[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4376-4377]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         IRRESPONSIBILITY WEEK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 20, 2004, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized 
during morning hour debates.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, one week ago today, the majority leader, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), told the Members of this body and the 
national television audience watching C-SPAN, and I quote, ``It is 
responsibility week here in the House.'' ``It is responsibility week 
here in the House.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader was only half right. Last week 
indeed was responsibility week, but the real responsibility was being 
exercised not here in this House but on the other side of Capitol Hill.
  While we named post office buildings, honored professional sports 
teams, and passed legislative solutions in search of national problems, 
the other Chamber adopted a bipartisan pay-as-you-go measure that 
repudiates the central fiction of the Republican Party's fuzzy math: 
that we can somehow reign in record budget deficits created by the

[[Page 4377]]

Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress while 
ignoring the consequences of tax cuts.
  Do not take it from me, my Republican friends.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must remind all Members not to 
characterize the actions of the Senate.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as responsible?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Either way.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, do not take it from me, my Republican 
friends, listen to a respected Member of your own party, the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young.) In February Chairman Young said, and I quote, ``No one should 
expect a significant deficit reduction as a result of austere 
nondefense discretionary spending limits. The numbers simply do not add 
up.'' So said the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, one of the most respected Members of this 
body.
  And why do not the numbers add up? Because nondefense discretionary 
spending represents only 17 percent of the entire Federal budget. The 
fact of the matter is we could wipe out all domestic discretionary 
spending, the funding for this House, the funding for the Senate, FBI, 
CIA, NIH, NASA, all of that. If you wipe it all out, we would still be 
running a deficit of more than $100 billion.
  Yet this week the Republican majority continues its markup of a 
budget resolution for fiscal year 2005 that utterly ignores 
mathematical and fiscal reality. By applying pay-go rules to spending 
only, the Republican budget resolution pretends that making existing 
tax cuts permanent or enacting new ones are a freebie with no budgetary 
impact. But, of course, that is false. And if one said it, it might 
even be a lie.
  The truth is this Republican budget resolution cuts taxes while 
spending the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus between fiscal 
year 2005 and 2009. All of it. Every nickel of Social Security surplus, 
spent. And it would continue to do so in subsequent years.
  The truth is the Republican budget resolution would make our deficits 
$247 billion worse over the next 5 years under current law. And over 10 
years it would increase the deficit, already projected by the 
Congressional Budget Office at $2 trillion, by another $1.6 trillion.
  There are a lot of young people who are going to pay the price for 
our profligacy and irresponsibility. Indeed, this budget resolution 
proposal, as has the economic policies of this administration, been 
immoral to the extent that they adversely affect generations to come. 
And the truth is this budget resolution would freeze funding for 
domestic appropriations outside of Homeland Security to make room, not 
for defense, not for homeland security, but for new tax cuts.
  For years House Republicans preened as, quote, deficit hawks. Some 
even suggested that tax cuts are not in fact sacrosanct. For example, 
in 1997 the majority leader himself, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) who I quoted earlier, said of Jack Kemp, you all remember Jack 
Kemp, he served in this body, a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, candidate for Vice President of the United States, he 
quoted and he said the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said this: 
``Jack Kemp worships at the altar of tax cuts. Jack has always said 
that deficits do not matter.''
  Now, this is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) the majority 
leader, the Republican leader of this House. He concluded by saying, 
quote, ``We think that deficits do matter.''
  What a tragedy for our country and for our young people that the 
policies do not follow that conviction. My Republican friends, this 
week and next you are going to show the American people whether you are 
really serious about reducing the deficit you created or whether you 
are simply taking it and lack the courage to make the tough choices.
  Now, when I say the deficit of your creation, let me remind all of 
our colleagues the first 4 years took us on a straight line out of 
deficit financing and the last 4 years, for the first time in 8 
decades, in the lifetime of anybody older than 80, was in surplus for 4 
years straight. So this administration inherited a budget surplus which 
they said, not what we Democrats said, which they said was $5.6 
trillion surplus over 10 years that they had to work with. It is now $4 
trillion of debt. That is what I refer to as immoral.
  As Republican Senator John McCain said last week in supporting pay-go 
rules that apply to existing as well as future tax cuts, and I will 
quote again, Senator John McCain.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will suspend. The Chair 
must remind Members not to quote Senators.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. While I cannot 
characterize the debate that occurs on the other side or characterize 
the position of the Senate itself, is the Parliamentarian or is the 
Speaker saying that the quoting of a Member who happens to be a Member 
of the United States Senate is contrary to the rules of this House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct. The gentleman may be 
identified as a sponsor of a measure but his remarks may not be quoted.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friends that a prominent 
American has said recently that our failure to start making some of the 
tough decisions will land squarely on the backs of our children and 
grandchildren.

                              {time}  1245

  Their financial future will be strapped with the digging out of holes 
that have been created by our actions and inactions. I agree with that 
sentiment, and let me add that our failure to make the tough decisions 
also threatens the very future of Social Security and Medicare, two 
programs which now keep millions and millions and millions of Americans 
out of poverty.
  Next week, Democrats will propose a budget plan that meets America's 
priorities and gets our financial house back in order. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support it because it is intellectually the right thing 
to do. From a fiscal policy, it is the right thing to do, and from a 
moral values, pro-family perspective, it is the right thing to do. It 
is time we delivered real responsibility this week to the American 
public.

                          ____________________