Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely sorry the gentlewoman is opposed to the rule. We think it is an excellent and traditional rule, and do not think we can proceed to the budget debate without it. I hope Members will support the rule. 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. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend from the Committee on Rules, 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, the legislation before us waives all points of order against the conference report to accompany H. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002 and against its consideration. Basically, this is the rule that gets the budget debate going. The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read and further provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. This is a fair and standard rule for consideration of the conference report for the budget, and I hope we have the support of all Members. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this spring I have had the privilege to stand before the House and address my fellow Americans on our country's budget. While the details may be a little different from the original House position, the sentiments do remain the same. The budget before the House today provides an historic level of tax cuts, while still providing Americans with needed resources and services. The budget blueprint before us provides more relief than the previous administration ever dreamed possible. From the beginning of his administration, President Bush has stressed the importance of bipartisan efforts to reach our national goals. This conference report illustrates how working together can benefit all Americans, both taxpayers and citizens who count on Federal programs. Included in the budget are allocations to pay back our country's debt, to fortify our national defense, to improve education, and strengthen both Social Security and Medicare. These are all critical issues. After all these programs have been addressed, there is still money remaining. These remaining funds will result in $1.35 trillion worth of tax relief over the next 11 years. This is real relief for all taxpayers. Now, I know some of my colleagues will complain that the tax cut is either too big or too small. We are certainly going to hear plenty of rhetoric and probably some class warfare language today on that subject. But this debate is not about winning or losing, it is about treating the American taxpayers fairly. Some opponents of the revised budget are overlooking the difference between zero dollars and $1.35 trillion of relief. Others are saying any tax relief is unthinkable. Both views are radical. They are off the mark, and they are out of the mainstream. This budget illustrates compromise and bipartisanship, obviously working with the other body, to achieve carefully considered and prudent tax relief. I commend the conferees for their hard work and dedication to reaching an agreement. I am hopeful and I am confident that this budget does set a new tone in Washington. Instead of placing partisan point scoring above real overdue affordable relief, this budget focuses on necessary services for all Americans and tax relief for taxpayers. What a great idea. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a distinguished colleague and a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 136 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a distinguished colleague and a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to make some closing remarks. I think this has been actually a very good warm-up for the next debate that is coming on this. Sure, we have heard some of the scare stories and we have heard some of the rhetorical questions we have expected. And I think that we are going to continue to hear those because rhetorical questions perpetuate shibboleths and shibboleths are what you do when you do not have anything else to do. I am sorry that there is not a feeling that this has not been a carefully thought-out effort. I believe it has, and I think it has gone through conference and had a great deal of discussion not only in the Congress of the United States but in the executive branch and across America. And I certainly have found that in my district when I have gone home. I know we have done scare tactics before, and I guess some people think scare tactics are an excuse not to vote for tax relief; and that is okay if you really do not believe in tax relief. I remember very well that scare tactics do not last very long. I remember experiencing them some years ago; that somehow our party was going to stop school lunches and then we were going to stop Meals-on-Wheels for elderly. And all that did was cause anxiety for a lot of Americans, and it was never true. Now I guess we are going to have school lunches that are going to have arsenic and salmonella in them, listening to some of the latest opposition party ads about what we are doing. I do not think the falling-sky scenario does very well for America or is positive in getting the program or the business of government done. I think even The Washington Post editorialized a few years ago that Mediscare was a tactic that was not worthy of the honorable Democratic Party when we were trying very hard to find ways to resolve the trust fund issues, which in fact we did on a bipartisan basis, just like we found a way to protect Social Security. And I would say that that was under a Republican-led Congress, but it was certainly at a time when there was a Democrat in the White House. So I think when we do work together, we come out with a pretty good product. And I think in this case we have a pretty good product. I do not think we ignore our veterans, and I do not think we ignore any Americans. This is an honest effort, and I urge everybody's support for the rule so we can continue this debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), a distinguished member of our conference. (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a new Member that we welcome.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague from New York that it would be my intention to yield at this time a few minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget and then go to the rotation for her to close and for me to close. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the interesting things that is going on here is that I am representing the Committee on Rules and am proud to do so and we are dealing with a rule. Other speakers have gotten a little off the track of the rule and are talking about the budget, which is the property and province of the Committee on the Budget and the conference committee that is discussing it. It is the Committee on Rules' desire to get this legislation back to that conference committee where the gentleman could properly address that question.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am, of course, very pleased that the gentlewoman is approaching this in a bipartisan way and there is full agreement. This is a bipartisan rule. We are both encouraging support for this rule. If you do not like the budget, send it back to the conference committee. If you do like the budget, send it back to the conference committee. This is actually one of the easiest rules I have ever had to handle. I do say the gentleman from South Carolina was very instructive. I am going to get myself one of those charts for Rules so that I can get people to understand what it is we are talking about better. I am looking forward to the budget debate tomorrow when members from the Committee on the Budget will actually be at the microphones and at the leadership and committee tables on this side explaining the budget that we are proposing. Tonight we are proposing a rule because we are the Committee on Rules. The rule is designed to get the budget on the floor because that is much more interesting and more important. That is what we hope to accomplish. I want to thank all of those for their forbearance as we have gone through this procedure which is not something that we had anticipated when we started; but I appreciate the comity, good humor, and pleasant commentary and the bipartisanship. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend and colleague from the Committee on Rules; 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 on this matter. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us grants us a rule that provides that upon adoption of the rule the conference report to accompany H. Con. Res. 83 shall be recommitted to the conference committee. Simply put, and in plain English for Members, what we are doing is we are taking care of the necessary procedure to get the budget debate on the floor tomorrow. What is going to happen is we are going to pass this rule, then the matter is going to go to the other body. The Committee on Rules is going to meet a little later in the evening, put out a rule to get the new conference report on the floor tomorrow with an appropriate rule, and the House will go about the business of deliberating and voting on the budget, which we are all anxious to get to after the long opportunity we have had to review it in the past several days. Therefore, this is somewhat of a technical matter; but it is important that in order to continue our progress towards getting the budget on the floor that we adopt this rule. I do not think there is anything unusual about it or controversial about it, and I urge all Members' support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 134 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I intend to reserve the balance of my time until further notice.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just respond to say that the reason we are using the procedures that we are is to get us timely to the debate on the budget which we hope to have tomorrow. The rules covering the conference reports, preserving the prerogatives of both Chambers of the House, require that we recommit the conference report. We have created a way to do that this evening, it seems appropriate to do, and then we will proceed tomorrow to debate on the budget. I think that the argument now that the minority has not had a chance to see the budget is a little bit strange considering we have just had 4 days, an ample time to review and ample time to consider that document. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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, H. Res. 131 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. The rule applies the waiver to a special rule reported on the legislative day of May 8, 2001, providing for consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 83, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2002. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I realize it might be a little late to do this, but in the interest of accuracy and trying to refocus what we are actually about here, what we are debating is the rule that waives the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to the same day consideration of certain resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules. We are not debating the budget here, and the vote we are going to take is not on the budget. In fact, if you wish to get to the budget debate, I urge you to support the rule. The majority is trying to bring the budget to the floor so that the debate we have already heard, some good introductory discussions in this past half-hour, can come to full-blown debate under the conference rules on the floor of the House. So I am going to ask everybody please to support this rule so we can in fact get on with the budget debate tomorrow. I think that I have heard some concern that was a little puzzling, a lot of conference discussion about this particular budget, which my colleague from New York says is being rewritten by the other body as we speak. If that in fact is the case, then why are we debating a document that is not going to be relevant? So it seems to me that we should have focused our remarks on the expedition that the majority is trying to bring forth, and that is a journey to the budget debate as quickly as possible in the broad daylight on a beautiful day in Washington, tomorrow, Wednesday, May 9. I think that those who are still talking about being deprived of the opportunity to see the budget, whether it is the budget we are going to see or not, need to remember that they have had 4 days over the weekend, and indeed, it sounds as if some members have spent some time, and that is useful. Those who would say that the majority has not been particularly apt or particularly fair in this process are entitled to their opinion, but I think those that come to Washington to look for perfection ought not to be the ones who cast the first stones. I am reminded that I am human and I readily admit I make errors, and I have machines in my office that jam occasionally, they are called copy machines, and if members have copy machines that do not jam, I would like to know what the brand is, because most every brand I have tried jammed, and that, in fact, is what happened. We had a jammed copy machine, and in our interest to try and get the debate started, we were not prudent enough to catch the fact that there were still two pieces of paper caught in the copy machine. We did catch it; but we just did not catch it immediately, so we misfiled. I know that error takes place, and I do not want to be the one to cast the first stone; but since the stone has been cast, I generally remember in my earlier term here, I think it was back about 1992, there was an embarrassing moment when the present minority was in the majority when somehow or other we lost track of $25 billion worth of Russian aid and the Speaker of the House went through a very considerable scramble to get it back. I do not recall us making a Federal case out of that, and I think that we solved that problem. I also believe this problem is a much more minor problem; this only involves perhaps giving the opportunity of Members 4 more days to review what might, in fact, be our budget document for budget debate. So I think that we have come out ahead on this. Whether that was by design or by circumstance does not matter. We, in fact, are going to have a good chance to debate this budget; and everybody is going to have a chance to see what is in it. But all of that is not relevant to what is before us, which is the rule to get on with the same-day provision that will allow us to get on to debating the budget. So without further comment on the fact that I think we have had an interesting preview of what might come in a budget debate, I would urge that we support this rule; and then the Committee on Rules will soon bring another rule which will also get us that much closer to the budget debate. So, if my colleagues will support that rule as well, we will then have two good rules in place to get us to the budget debate tomorrow; and we can vote on the budget rule tomorrow and then on the conference report, if all goes well. Having said that, I urge the support of all my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 131 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. I believe that those are somewhat complicated pages that were very carefully negotiated in the conference report and certainly to get them exactly correct, they have not been lost, actually if the gentleman has them, he has found them.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the plan at this time is that votes are still scheduled not before 6:00, but that is subject to change.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.