[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10382-10391]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. CON. RES. 13, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                   ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin moves that the managers on the part 
     of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of 
     the two Houses on the House amendment to S. Con. Res. 13 be 
     instructed, within the scope of the conference, to:

[[Page 10383]]

       (1) Recede to the Senate on reconciliation instructions by 
     striking title II of the House amendment which includes 
     reconciliation instructions for health care reform to the 
     Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means and a 
     separate instruction to the Committee on Education and Labor, 
     investing in education.
       (2) Recede to the Senate on section 316 entitled ``Point of 
     order on legislation that eliminates the ability of Americans 
     to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor'' to 
     provide for a point of order against any legislation that 
     eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan 
     or their choice of doctor.
       (3) Recede to the Senate on section 202(c) of the Senate 
     resolution, providing that the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget of the Senate may not adjust the allocations and 
     aggregates of the concurrent resolution for climate change 
     legislation that would decrease greenhouse gas emissions if 
     such legislation is reported from a committee pursuant to 
     section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (4) Recede to the Senate on section 310 of the Senate 
     resolution, setting forth a point of order against 
     legislation that increases revenue above the levels 
     established in the applicable budget resolution.

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Republicans 
offered the American people a budget that would not only fund our 
priorities but also support economic growth and job creation, get the 
Federal spending and debt under control and begin the critical reforms 
of our largest and least sustainable entitlement programs. And the 
Republicans budget did this all without the job-killing tax hikes that 
are required by the budget that we are here discussing today.
  The budget we are here to discuss today, the Obama Democratic budget, 
exploits the current financial crisis to rush through a sweeping 
expansion of the Federal Government. This motion to instruct aims at 
ensuring this budget resolution doesn't trigger a fast-track process, 
otherwise known as budget reconciliation, to jam through a government 
takeover of health care and education or a cap-and-trade tax that will 
hurt families, kill jobs, and put America at a severe competitive 
disadvantage with China and other countries.
  As a background, the House-passed resolution includes reconciliation 
instructions for three committees, two of which, Energy and Commerce 
and Ways and Means, share jurisdiction over health care and cap-and-
trade. These reconciliation instructions trigger fast-track procedures 
limiting debate and amendments on a subsequent reconciliation bill. In 
other words, it's a way for Congress to sweep this legislation through 
with very little debate, no amendments, get it into law without the 
public seeing what is happening.
  In the House, reconciliation is much less important because the House 
has what we call the Rules Committee.
  It is critical in the Senate, however, because there legislation can 
be jammed through with little debate or no amendments. The Senate does 
not want reconciliation. The Senate-passed budget resolution did not 
include reconciliation instructions. In fact, it included a number of 
protections against using reconciliation. This motion to instruct 
instructs the House conferees to recede to the Senate on four items.
  Number one, drop reconciliation instructions from the resolution; 
number two, block legislation that eliminates Americans' ability to 
keep their health care plans or choose their own doctor; number three, 
adopt a Senate provision that keeps reconciliation from being used for 
cap-and-trade legislation; and, number four, adopt a Senate provision 
that would prevent taxes from being raised to even higher levels than 
those that are assumed in this budget resolution.
  To reiterate, the Senate does not want reconciliation. This is what 
Senate Budget Committee chairman Senator Conrad said yesterday about 
reconciliation: ``Once you have unleashed reconciliation, you can't get 
it back in the barn. And it could be used for lots of different things 
that are completely unintended at this moment. People need to think 
about that very carefully.''
  Chairman Conrad is not alone. Twenty-eight Senators wrote Chairman 
Conrad urging him not to use reconciliation for cap-and-trade 
legislation because reconciliation fast-track procedures ``would be 
inconsistent with the administration's stated goals of bipartisanship, 
cooperation, and openness.''
  Senator Byrd, the best author we have among us of the budget process, 
the author of the reconciliation process said this: ``Reconciliation is 
not designed to create a new climate and energy regime and certainly 
not to restructure our entire health care system. Woodrow Wilson once 
said that the informing function is the most important function of 
Congress. How do we inform? We publicly debate and amend legislation. 
We receive feedback which allows us to change and improve proposals. 
Matters that affect the lives and the livelihoods of our people must 
not be rushed through the Senate using a procedural fast track that the 
people never get a chance to comment upon or fully understand.''
  But even more important, Madam Speaker, Americans are concerned about 
all of the spending that's going on here in Washington. And we should 
not underestimate how well the people understand. Like just about 
everybody else, last week I held 25 listening sessions throughout the 
First Congressional District in Wisconsin. My district falls right in 
the middle among the political spectrum so it's a good microcosm of the 
attitudes across the country.
  They are worried about this new gusher of spending. They are worried 
about the government taking over health care. They are worried about 
the increased cost of energy, the effect that it's going to have on our 
manufacturing jobs. And, in fact, at one of my town hall meetings, a 
woman in her mid-sixties came up to me and said, Is Congress going to 
use reconciliation to push through all of this government and health 
care reform legislation? I was floored by that. I don't think I have 
ever heard anybody outside the Beltway talk to me about reconciliation.
  The American people are watching this process. The American people 
know what is happening. The American people want a say in this.
  Why are we here? We are here to deliberate. We are the people's 
representatives. Should we take this largest proposal to increase the 
size and reach and scope of our government, the largest--in the words 
of the administration--since the New Deal and just sweep it through 
with almost no debates, with no amendments, stifling the voices of the 
people's representatives or not?
  At the end of the day, we could confiscate about 25 percent of our 
economy, energy and health care together, with less than a hundred 
hours of debate and no amendments. It's baffling, it's mind-boggling 
that this could actually happen. This is not America, this is not the 
deliberative process, and this is not a process the Senate itself even 
wants.
  So the question is if we're going to have debate about nationalizing 
the health care system in America, if we're going to have a debate 
about having a brand-new energy tax, if we're going to have a debate 
about tax increases and spending increases doubling and tripling our 
national debt, let's have that debate. Let's not just sweep the thing 
through.
  Unfortunately, the philosophy that is at play here, Madam Speaker, is 
this--and it's a philosophy that we need to talk about. It's a 
philosophy that we need to debate. The philosophy behind this budget, 
with all of its class warfare, with all of its class accusation is 
basically they are telling the American people in the budget that your 
station in life is static and we're going to have

[[Page 10384]]

to grow government to help you cope with it.
  We reject that. That is not what America is about. That is not the 
ideal of this country. People are not stuck with their current station 
in life.
  The goal of this country, the goal of our government is to help 
people become upwardly mobile; it is to give the people the tools that 
they need so they can seize the opportunity to make a better life for 
themselves. We need to protect people's rights to achieve their dreams, 
to get the opportunities to make the most of their lives and to seek 
happiness as they define it for themselves so long as it doesn't 
infringe on another person's right to do the same. That is the 
philosophy that has taken this country so far, that has made it the 
most prosperous Nation in the world, the envy of the world, and that is 
the philosophy that is being debated right here with this budget as to 
whether it should continue or not.
  I think we should have more than just about 100 hours of debate on 
whether or not we trash this philosophy that brought our country this 
far. We should have amendments as to whether or not we're going to do 
all of this government. Do we want Europe, or do we want America? It 
should be more than a hundred hours of debates. We might want to 
consider an amendment or two to this philosophy.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  I think it would be useful for everybody, Members in particular, to 
understand exactly what the Republican motion to instruct is.
  There are four items. First of all, they would effectively move to 
drop, discard the House reconciliation provisions that deal with health 
care. That's health care reform. That's our initiative we're launching 
to try to encompass and provide some form of health care to the 46 
million Americans unfortunate enough not to have it. This would thwart 
our plans to move on that front. And education, which basically deals 
with Pell Grants and guarantees student loans trying to provide them to 
more students at lower costs, why would anybody want to thwart those 
objectives?
  Secondly, they would remove reconciliation as a vehicle to enact 
climatic change. Well, that's not even envisioned in the House budget. 
Cap-and-trade is not mentioned, not in the budget resolution, not in 
the report accompanying it. It's not mentioned. We took it out. It is 
not specified.
  The reconciliation instructions to which they refer go to the Energy 
and Commerce Committee and to the Education and Labor Committee and the 
Ways and Means Committee but not for purposes of dealing with climate 
change. That is not even briefed as one of the purposes. It's not part 
of the intention. These instructions go to health care and education.

                              {time}  1415

  Thirdly, to retain a Senate point of order against legislation that 
``eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or 
their choice of a doctor.'' I support that. You support that. We all 
support that. This budget supports it, the House supports it. It is 
totally unnecessary. This is creating a straw man and knocking it down 
by creating an argument as to facts that simply don't exist. We don't 
have anything in our legislation that would in any way impede the 
choice of Americans to keep their own health plans or choose their own 
doctor.
  And finally, ``to eliminate Congress' ability to develop 
comprehensive reform packages by restricting future offsets only to 
spending cuts.'' In other words, if we wanted to do something worthy, 
we think, of undertaking and we would propose to pay for it by raising 
taxes--let me give you an example, cigarette taxes and CHIP, Children's 
Health Insurance Program. We just passed the second iteration of the 
CHIP bill that will extend medical coverage to millions of children who 
never had it, never lived in families who could afford it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). The gentleman's 
time has expired.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
  We did that by increasing the taxes on a pack of cigarettes and other 
tobacco products, a fair tradeoff. But we were only able to do it and 
say that we were staying deficit neutral and well within the balance of 
the budget because we were able to use this offsetting revenue to cover 
the cost of the program. This particular amendment would have thwarted 
that particular strategy.
  So these are four different items they are proposing now, none of 
which will stand muster. They should be defeated. This motion should be 
defeated.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
his hard work that he has put forth in this budget. And hopefully one 
day soon we will have an opportunity to vote on the budget that the 
gentleman has put forward in a clear way.
  I want to talk a little bit about what my friend from North Carolina 
talked about, about Debt Day. You know, it is pretty interesting. I 
think we need to make this, Madam Speaker, so the American people can 
understand exactly what we are talking about when we are talking about 
tripling the debt over a 10-year period, doubling our deficit. I think 
we need to understand that in 1998, after 365 days we had a surplus, 
and this was during the Clinton administration. In 2002, it was not 
until the second of September that we actually started borrowing money. 
And if you can imagine, we were coming out of the 9/11. In 2003, it was 
the 29th of July before we started borrowing money. In 2004, it was the 
27th of July before we actually started borrowing money. Madam Speaker, 
the people will realize this, we had spent by that date all the money 
we had, and then we started putting it on our credit card.
  In 2005, it was August 14. In 2006, it was August 27. In 2007, it was 
September 9. In 2008, it was the 5th of August. This year it is the 
26th of April. So the 26th of April, we will be finished spending the 
revenues that we have in, and now we are going to start putting 
everything on our credit card. So understand this, that with just that 
short of a period of time, we are out of cash.
  We are spending way too much money. And I think that that is what the 
American people need to understand, that we are spending money that we 
don't have. We are spending money that is our children's. And I used to 
always say this, that we were putting our children in debt, the next 
generation. Now I have to include our grandchildren. We are putting our 
grandchildren in deep debt.
  And so what are we doing? I keep listening to the opposition, the 
majority party talk about that this is something that we've got to do. 
And they keep talking about the Bush administration and the deficit 
spending. Two wrongs don't make a right. Let's do something for the 
American people. Let's have some fair, open, honest debate and make 
this to where we can have some amendments.
  I represent approximately 750,000 people in Georgia's Third 
Congressional District, yet I am not able to offer any ideas that the 
people from my district may have about the budget and too much 
spending.
  Madam Speaker, this is not the way to run a railroad. We need to do 
things to open up the process rather than to close the process. And we 
need to make sure that the people understand that we are spending our 
future.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his really extraordinary leadership as we work our way 
through a very difficult process.
  I want to speak first obviously in opposition to the motion to 
instruct, and I am going to focus primarily on the implications for 
that with respect to the Committee on Education and Labor. But before I 
do, we should be

[[Page 10385]]

clear; the argument that is made by our friends on the other side of 
the aisle is very much a situational argument. I do not recall in 2001 
or in 2003 or in 2005, when the Republicans used reconciliation to push 
through policies that increased our deficit over 10 years by about $1.8 
trillion, I don't remember them saying that they needed to ``jam this 
through,'' I don't remember them saying that they needed to ``rush it 
through,'' I don't remember them characterizing it as ``sweeping it 
through.'' They felt that they were passing legislation that was 
responsive to the American people. We feel we are passing legislation 
that is responsive to the interests of the American people.
  Let me speak with specific reference to education. We intend to enact 
policies that will save $47 billion over 5 years and allow us to use 
that money to help students and families, particularly needy students 
and families so that they can get their slice of the American Dream so 
that college attendance can be a realistic and realizable aspiration 
for them.
  Who wants to argue against increasing the Pell Grant maximum? Who 
wants to argue against indexing that maximum to the rate of inflation 
plus 1 percent so that it preserves its buying power? I certainly 
don't, and I would hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
don't want to either.
  I would hope that we can look at a low or moderate income student and 
say that you have every chance to have the same access to higher 
education as a student in the top 1 or 2 percent of our Nation's 
wealth. This budget resolution and the legislation that we will need to 
pass to put in place the legislative underpinning for these policies 
will allow us to do that.
  And who doesn't want to save $94 billion over 10 years, $47 billion 
over 5 years by having the government take over a student loan program 
that they can run, that we can run every bit as efficiently, every bit 
as effectively as the privately run program now, and do it in a fashion 
that will be invisible to students, and do it, as I say, by saving 
taxpayer money to the tune of $47 billion over 5 years and taking that 
money and putting it into the hands of needy students? That is a worthy 
aspiration. That is an aspiration that deserves the support of every 
person in this Chamber, and hopefully we will realize that.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the vice ranking member 
of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Again, we have two different budgets before us. The Democratic 
budget, again, it spends too much--the largest budget in American 
history; taxes too much--national energy tax, tax on small business, 
tax on capital gains; borrows too much--greatest amount of debt in our 
Nation's history. We are going to run up more debt in the next 10 years 
than in the previous 220. Budget deficit up tenfold in just 2 years 
under their watch. A crushing level of debt that I don't know if the 
next generation will ever recover.
  It borrows too much, it spends too much, it taxes too much. And then, 
Madam Speaker, it gets worse from there. It gets worse from there. This 
thing called reconciliation, kind of this inside-the-beltway term of 
art, is really nothing more than a budget sleight of hand that will 
facilitate cramming through policies that need to be debated on this 
House floor and in the Senate under regular order.
  The Senate itself, Madam Speaker, apparently doesn't want this in the 
budget. Again, Senator Conrad, the Democratic Budget Committee 
chairman, has said, ``Once you've unleashed reconciliation you can't 
get it back in the barn. It could be used for a lot of different things 
that are completely unintended at this moment.'' That's the Democratic 
budget chairman. Senator Byrd--frankly, the author of reconciliation--
said, ``not designed to create a new climate in energy regime, and 
certainly not to restructure our entire health care system.''
  I mean, reconciliation means that the American people are going to 
have to reconcile themselves to a new national energy tax imposed by 
the Democratic majority through this budget sleight of hand. It means 
that the American people are going to have to reconcile themselves to 
more job loss as American small businesses are taxed even more and have 
to lay off even more workers. It means that the American people are 
going to have to reconcile themselves to rationed health care with a 
Federal Government bureaucrat helping choose their health care provider 
and whether or not they even receive the health care that they desire. 
That's what reconciliation in this context means.
  Now, it was meant for something different. And it has been used on a 
bipartisan basis to actually save jobs, to actually save hope, actually 
save the future of the American people and be used for budget savings. 
It is being used for a completely different purpose. And if these ideas 
of the Democratic majority are so meritorious, then why can't they be 
debated in regular order? That's what I question. Why use this budget 
sleight of hand? We need to reject that and accept this motion.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. I thank my friend, the chairman, Mr. Spratt.
  Madam Speaker, I am always intrigued by the rhetoric that comes when 
we start talking about budgets. And I am so grateful for a gentleman 
like Mr. Spratt who is not a rhetorical person, but he is a person who 
wants to practically get things done and get a budget that makes sense 
for the American people and how we collect and spend and do our 
government functions.
  Madam Speaker, a budget is supposed to be a roadmap that shows where 
you are going, how you are going to get there, what your priorities 
are, how you are going to pay for those priorities. Unfortunately, over 
the last 8 years, under the leadership of the previous administration 
and the other party, we didn't have that. A budget was used as a sort 
of rhetorical tool to say we are going to balance the budget, but then 
they would come back a day later and say, well, we have got all this 
emergency stuff that we didn't put in the budget, but we knew all along 
we needed to do.
  For the first time in 8 years you have before you an honest document, 
which is an honest roadmap that explains our situation and lays out an 
avenue to get to a better place. Now, honestly, it's not a pretty 
picture, but it is an honest picture. We haven't had an honest picture 
in 8 years. It is an ugly picture when it comes to the numbers. But the 
numbers are honest, and it lays out a roadmap to get us out of this 
economic mess that President Obama has inherited. I am proud of Mr. 
Spratt and the work that he has done, and the House of Representatives, 
and their work in passing this budget.
  Now, what does that roadmap say and what does it do? It says, first 
of all, we are in an economic mess; revenue collections are going to be 
down, economic activity is down, we all know about that. That wasn't 
the fault of this sitting President; he inherited that mess. But what 
it does is say, these are the problems that exist and have to be 
resolved for us to come to a better place.
  President Obama believes strongly in a couple of things, and we are 
trying to outline how we deal with those things in this budget.

                              {time}  1430

  Number one is he thinks that you can't really fix the economic mess 
until you deal with the health care issue. Health care accessibility is 
a problem in this Nation when you have 48 or 50 million people who 
cannot access the health care system, and it's also a problem in that 
costs are rising at the rate of 3 to 5 percent above inflation. It 
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that doesn't work too 
long.
  It only carries us deeper into the economic mess. So he says we got 
to deal with that problem, and this budget lays out that avenue, that 
blueprint to deal with that problem.

[[Page 10386]]

  Secondly, and this is another important factor relative to how we got 
into this economic mess, and that is the energy crisis, the energy 
situation. When you got a run up in the cost of oil to $145 a barrel 
when it traditionally had been below $30, that was one of the catalysts 
that took us into this economic collapse. And we have known for a long 
time as a Nation that we had to deal with this energy crisis, climate 
change, energy, all sort of interconnected.
  So this budget also lays out an avenue or a roadmap to get to this 
energy legislation. It doesn't go into details. The President hasn't 
even talked too much about details. He wants to leave that to Congress.
  I do know one thing. To solve those two problems, Madam Speaker, it 
has to be a bipartisan work. Madam Speaker, Mr. Ryan knows that every 
major piece of legislation that has ever come out of this Congress to 
be effective must be bipartisan. We need bipartisan cooperation and 
support. We need constructive ideas.
  We, as a minority, need to be inclusive, but the majority party, when 
it comes to the table, needs to be constructive and not obstructive. 
And I think that's what we, as Blue Dogs, who consider ourselves the 
most fiscally conservative, constructive folks in the Congress, 51 of 
us--and I serve, have been a part of that group for a long time--we 
would like to work with the people on the other side of the aisle in a 
constructive manner. But up to this point our attempts have been 
thwarted.
  So we again thrust out that olive branch to work on both sides of the 
aisle to solve these problems. You can't get out of this economic mess 
without dealing with the health care problems and the energy crisis 
that we have in this Nation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BOYD. So in that process the President believes in health care 
reform, he believes in energy reform, he believes in education reform, 
and, fourthly and most importantly, fiscal responsibility.
  As the folks, Mr. Ryan and others have said consistently, we have to 
get back to being fiscally responsible. It's something we completely 
threw out the window over the past 8 years. We have to go back to a 
path that leads us down to a balanced budget.
  Can't get there overnight, but this budget developed by Mr. Spratt, 
which we would like to get in a conference mode, will do that. And I 
want to be a part of that.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The gentleman from Florida, I agree with much of what he said. He and 
I are friends. We both love turkey hunting. We have a lot in common.
  And the gentleman was right when he said that they are using honest 
numbers. They are being candid with their numbers, that's correct.
  The Congressional Budget Office is showing that this budget 
resolution doubles our publicly held debt in 5\1/2\ years and triples 
it in 10\1/2\ years. This budget resolution raises taxes on the 
American people by $1.5 trillion, the largest tax increase in American 
history. This budget resolution brings the size of our government to 
levels we haven't seen since 1945 at the end of World War II.
  And the gentleman is right where he says to get big things done we 
ought to do it with bipartisanship. All the more reason, Madam Speaker, 
why we should not have reconciliation.
  What is reconciliation? It's a method by which the majority can fast 
track legislation through to law without any participation from the 
minority.
  In order to have bipartisanship, you have to have collaboration. Both 
sides of the aisle sit down, hammer out compromises, work together to 
pass legislation.
  That is not what reconciliation is being used for here. 
Reconciliation is saying one-party rule, one party can do it all.
  In the Senate, no filibuster, 50 votes plus one can get it through, 
no amendments, 100 hours of debate, done. No involvement from the 
minority party. It is the prerogative of the majority party to do that.
  The majority party has the power and they can do it. And apparently 
they are not supportive of this motion to instruct to make sure that 
that reconciliation doesn't occur, to make sure that we agree with the 
Senate, with the majority party and the Senate that we don't do 
reconciliation.
  Unfortunately, I think the truth of this matter is being revealed 
here today. And where we are seeing this majority in the House is 
basically saying no, we are not going to follow the Democrats in the 
Senate. We are not going to have a bipartisan procedure. We are going 
to ram this stuff through with reconciliation.
  Mr. BOYD. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BOYD. You make a fair point, but I would remind the gentleman 
again that reconciliation is probably being insisted upon because of 
the obstructive nature, the ``just say no'' nature of the minority 
party.
  And what we would like to see is some constructive engagement in the 
process about how we solve some of these problems.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, and I believe the 
gentleman from Florida is very sincere on what he says in that, and I 
believe he is true to that.
  I would like to insert into the Record a question and answer I had 
with the chief counsel of the Budget Committee and the majority staff 
during our markup where the majority counsel said that if, in fact, 
reconciliation instructions do go to the Commerce Committee--which they 
do in this budget reconciliation--nothing stops that from going toward 
cap-and-trade legislation.

Markup of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 
                       Wednesday, March 25, 2009

       The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m., in Room 
     210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr. 
     [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
       Present: Representatives Spratt, Schwartz, Kaptur, Becerra, 
     Doggett, Blumenauer, Berry, Boyd, McGovern, Tsongas, 
     Etheridge, McCollum, Melancon, Yarmuth, Andrews, DeLauro, 
     Edwards, Scott, Langevin, Larsen, Bishop, Moore, Connolly, 
     Schrader, Ryan, Hensarling, Garrett, Diaz-Balart, Simpson, 
     McHenry, Mack, Conaway, Campbell, Jordan, Nunes, Aderholt, 
     Lummis, Austria, Harper.
       Chairman Spratt. For simplicity, just simply address your 
     question to the staffers at this time.
       Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, I will begin. I do not know if we 
     are going to take a lot of their time because we realize we 
     have a lot of amendments. It is going to be a long day and we 
     want to get to it. And we have had a good chance to pore 
     through this budget.
       I do have a question, I guess for you, Ms. Millar (Gail 
     Millar, majority staff General Counsel), on reconciliation. 
     The Chairman's mark includes reconciliation instructions of 
     three Committees, to each produce one billion in deficit 
     reduction over the six-year period from 2009 through 2014, to 
     the Ways and Means, the Energy and Commerce, and the 
     Education and Labor Committees, under the subsection 
     including healthcare and investing in education.
       Here is my basic question. Am I correct that the only 
     binding aspect of these instructions is that each of the 
     Committees are directed to produce $1 billion in deficit 
     reduction in their jurisdiction?
       Ms. Millar. That is correct.
       Mr. Ryan. And so while the Budget Committee can make 
     assumptions about policies, education, healthcare, energy, we 
     cannot bind these Committees to certain policies? It is up to 
     those Committees to determine what policies are within those 
     instructions and they simply have to meet that goal of 
     achieving one billion in deficit reduction; is that correct?
       Ms. Millar. That is correct, sir.
       Mr. Ryan. Okay. So serving on Ways and Means, that is how 
     we always interpreted it. I just want to make sure that the 
     reconciliation discussion we are having here is consistent 
     with what it has always been in the past which is these 
     Committees are free to do what they choose to do, they have 
     just got to meet that $1 billion number?
       Ms. Millar. That is correct.
       Mr. Ryan. All right. Thank you. That is really all I have.

  So let's be very clear here. Reconciling to the Commerce Committee--
--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 additional minute.

[[Page 10387]]

  It means the Commerce Committee can choose to put in that 
reconciliation package anything within its jurisdiction, cap-and-trade, 
health care, whatever the case may be.
  The point is this, reconciliation in the past has been used to reduce 
government, to reduce taxes, to reduce spending, to contain the growth 
of entitlement programs. That's not what it's being used here today.
  Reconciliation is being used here today in a new and unique way to 
dramatically increase the size and cost of government, to dramatically 
increase the level of taxation, to dramatically increase the 
liabilities upon future generations.
  That's not its intent. Don't listen to me, listen to Senator Byrd, 
one of the Democrat leaders who helped write the law in the first 
place. Listen to Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
who is saying this is not what reconciliation was ever intended to be 
used for.
  Please, we are simply saying join us in agreeing with the Democrats 
in the Senate to not have reconciliation, so that we can have the 
people's representatives speak their mind so we can really truly have a 
collaborative process, have amendments, have open debate. That's why we 
are trying to do this.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I thank the chairman again for his extraordinary work 
as Chair of the Budget Committee.
  Let's be clear what we are talking about here. I mean, a lot of us, I 
think, to those who might be listening don't really quite understand 
what a motion to instruct is and what reconciliation language is.
  Simply put, what we have before us is a decision. Are we going to 
tackle health care reform, energy independence and an educated repaired 
workforce in the next year. We are going to make significant progress. 
The budget allows us to do that.
  There is no question that we would like to see it done in a 
bipartisan way. The budget sets out language that says let's work on 
this in a bipartisan way. It sets us even out till September, gives us 
most of the time to do that.
  And all we hear from the other side is, no, let's not do this. Let's 
not do anything about the high cost of health care for American 
families, the high cost of health care for our businesses, the fact 
that it affects our economy and job growth.
  We have all heard from businesses that say I would hire another 
employee, a small businesswoman said to me, but I can't afford to pay 
for their health benefits. Story after story of families that can't pay 
for needed health care.
  We know it is time to find a truly American solution to containing 
costs, improving access to health care for all Americans. It has long 
been a moral imperative. It is now an economic imperative as well for 
our Nation's people and our Nation's businesses.
  Let me say what we hear from the other side is just let's not do it. 
Let's not do it. They would rather discuss process. And instead of 
debating the issue, which we could do, they are busy discussing 
process.
  We heard over and over again--and let's read the language in the 
reserve fund. It's revenue neutral. We are going to find the money to 
do this.
  We are going to debate this. Our committees are holding hearings, we 
are talking to our constituents.
  It is time for us to finally set out the path to do this. Let's be 
clear. In the first 8 weeks of this administration, we did more on 
health care than the prior 8 years before, and I am proud of what we 
have done.
  We had little cooperation from the other side to get it done in spite 
of our President and our leadership and many of us reaching out to the 
other side.
  What did we do? We made sure that 11 million children of working 
families, whose parents simply cannot afford or have access to health 
care coverage, have health care coverage for their children, 11 million 
American children.
  I think that's great. We should make sure that every child in this 
country has access to health care coverage, and we can.
  We moved ahead on funding for NIH, for health information technology, 
to do stem cell research, to find the cures and the treatments that all 
of us know family members need for their future. We made sure that 
those who are recently unemployed, who can't afford health care 
coverage, get a subsidy the next 9 months, the first time we have ever 
done that.
  It is clear that we have before us a choice. Do we actually tackle 
the health care costs for Americans, do we tackle it for economic 
competitiveness. This is the decision we are making. We say we should 
move forward.
  The other side is simply saying ``no.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This budget that we are considering steals our grandchildren's 
future. We are spending too much, we are taxing too much, we are 
borrowing too much, and it has to stop.
  My dear friend, Mr. Boyd from Florida, said we have to be fiscally 
responsible as a Nation, and I could not agree more. But this budget is 
being forced down the throats of the American people. It's a steamroll 
of socialism being shoved down the throats of the American people, and 
it's going to strangle the American economy. It's going to slay the 
American people, choke them to death economically, and we have got to 
stop it.
  The majority is using this reconciliation in a dictatorial manner to 
try to force their philosophy of big government, of socialistic 
government, of total control of everything.
  I am a medical doctor, and the health care issues that we hear, the 
speaker just prior to me, was talking about offering health insurance 
to 11 million children. I want to see everybody in this country have 
health care provided to them.
  In fact, they can today, but the health care policies that are being 
fostered by the Democratic majority are going to destroy the health 
care system. The cost is going to be enormous. The quality of care is 
going to go down. We are going to have tremendous rationing of health 
care all over this country.
  It's going to take the decisionmaking process out of the hands of 
doctors and patients, and it's going to put it in the hands of Federal 
bureaucrats who have no medical training, and it's morally wrong. We 
have got to stop this.
  I rise today in objection to this Democratic process and to this 
Democratic budget, a budget proposed by the administration that is 
going to destroy our economy.
  We have got to stop this steamrolling. We have got to put up speed 
bumps and stop signs. This steamroll is going to roll over doctors and 
patients, and it's going to smash them, and it's going to destroy the 
health care industry.
  It's going to force through the cap-and-tax policies of this 
administration. And this Democratic majority is proposing it is going 
to send jobs overseas. It's going to markedly increase the costs of all 
goods and services in America, food, drugs. Every single good and 
service in America is going to go up because of the policy that's being 
forced down the throats of the American people.
  The American people need to rise up and say ``no'' to this budget, to 
this process. It's totally wrong. We are stealing our grandchildren's 
and our children's future.
  We have got to stop this. We need to be fiscally responsible. The 
Bush administration was not--but this markedly forces things down the 
throats of the American people, and we must stop it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Several million Americans have lost their jobs since the fall. We are 
saying let's get to work to try to fix that problem.
  The minority is saying no, not now, not this way. Wages have gone up 
only

[[Page 10388]]

one-third as fast as health care costs have gone up for the typical 
American family in the last decade or so. And we are saying let's get 
to work together to fix that problem and, in the process, let's say to 
people who are working in convenience stores and gas stations and 
mowing lawns and store clerks, that they have to have health insurance 
too for themselves and their children.

                              {time}  1445

  We are saying let's get to work on that. The minority is saying no, 
not now, not this way.
  We all suffered the ravages of $4-a-gallon gasoline last summer. It 
will probably go back up again because we are so addicted to imported 
energy from overseas. We're saying let's get to work on solving that 
problem, on building windmills and hydrogen engines and solar farms and 
other ideas. The minority is saying no, not now, not this way.
  There are American families whose sons or daughters are going to come 
home from school today and receive the thick envelope that says they 
got into the college they've always wanted to go to. And the parents 
are going to have to say no, not now, not this way because we can't 
afford the cost of a college education. We say let's get to work on 
solving that problem by moving $94 billion away from corporate welfare 
to student financial aid. Let's get to work on that. The minority says 
no, not now, not this way.
  This is a choice between ``yes'' and ``no.'' It's a choice between 
optimism and pessimism. It's a choice between working on the country's 
problems and just watching them metastasize. We can do so much better. 
We should do it together. But we should do it.
  So I would urge a vote against this motion to instruct. I would urge 
that we work with the other body and get started on this budget and get 
started on solving these problems.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Spratt, for the courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this, and thank you for your leadership, providing to 
the House of Representatives a budget blueprint that was reflective of 
the challenge that President Obama laid before us all a scant 3 months 
ago in his first State of the Union speech.
  The budget outline we have before us is an opportunity to do 
something constructive for those who want to legislate. There are some 
that say some Members of the House shouldn't be legislators; they 
should just be communicators, throwing up speed bumps and ignoring the 
reality of the problem that we face that the President inherited from a 
former dysfunctional administration that was enabled by my Republican 
friends when they were in charge: massive budget deficits, serious 
problems hollowing out the economy, a housing bubble that burst, 
problems overseas, and ignoring climate change not just in this country 
but global leadership. What we have seen in 3 short months is an 
opportunity in this Congress to do something about it.
  There is a positive choice that is brought forth in the budget 
resolution that would be undercut by the motion to instruct to give 
almost $100 billion over the next 10 years to students instead of 
bankers, to students instead of bankers. In States like mine with an 
unemployment rate of over 12 percent, and I know my colleague and 
friend from South Carolina has a high unemployment rate, we have a 
chance to help students and their families that are struggling, putting 
more money in their pockets, not into the pockets of bankers. This 
budget resolution gives us more leverage to deliver on that promise. It 
is a blueprint to work with the President and the legislators here who 
want to legislate, not just talk, to provide alternative choices to 
American families dealing with health care.
  Already in the first 100 days of the President, we have acted to 
extend health care to 11 million children across the United States. We 
have dealt in the economic recovery package with bridge financing to 
help them keep their health insurance if they are laid off. These are 
things that are part of a constructive program that's available to all 
who take seriously their responsibilities to roll up their sleeves and 
legislate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate that.
  Madam Speaker, there is a concern that is talked about time and time 
again about reconciliation instructions dealing with climate change. 
I'm one of the people that would like to have strengthened the hand of 
the House of Representatives in this vital debate on the future of the 
planet and the health of our economy to give more leverage to deal with 
carbon pollution and to put more green jobs into the economy and money 
in the hands of consumers, not utilities that are polluting. But that's 
not there.
  I would strongly urge my colleagues to reject this motion as they 
rejected an ill-considered 5-year freeze on some of the most important 
spending on behalf of our constituents that the Republicans offered up. 
We rejected that, wisely, and I'm pleased that many Republicans voted 
against it because it was so ill considered and draconian. It is time 
to reject this motion and get to work.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Let me see if I can go at it in a different direction.
  Under reconciliation, the total debate on the reconciliation bill 
here, 4 hours on a bill, 1 hour on a conference report. In the Senate, 
20 hours on a bill, 10 hours on a conference report. That means total 
debate on reconciliation in Congress, 35 hours. Let's assume that they 
break up the bill into three reconciliation vehicles, as could be the 
case with this, 105 total hours, total hours, of debate between the 
House of Representatives and the United States Senate.
  Wow, 105 total hours of debate in this Congress to determine the 
largest and the most sweeping transformation of our Federal Government 
we have not seen since the New Deal. These aren't my words. These are 
words from the administration who claimed that that's the ambition of 
this budget.
  We are being presented with a new budget with such awesome ambition, 
with such an enormous increase in spending, taxing, and borrowing, a 
virtual takeover of 25 percent of our economy in just the health care 
and energy sectors alone, the largest tax increase we have seen ever in 
the history of this country, the largest debt increase proposed under 
this Presidency than all prior Presidencies combined, all rushed 
through with a simple majority vote in as little as 35 hours and no 
more than 105 hours of debate. Is that democracy? No. Is that what 
reconciliation was meant to be? No.
  Reconciliation, the spirit and the idea behind it, was to get our 
fiscal house in order, was to get spending and borrowing under control, 
not out of control.
  Unfortunately, this rule is being twisted, contorted, distorted to 
achieve these ends as quickly as possible to ramrod it through Congress 
without giving many voices to it, without having any bipartisan 
collaboration, and just moving through the gauntlet.
  This is the problem with this, Madam Speaker, which is when the 
American people voted for change, and I heard this at my 25 listening 
sessions, I don't think a lot of them thought this was the kind of 
change they were voting for. They didn't think they were voting for the 
kind of change to more mortgages on their children's future. They 
didn't think they were voting for a brand new national energy tax on 
their livelihoods, on their heating bills, on their gas bills, on their 
electricity bills. They didn't think they were voting for a new tax on 
the manufacturing jobs in America when our own competitors in China and 
India will not do this to themselves. They didn't think they were 
voting for the largest tax increase in history. They didn't think they 
were voting for the kind of change that gives us a sea of red ink, a 
mountain of

[[Page 10389]]

debt, a government that is the biggest we have seen in a generation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 
seconds.
  The whole idea of ramming all of this government, this gusher of 
spending and taxing and borrowing through, in as little as 105 hours of 
debate is not democracy. It is not the way this House is supposed to 
work. Unfortunately, that is precisely what the majority aims to do. 
And that is why we agree with the Democrats in the Senate to stop that 
from happening.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, H. Con. Res. 85 builds on the work this Congress has 
started on to get our economy back on track, address the current 
crisis, and build for future needs.
  Just so folks will understand, a budget in Congress is not like the 
budget we think about. It really is a framework. It's a blueprint.
  I'm sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about all 
the things that are in it, but what they don't say is this doesn't do 
any of the things they are talking about. We'd like for our friends 
across the aisle to join us. This really should not be a partisan 
issue. The issue of getting our economy on track shouldn't be partisan. 
The issue of investing in education for our children's future shouldn't 
be a partisan issue. The issue of fixing health care for the American 
people, in my home State one of the largest numbers of people 
unemployed are in North Carolina because our unemployment rate right 
now is fourth in the Nation. These people don't care who gets it for 
them. They want health care fixed. And certainly I remember $4 a gallon 
of gasoline that got us where we are. We need to fix that.
  This bill lays out a plan to cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds by 
2013 and create jobs with investments in those areas I have just talked 
about: health care, clean energy, and in education.
  And, yes, reconciliation is about getting a budget in balance. That's 
what the Democrats have used it for, what we used it for last time. And 
I think it's appropriate when it's used that way. But I will remind you 
that a budget is more than just a document. It is a statement of our 
Nation's priorities and our values. And this budget is about that. It's 
about the future. It's about the people's needs, and it's about 
creating jobs with investments and reform in health care, clean energy, 
and education to make sure that we are prepared for the 21st century 
economy.
  Our efforts in this budget are about protecting families. And it's 
really about three things and three things only: jobs, jobs, jobs. We 
have to remember that. At the end of the day, there are a lot of people 
in this country who are looking to us to help. Yes, the business 
community needs our help, and we are going to try to do it. It takes 
the first step in restoring America's financial strength. And we will 
get there by growing our economy in areas like health care, education, 
and energy, which will pave the way for a sustained recovery and get 
our people back to work and our economy back on track. And, yes, I am 
very pleased that this budget makes room for those areas. But it makes 
room for critical investment in education in the future of our children 
and not just children but for those who want to go to college and, yes, 
for those who want to go back to school and make a difference as the 
economy changes and get an education so that they can make a way for 
their family.
  I would encourage you to vote for this resolution and vote against 
the motion to instruct.
  As the only former state schools chief serving in Congress, I am 
particularly pleased that the budget prioritizes education and 
innovation. In recent months, first with the economic recovery 
legislation and then as we finished the 2009 appropriations process, 
Congress devoted significant funding to education to create quality 
jobs now and in the future. This budget resolution provides a blueprint 
to follow through on these priorities.
  Education is the key to economic growth, future success, and access 
to opportunity for our citizens, and this Budget Resolution makes a 
clear statement that education is a top priority.
  We are a nation of great resources that has proven time and again 
that we are the world leader in innovation and progress. With time, and 
with continued effort, we will break with the failed policies of the 
recent past and restore our strength and global competitiveness.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield one of the remaining minutes on my 
side to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, just as I listened to this debate, and 
it is a debate, and while the other side is primarily debating process 
and the concerns they have about how much they will be able to be 
heard, I would suggest that they be heard on their solutions for energy 
independence, for fiscal responsibility for our Nation, and for growing 
those jobs through health care reform and education.
  This is a moment when in fact the American people did call on us to 
take action on this these critical issues. They understand the enormous 
challenges facing their own families, their communities and our Nation. 
And they are calling on us to take action, to do it in a fiscally 
responsible way, but to face America's challenges, to make the 
investments in our future.
  That is what this budget does. It sets out a path for us to tackle 
these major challenges. That is what we want to do. We would like to do 
it in a bipartisan way. We are certainly going to have hours and hours 
of debate, both here in Congress, in our committees and at home. And 
that is what we should do. The American people and American businesses 
are counting on us.
  Vote for this budget, vote to proceed and vote for America.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me clarify just a few things, because we have heard repeated on 
the floor today arguments made several weeks ago when the concurrent 
resolution first came to the floor that this was the biggest spending 
bill in the history of the country.
  The truth of the matter is simply this: spending is unprecedentedly 
large. The reason is we are in the midst of one of the worst recessions 
since the Great Depression and we have taken remedial steps which have 
been costly to the Federal Government, quite a few of which were 
launched under the Bush administration. So that has swollen the total 
spending and the total deficit for this year.
  But listen to this: total outlays for 2009, fiscal year 2009, total 
outlays, the whole budget, is $3.8 trillion. Next year under this 
budget total outlays will be $3.5 trillion. You have heard it said 
repeatedly over there that spending is going up. It is coming down. It 
will come down further, just as will the deficit, because this is a 
deficit reduction budget resolution which reduces the deficit from 
$1.752 trillion to $533 billion in 3 or 4 fiscal years. That is a 
matter of truth.
  If you care to take the time and pick up a copy of the committee 
report, you will see on page 5 this simple sentence about the tax 
situation: ``This budget resolution calls for reducing the revenues 
provided under CBO's baseline forecast, reducing them by $613 billion 
between 2009 and 2014 and by $1.48 trillion between 2010 and 2019.''
  These are facts. They haven't been refuted. Every time we have asked 
that their arithmetic be explained to back up their rhetoric, we have 
not gotten an answer.
  Now, let me say a word or two about reconciliation. Reconciliation 
has been since the outset of the budget process in 1974 an essential 
part of making a budget. If you listened to the argument here on the 
floor, what you heard were a lot of red herrings.
  For example, it was suggested that this is going to be an impediment 
to choice; this is going to get in between patients and their doctors 
or patients and the insured and the insurance companies in choosing 
health insurance.

[[Page 10390]]

There is nothing in here, nothing whatsoever that even breathes a word 
about either of those subjects.
  There is talk here that this would in fact deal with cap-and-trade, 
even though we took cap-and-trade out of the President's budget 
request, removed it completely. It is not spoken of or mentioned there. 
And you heard Earl Blumenauer just on the floor a minute ago. He would 
love to see it there, but it is not. He made an honest examination of 
it. It is not there. But you wouldn't know it to listen to the other 
side.
  You will also however thwart the passage of some things that we think 
are worthy and vital. Certainly we want to improve higher education and 
the access to higher education for all children in America, thinking 
that it is their birthright if it is something they can attain.
  And we definitely, decidedly, clearly need to do something about 46 
million Americans who do not have health insurance. If we were to pass 
this resolution and then take out the reconciliation provision, we 
would have a very difficult time ensuring ourselves that legislation to 
that effect would be produced on a timely basis.
  That is what reconciliation is all about, simply this: we can say 
that the committees of jurisdiction on the Budget Committee through 
action on the floor by a certain date do a certain thing to raise a 
certain sum of money or to lower revenues by a certain sum. That 
doesn't get the bill off the floor. You still have to command a 
majority on the floor. That doesn't get the bill out of conference. You 
still have to confer with the Senate, work out your differences and get 
it passed again by both Houses. And that doesn't get you past go. You 
still have got to get the President to sign the bill. All those hurdles 
are still in place. It is not like we are going to go off running to 
the races if we adopt this. We simply assure ourselves that by a date 
certain, certain action will be taken.
  Finally this: there is some seemingly simple language here about 
offsets, saying if you want to increase a program, you have got to 
actually cut spending to offset it. There is nothing wrong with that.
  I was one of the sponsors of and supporters of, and still am, of 
something we call PAYGO. But if we want to provide that everything must 
be offset by commensurate spending decreases, you will kill the 
opportunity we have had to pass programs like CHIP, the Children's 
Health Insurance Program, the expansion of which, the creation of 
which, was allowed by use of tobacco taxes and cigarette taxes.
  So this motion to instruct is unnecessary, unwarranted, and it will 
impede the passage of what we believe is a good budget resolution. 
Therefore, we would urge all Members to vote against it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by, first of all, saying, 
and I comment on this a lot, I have tremendous respect for the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt. He is an admirable man who has a 
very difficult job.
  I would like to hearken back to a day where bipartisanship on the 
budget worked, the year before I came into Congress, and Mr. Spratt was 
a key part of this. That was the 1997 budget agreement. That is when 
reconciliation was used for its intended purpose. In that 1997 budget 
agreement, where you had a Democratic President and a Republican House, 
they came together in bipartisan fashion to reduce spending and to 
reduce taxes, and it is that budget agreement that paved the way for 
the surpluses that then occurred and followed that helped us pay down 
debt.
  The fact is, Madam Speaker, that both parties should claim credit for 
that job and that improvement in our fiscal situation, for bringing 
those surpluses, for balancing the budget and for having a substantial 
contribution to debt reduction. Both parties did that. Both parties 
should get credit for that.
  But here we are today, taking this process that has been used to good 
effect in the past, fulfilling the spirit of the process, and we are 
just turning it upside down.
  Let's review the contents of this. We very well might have, with as 
little as 35 hours of debate between the two Chambers and no more than 
105 hours of debate because of this fast-track procedure, the greatest 
transformation of our Federal Government since the New Deal. Let's 
review the issues.
  Taxes: What this budget proposes to do is to impose a new national 
energy tax on everybody who consumes energy: a tax on manufacturing, a 
tax on coal-burning States like my own, a tax that is bad for our 
economy. Higher taxes on small businesses. Higher taxes on investments. 
Higher taxes in a recession.
  We proposed an alternative in our budget. We said, no, let's not 
raise taxes in a recession. Let's make our businesses more competitive 
in the global economy so we can create jobs in this recession. That was 
rejected. Now there they are steamrolling these tax increases through 
with very little debate and very few amendments.
  Let's talk about cap-and-trade. The chairman gave an articulate 
defense for how cap-and-trade is not happening here. It is not in this 
budget. Well, then why on Earth is the Commerce Committee marking up 
cap-and-trade legislation next week? They are having hearings right 
now, and they are marking this bill up next week, and they are bringing 
it to the floor.
  Here is the problem with cap-and-trade. We don't think it works. Even 
if you think you have a carbon problem, hitting our economy with this 
while our very competitors in China and India won't do it will not even 
reduce carbon in the atmosphere. It will actually increase carbon, but 
from China and India. For every one ton of greenhouse gases we reduce 
in America, China increases theirs by three or four tons. We lose our 
manufacturing jobs. They get the jobs. They emit carbon in the 
atmosphere. There is more carbon in the atmosphere and America has 
fewer jobs. How is that a good idea?
  We proposed an alternative in our budget. We said let's drill for oil 
and gas in our own country, where we have a lot of it; and let's invest 
the proceeds of it in a clean energy trust fund so we innovate our way 
toward a clean energy system, so we innovate our way for nuclear, clean 
coal, renewables, biomass, wind, solar, all these things, fuel cells.
  Americans are innovators. Let's not hit ourselves with a huge energy 
tax that costs jobs. Let's innovate our way out of this problem through 
a cleaner energy economy. That is our alternative. That was rejected. 
Now this cap-and-trade thing could get swept through with as little as 
35 hours of debate.
  Let's talk about health care. I just came from the Ways and Means 
Committee, another committee I serve on, before coming to the floor 
here today, where they are discussing how in the budget reconciliation 
they are going to have a new health care plan that has a government-run 
plan option. The problem with the government-run plan option is it 
quickly becomes a government-run plan monopoly.
  One of the leading health insurance actuaries in America, the Lewin 
Group, is telling us that as many as 120 million Americans would lose 
their private health insurance under this government-run plan option. 
This is government-run health care. It may not say it in name, it may 
not be what it says it is going to do tomorrow, but it is clearly what 
all the actuaries and the economists are telling us what it becomes.
  The advocates in the Ways and Means Committee are already telling us, 
why have private health insurance in the first place? Let's just have 
the government run it all. So clearly the intention is being made 
known, and this confiscation of 17 percent of our economy will run 
through Congress with as little as 35 hours of debate.
  This is what we are talking about. Should we have a government 
takeover of health care in America? Let's have a debate about that. 
Let's not have 35 hours of debate.

[[Page 10391]]

  Should we impose the largest energy tax in the history of this 
country on our manufacturers, on seniors, on the upper Midwest where we 
have cold winters, or should we just ram this thing through with 35 
hours of debate?
  Should we hit our economy in the middle of a recession with the 
largest tax increase in history, ram it through with no amendments with 
as little as 35 hours of debate?
  Should we transform the Federal Government, the largest 
transformation we have seen since the New Deal, with as little as 35 
hours of debate?
  We think no. And we agree with the Democrats in the Senate who agree 
with us that the answer should be no.
  Let's concur with the Senate Democrats. Let's pass this motion to 
instruct and let's give America democracy and debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin's time has 
expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam 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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________