plan, calls 
for 28,000 children to be cut from Head Start.
  There will be 3,000 roads paved, enough to reach from New York to 
California, in the budget for Iraq. This budget cuts $6 billion from 
America's infrastructure.
  A port in Iraq, the only deep port, will be rebuilt from beginning to 
end; yet this budget cuts 10 percent from our Corps of Engineers. 
Reconstruction for Iraq, rebuilding Iraq, we are asking our troops to 
come home to a diminished American dream, a smaller American dream.
  We are providing for Iraq an economic plan that envisions a future. 
The future envisioned here in America is one with less education, one 
with less health care, one with less infrastructure, one with a less 
promising future.
  When the fog of war is lifted, the facts on the ground will be 2\1/2\ 
million Americans without work, 5 million Americans without health 
care, $1 trillion worth of foreclosed corporate assets, and 2 million 
more Americans who walked out of the middle class into poverty. Those 
are the facts of this economic performance and economic mismanagement.
  We can do better. Our troops expect more. They are coming home to a 
smaller American dream, a diminished American future. We are talking 
about reconstruction for Iraq, yet this deconstructs America's future. 
We can do better.
  This budget, this economic plan, has resulted in a diminished future 
for our children; yet, we are asking our people to finance a bigger, 
stronger, and a fairer future for Iraq.
  There should not be that disconnect between Iraq's future and the one 
here in America.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I wish to ask the gentleman from Washington if he might respond. I 
want to ask the gentleman a question regarding this resolution.
  As I understand it, this is the martial rule, and this is necessary 
in order to bring up the budget resolution that just came out of the 
Committee on Rules.
  I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is a rule to allow for 
same-day consideration of the budget resolution when the conferees 
finish their conference, which they did today. There is a layover of 
time from the time the conference was done until they reported it in 
the House, so we complied with the House rules.
  Mr. STENHOLM. That is the point I want to clarify, following House 
rules.

                              {time}  2315

  Does this resolution follow rule 26 by increasing the debt ceiling 
every year for the next 10 years?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. My understanding of the provision in the 
rules of the House means that an adoption of this budget this year will 
raise the debt ceiling, which, of course, we are running deficits 
because of the war effort and the downturn of the economy for this 
year.
  Mr. STENHOLM. But not for 10 years?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. No. However, if our rules continue to 
have the provision that allows a budget vote to raise the debt, then we 
will take this up next year. But my understanding is this is for this 
year.
  Mr. STENHOLM. So we are not exactly following House rules. Let me ask 
then, is it true that this resolution that will follow this same-day 
rule that will follow the other rule will increase our national debt by 
approximately $900 billion in the next 12 months?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is correct.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Nine hundred billion.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I believe the correct number is $984 billion 
over the next 12 months. And under rule 27, if it applied, the debt 
increase would go up every year, staircase for the next 10 years, and 
the public debt subject to statutory limitation would increase from 
just over $5 billion to a bit over $11 trillion in 10 years, if the 
fiscal policies implemented by this rule are actually passed and 
carried out.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I see several Members on the floor, 
including the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  I think it is very critical for all Members to understand, when you 
vote for this rule you are setting in motion the passage of a budget 
that no one on this side of the aisle has read and I doubt very many on 
that side has read, and we are going to borrow 984 billion additional 
dollars. That is on top of $450 billion we have borrowed since we 
increased the debt ceiling 8 months ago. That is $1.430 trillion.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I arrived in this body in 1979. In 1981 I watched 
our debt ceiling for our country increase through the $1 trillion mark. 
We are about to borrow and spend $1.400 trillion more than we have got, 
and we are going to do that within a period of 1 year following the 
economic game plan that we cannot get a majority on this side of the 
aisle to say is not working.
  Now, I respect the right of the majority, and I respect all of my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle that for whatever reason find it 
impossible to change a plan that was put into effect last year. But I 
honestly do not understand when so many of you privately are concerned 
about this but publicly feel like, at 11:20 at night, you have got to 
have a martial rule, jam it through, pass it, which is every right of 
the majority to do; but when you do, you are going to be voting to 
increase the debt ceiling by $1.400 trillion in less than a year's 
time.
  Now, that used to bother folks on this side of the aisle and I used 
to vote with you. In fact, I have done it more times than I have the 
other way. But what has happened to you? Why is it tonight that you are 
not worried about borrowing and spending $1.400 trillion in a 1-year 
period of time? September 11, 2001. Changed a lot of things. It should 
change the economic game plan that we are under; but if you are bound 
and determined to do it, be my guest. But no one walk out of here 
tomorrow and complain that we could not do better. We could do better.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. We are here tonight to consider one 
of the most important resolutions that we will take up this year in 
Congress, the budget. This is the blueprint for everything we do. And 
we do not even get a chance to read it before we vote on it.
  As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I have spent a lot of 
time addressing the concerns on this budget, and we spent an entire day 
from early morning until early the next morning on the budget process 
looking at amendments. We knew what we were voting on. We had a chance 
to debate it. Yet, tonight when we are voting on final passage of the 
budget of the United States, members of the Committee on the Budget and 
Members of the House have not had a chance to see the product they are 
voting on. This process is wrong.

[[Page 9273]]

  Members deserve a chance to review this document before voting on it. 
If leadership is determined to consider this resolution before the 
approaching recess, that is fine. Give us a day, give us a half a day, 
give us some time to see what is in this budget. I have a 
responsibility to my constituents just like everyone does to consider 
measures carefully, to know what is in that measure before we vote on 
it. Yet, I cannot thoughtfully consider this legislation because I have 
not had a chance to review it.
  This is an awful process. I urge my colleagues to defeat the martial 
law rule so we can have adequate time to review this budget.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 28 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate of 
my good friend from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), when he inquired why we were 
dealing under the martial law rules, why we could not have an extended 
period of time for debate to reasonably address this in front of the 
American people, the good news is that my constituents are still up 
because we are an hour behind Eastern standard time. Maybe they will be 
able to make some sense out of this debate calling for martial law. 
Maybe they will understand that the reason why we are rushing is 
because there is some need to announce a big tax cut before April 15.
  Let me tell you what Americans want. They do not want a tax cut. They 
want mutual sacrifice. While the young men and women are on the front 
lines sacrificing, we are presenting to them a Nation of deficits. We 
have got a reconciled tax cut of $550 billion, an unreconciled of $675 
billion, making the total $1.225 trillion. We are spending billions of 
dollars for reconstruction of Iraq by ourselves with nobody else 
helping us. We are building thousands of schools in Iraq. We are taking 
thousands of American children off of Head Start. We are, in fact, 
losing 2.6 million private sector jobs. We have got so many people 
unemployed for 6 months that they are not even on the unemployment list 
and 4.6 trillion in loss in stock market wealth.
  Where is the mutual sacrifice that this Nation is used to 
participating in in time of war? How can my friends in good conscience 
shackle us with $1.225 trillion in tax cuts and provide us with a 2.6 
or $2 trillion deficit over a 10-year period when we just had a $5.6 
trillion surplus just about 2 years ago?
  I will tell you how they can do it. By passing this martial law in 
the dark of night, believing no one will see it, and then being able to 
announce around April 15 that you are going to get a tax cut.
  I can tell you that my constituents and most Americans want 
investment in American jobs, want children to have Head Start, want the 
children's health insurance program to still be active, want to restore 
wealth to the stock market, and want to make sure that we do not have 
deficit spending.
  Now, frankly, I believe that investing in Americans' interests may 
require some deficit spending, but this is an outrage. And this kind of 
tax cut is simply without substantiation. I would hope that we could go 
back to the table and begin to look at creating jobs, begin to look at 
investing in America, and responding to our young men and women when 
they come home that they will have institutions of higher learning, 
their families will be taken care of, and we will invest in them so 
they will be the best and the brightest of this new America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. None 
of us are ecstatic about the fact that we are here, but we have a 
requirement that we complete this budget process. We have spent a great 
deal of time on it already this year. We have had a full and very 
vigorous debate on the budget, and we had a very close vote that took 
place here. And now we have gone through the conference process.
  So as I listen to people say that they have had no chance to look at 
this whatsoever, it is very clear the Committee on the Budget did its 
job. And the conferees met, and they have come forward with this 
report.
  Now, one of the things that we just discussed upstairs in the 
Committee on Rules is that, whether you like it or not, it is often a 
prerequisite to actually meet deadlines if we are going to get things 
done and have deadlines set. And everyone is enthused about the 
prospect of meeting our deadline to have this done by the 15th of 
April. Everyone is enthused about the prospect of our adjourning for 
the district work period that is upon us. And we want to deal with a 
couple of things.
  We want to deal right now with completion of this budget conference 
report; and we also, when we pass another rule, look forward tomorrow 
to consideration before we leave of the supplemental appropriations 
bill which will pay for the war effort.
  Now, I see my good friend from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) here with whom I 
am very pleased to work on a wide range of issues, and we have just 
been working upstairs. And I wanted to clarify one issue, and that is 
rule XXVII clause 2 makes it very clear that there is not a 10-year 
requirement, but when specificity is designed as is outlined in this 
measure, a 1-year debt ceiling increase is in fact allowed under the 
rules of the House.
  Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we are all continually concerned 
about an increase in the national debt. We are concerned about 
increases in spending. And I think my friend was very correct in 
raising the fact that things changed on September 11 of 2001. And while 
he talked about the fact that he believed that the overall program for 
economic growth should change because of what took place on September 
11 of 2001, we have found that it is absolutely essential for us to 
deal with things that did change on September 11.
  We embarked on that day on a war on terrorism which has cost us over 
$100 billion just for the war on terrorism itself. We know that with 
the war that is, actually, we hope very much, coming to an end right 
now, that we will be able to realize what we have spent. Tomorrow we 
will be dealing with the spending of $74.7 billion, and so it is true 
that things have changed. But we feel very strongly that the most 
important thing for us to do is to put into place an economic growth 
plan that will generate the kind of revenues that we need to pay for 
the war on terrorism, to pay for this $74.7 billion in supplemental 
appropriations that will be necessary to deal with the expenses dealing 
with the war in Iraq in which we have all strongly supported our troops 
in a bipartisan way on that and had a great celebration of that today 
here in Statuary Hall.
  So, Mr. Speaker, our plan is to try and get the economy growing. We 
all realize that during the 1990s, the latter part of the 1990s, we saw 
a strong, bold, dynamic economy. We saw rates of growth at 6 percent 
and even beyond that. We have seen this diminution, the flow of 
revenues to the Treasury, not only because of increases in spending, 
not only because of the war on terrorism, not only because of the war 
that we are dealing with in Iraq, but because we have seen a slowing in 
our economy.
  We happen to believe that reducing the tax burden on working 
Americans, putting into place plans to have growth-oriented tax cuts 
will, in fact, generate the kind of revenues that we need to deal with 
this. And so I would say to my friends who are now talking about a 
level of fiscal irresponsibility, that what we are trying to do is we 
are trying to get the economy growing.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.

[[Page 9274]]

  I think repetition is often relevant in this body; but when the 
gentleman talks about how we needed tax cuts, a significant amount, to 
get the economy growing, did he give the exact same speech that he gave 
in 2001 when we were told that large tax cuts would stimulate the 
economy?
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that 
virtually every economist, virtually every economist has acknowledged 
that had we not put into place the tax cuts, the economic growth plan 
that we did in 2001, that the slowing in the economy would have been 
even greater than what we have suffered in the past and the recession 
which began as we all know during the last two quarters of the year 
2000 was, in fact, during those two quarters in 2001, in a position 
where we were in economic recession, but it is clear that the plan that 
we had did, in fact, diminish the slow down that we witnessed.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I know as you get old your 
memory goes, but I do not remember hearing that this is new. I remember 
rehearing that this will get the economy going. I do not remember the 
defense of the 2001 tax cut being this will prevent the economy from 
slowing down so rapidly. There was no acknowledgment that there was 
going to be a slow down; and I asked people to go back to 2001, and we 
heard in 2001 these same arguments.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said that 
repetition is sometimes good, and so I guess I repeat once again.
  He talked about the fact that we put into place what we considered to 
be an economic growth plan in 2001, and that economic growth plan was 
put into place before September 11, 2001. So I am repeating again what 
I said earlier, we have had to expend $100 billion-plus in the war on 
terrorism, and we know that September 11 played a big role in creating 
an economic slow down; and we also know that the cost of the war, which 
we have just gone through, has also played a role in slowing the 
economy, with increased oil prices and a wide range of other concerns.
  We know that as we look at the challenge, Mr. Speaker, of trying to 
get this economy growing, doing things like reducing the top rate on 
capital gains for new investment, which is a measure that I have been 
pushing for a while, which would take the top rate and cut it from 20 
down to 10 percent for new investment, if there were a 1-year holding 
period. I have talked to a wide ring of economists, Democrats and 
Republicans, and they believe that that would provide an incentive for 
new investment and could play a role in getting the economy growing.
  So, Mr. Speaker, my point is that we need to have growth-oriented tax 
cuts. Our goal is to do just that, so that we will have the revenues 
that we need so that we will not have a further debt burden, so that we 
will not have the kinds of deficits that unfortunately we are going to 
have to deal with because of these economic challenges that we face for 
a while.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Let me just say that I know that there is time on the 
other side of the aisle. I have enjoyed having this exchange with my 
colleagues and appreciate my friend for yielding me the time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we do not have a lot of time. I would have 
appreciated the distinguished chairman yielding to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) does not have the floor.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as 
much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me, 
and I would be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and 
I think the spirit of the debate, and precisely what you have been 
arguing is why I so strongly oppose what you are about to do tonight 
because the very economic game plan that you have once again 
articulated by your own scorekeepers, if it works exactly like you have 
got it planned, if all of the things happen that you believe will 
happen with it, we are going to owe almost $13 trillion at the end of 
the 10 years. We are going to owe another $3 trillion almost at the end 
of 5 years if we do it just like you are doing it.
  That is why some of us are asking you respectfully, take a look at 
that rhetoric that you have been repeating since 2001 that you do again 
tonight. I know you believe it sincerely. I do not question that, but 
how can you continue to make that argument when the result of it in the 
budget that we are passing, we are going to have to borrow another 
trillion dollars almost in the next 12 months, and even if it works 
exactly like you have articulated so well, as you can do, tonight, we 
are still going to be borrowing that amount of money?
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I simply say that we 
believe that we have the potential to get back, if we can unleash this 
economy to the kind of bold, dynamic economic growth that we saw in the 
latter part of the 1990s, if we do that, if we do that, I am convinced 
that we will have a level of revenues that outpaces even the kinds of 
projections that are included in this budgeting process itself.
  So I thank my friend. We have shared interests here. We have shared 
goals. I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike very sincerely 
want us to get this economy growing so that we can have the revenues 
that we need to balance the budget and to deal with our priorities. 
Along with homeland security, along with the war that we have dealt 
with in Iraq, we can deal with education, transportation, health care, 
a wide range of other concerns that are out there; and I thank my 
friend for his thoughts.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask all Members, in the 
spirit of debate on this rule, to only address the Chair during the 
course of being yielded time by either the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) or the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Rules for agreeing to that dialogue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, for the record and for clarity, we only got 
this document minutes before coming to the floor. It is hundreds of 
pages long; but if you turn to about page 70, you will see just for 
clarity our debt limit now is $6.4 trillion. Vote for this resolution 
and you will raise that to 7.384 trillion, 984 billion in 1 year. Over 
the next 10 years, the deficits entailed by this budget resolution will 
require the debt ceiling to be raised to $12.040 trillion. Those are 
your numbers in your resolution, and that is what you will be voting 
for if you vote to adopt this budget resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, it is almost midnight here on the east 
coast, and I hope that whoever is up and watching will understand what 
I am about to say.
  What we are witnessing here tonight is the largest, long-term, 
structural tax increase on the American people in the history of this 
Republic because every year we borrow money, we have to pay interest on 
it, a tax on the American people, the Blue Dogs call the debt tax, that 
cannot be repealed.
  Mr. Speaker, you have heard under their budget resolution, if it 
works like they say, we are going to incur $1.2 trillion in additional 
debt in the next 12 months, in addition to what we have

[[Page 9275]]

already done and seen the last eight. Mr. Speaker, at 4 percent 
interest that is $40 billion a year that the American taxpayers have to 
pay every year.
  This is the largest, long-term structural tax increase in the history 
of this Republic, and nobody can doubt that. At 5 percent, it is over 
$50 billion a year in perpetuity.
  If that is not bad enough, Mr. Speaker, what really is happening here 
is we have sent young men and women from this Nation to die for other 
people in the Middle East; and Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is saying 
we are going to take a tax cut while they go over there and die, and we 
are going to send the bill for this war and we are borrowing the money 
to fund and borrowing the money for the tax cut, we are going to send 
the bill to these young men and women in uniform, the only people who 
are being asked to sacrifice anything at all in this war, send it to 
them and their children; some of whom do not have a daddy now because 
they are dead in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, where is the honor? Where is the sacrifice? Where is the 
honor of this House when we try to do something like this? That is 
exactly what is going on tonight.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, there is no honor 
in this. Think about what you are doing tonight. Your majority leader 
said, and I will read quickly, Between now and the next Presidential 
election, through the end of the fiscal year 1996, the public debt will 
increase by almost $1.3 trillion. During President Reagan's first term, 
the debt ceiling was increased from $935 billion to $1.8 trillion. That 
is an increase of $889 billion. It took us over 200 years to get to $1 
trillion in debt, over 200 years, and in the last 10 years we have gone 
to over $4 trillion of debt.
  All of that so-called stimulus package is deficit spending. None of 
that spending, none of it is paid for. All of it borrows money to pay 
for it. That is part of why we are raising the debt ceiling.
  He was speaking in opposition to the kind of action you are taking 
tonight and then the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) said this, 
``We need to do other things to balance the budget. Let us do it. But 
first and foremost, we have to shoot straight with the American people, 
and hiding things like this debt ceiling increase is not the way to do 
that.''
  How many of you campaigned and said you were against raising the debt 
limit? How many of you campaigned on the fact that you were going to 
balance the budget? I voted for the balanced budget amendment. I 
believe in balancing the budget; and very frankly, under the Clinton 
administration, we took the Reagan-Bush deficits into surplus for the 
first time for 4 years in a row, the first time in 80 years.
  Do you have no honor? Are you not ashamed of the hypocrisy that this 
budget resolution that you bring before us represents? Is there no 
honor in this House? Is there no fiscal integrity? Is there no concern 
for generations yet unborn who, as the gentleman from Tennessee says, 
will have to pay this bill and the young men and women we have in Iraq 
today will have to return here to pay the bill? Can we not stand up as 
Americans, proud of our country, proud of our objectives and say to 
them, we will pay as you fight, and together, we will win this battle 
for a better America?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I have been trying to figure out this process because normally an 
organization that works only 2 days a week should be able to get its 
work done without working till 3 in the morning, and so if the House 
was run competently we would not be here till 3 in the morning. So I 
thought it might be incompetence, and then I realized, this is 
chicanery masquerading as incompetence.
  The reason we are here late at night is because what we are doing 
would not stand the light of day. We are creating a system where our 
friends on the other side of this building can say they are only voting 
for a $350 billion tax cut. We over here can say it is a $550 billion 
tax cut, but ultimately, the resolution tells us that we are on our way 
to a $1.2 trillion tax cut.
  The plan is simple. They will pass the most obnoxious provisions of 
their $350 billion tax cut over there. It will go to conference. It 
will come back as 550. It will be passed on both sides by their 
majority vote, and that will be the portion of the tax cut loaded 
exclusively to the most wealthy.
  Then, having cut the taxes in an unbalanced way, then another tax 
bill will be prepared, including the least egregious provisions, and 
they will be packaged in such a way that they can pass without a 
filibuster on the other side. If only the light of day would shine and 
the country knew what we were doing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time controlled by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 
time.
  This is a rule that allows us to consider the budget resolution that 
we have to get out by law so we can plan for the appropriation process, 
which I know will be difficult. So I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution that allows us to consider a rule and ultimately the budget 
resolution.

                              {time}  2345

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 203, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 139]

                               YEAS--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)

[[Page 9276]]


     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Boucher
     Combest
     Duncan
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     Hyde
     McCarthy (MO)
     Paul


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair would advise all 
Members there are 2 minutes, approximately, remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  0004

  Messrs. RODRIGUEZ, PASCRELL and HALL changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________