[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 28, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3192-H3199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H3192]]
{time} 1045
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 99, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 275 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 275
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 99) revising the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2007, establishing the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, and
setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2009 through 2012. The first reading of the concurrent
resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the concurrent resolution shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the concurrent resolution are waived. General debate shall
not exceed four hours, with three hours confined to the
congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget and one hour on the subject of economic goals and
policies equally divided and controlled by Representative
Maloney of New York and Representative Saxton of New Jersey
or their designees. After general debate the concurrent
resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as
read. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report, and shall
not be subject to amendment. All points of order against the
amendments printed in the report are waived except that the
adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent
resolution for amendment. After the conclusion of
consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to
the House with such amendment as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final
adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to
section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question
of its adoption.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of House
Concurrent Resolution 99 pursuant to this resolution,
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the
Chair may postpone further consideration of the concurrent
resolution to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary
30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
General Leave
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on House Resolution 275.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 275 provides for
consideration of H. Con. Res. 99, the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2008 under a structured rule.
The rule provides for 4 hours of general debate, three to be
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the
Budget and one to be controlled by Representative Maloney of New York
and Representative Saxton of New Jersey.
The rule also makes in order three substitute amendments by
Representative Scott of Virginia, Representative Woolsey and
Representative Ryan of Wisconsin.
Madam Speaker, budgets, more than anything else this government
produces, are a statement of what matters to us and what does not. They
are moral documents. They tell us to what degree we care to look after
the old and protect the young. They indicate our responsibilities to
commitments both abroad and here at home. They give life to our
greatest dreams as a Nation. They are the hope we leave for our
children and become the legacy we bestow upon our people.
And they can be examples of great courage, or an absolution of
Congress's responsibility to set priorities consistent with
strengthening our people and our communities.
Madam Speaker, as it concerns the budget, it has been a long 6 years
for this Nation. The budget has been out of balance fiscally, and it
has been out of balance with the needs of the American people.
Just 6 years ago, we were looking at a projected $5.6 trillion
surplus. That has collapsed into a $9 trillion deficit. For every
American in this country, there is $29,000 worth of debt.
And to add insult to injury, most of the debt we have taken on in
recent years will be sent to investors in foreign countries.
It goes far beyond having been drunk at the wheel. Our predecessors
in the majority not only crashed the car into a ditch, they accelerated
after landing there, allowing mud to cave in on top of it.
That was the fiscal situation Democrats found when we arrived here a
few months ago in the majority.
Since President Bush took office in 2001, my home State of Ohio alone
has lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs; and 3 million have been lost
nationwide.
Job growth overall has slowed to a significantly slower pace in
recent years than under the Clinton administration, at a rate even
below the level necessary to keep pace with population growth. Sadly,
our families have even less purchasing power today than they did in
January of 2001.
And the debt has continued to pile up, with no accountability, no
fiscal responsibility, no effort to place priorities in the right
places, to curb wasteful spending, to do what needs to be done to make
sure that the programs consistent with the values of this Nation,
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, SCHIP and Community Block
Grants continue to be able to survive.
In short, the policies enacted in recent years will have devastating
effects on our future competitiveness and standard of living if we
continue down the same destructive road.
But it is a new day, and we have a new path to follow, one that says
that it is more important to take care of our wounded veterans than it
is to take care of oil companies, one that says that kids cannot grow
up to thrive and give back to this great Nation if they do not have the
health care when they are young, one that says that a measure of a
Nation can be taken in small things like heating assistance for the
elderly and nutrition programs in local schools and special assistance
for those with disabilities.
Indeed, it is in the small print of the Federal budget that we find
our worth as a government, which is why I am proud, both as a member of
the Budget Committee, and as a Member of Congress, to support this
Democratic budget.
It is the first time in a very long time that Congress has before it
a budget that is fiscally responsible and in line with the needs of the
American people.
{time} 1100
This budget makes critical investments in education, health care, our
veterans, our communities and our economy while at the same time
adhering to PAYGO principles and returning our budget to balance by
2012. The reckless economic policies of the last 6 years have been
immensely damaging to our economy's long-term global competitiveness
and particularly to our workers.
The Democratic budget will strengthen middle-class families by
providing funding for job training programs,
[[Page H3193]]
health care, and education, particularly in math and science. These are
all essential investments in our workforce that will lay a solid
foundation for a growing economy and improve our competitiveness. The
Democratic budget rejects the President's draconian cuts to programs
that provide health care to the poor, to our children, and our seniors.
Nine million of the neediest children in this country and 242,000 in
the State of Ohio lack health insurance coverage, and the funding
levels in the President's budget put as many as 1 million of these
children at risk to fall off the SCHIP program by 2012. In contrast,
the Democratic budget provides for a $50 billion increase to SCHIP,
allowing us to reach millions more children than we reach right now,
making our children's health care needs a Federal Government priority.
The Democratic budget also rejects the $300 billion in Medicare and
Medicaid cuts proposed by the administration. Access to health care
should be a right, not a privilege, in this Nation and it does not
serve any of us to roll back the clock on the health care initiatives
that have served us so well up until now.
The Democratic budget is also about investing in our communities. It
provides for increased funding for Community Development Block Grants,
the Social Service Block Grants, and it saves Community Services Block
Grants which was zeroed out in the President's budget. I have
personally spoken with a number of the community officials in my own
district that would have been affected by the proposed cuts in block
grant programs and I will tell you that at the local level, these
programs are lifelines for our neighborhoods and towns. They address
needs in affordable housing, education and nutrition. They promote
financial literacy and assist with child care needs and special
services to children with disabilities. And in our cities, the CDBG
funds help provide affordable housing and services to our most
vulnerable populations. In short, we should not be trying to do away
with programs that work.
The Democratic budget also makes education a priority, from early
childhood to lifelong learning. To that end, our budget provides $3
billion over the current services level for education, training and
social services. These increases are an investment in our future and
will be vital to our global competitiveness. We have increased funding
for those just beginning their education, like the 38,000 children in
Head Start in Ohio, and we have taken steps to make college education
more affordable through Pell Grants and a higher education reserve
fund. We have included funds to train more math and science teachers.
Finally, the Democratic budget reflects a major shift in priorities
by providing for a $5.4 billion increase in the Veterans Affairs budget
which is an 18.1 percent increase over 2007 levels and the largest
increase in history. Recently it has become clear that the needs of our
brave men and women who have served our country so honorably have not
been met. We have heard heartbreaking stories of wounded veterans who
must wait up to 6 months for disability determinations and about VA
facilities that are in disrepair. The more than 1 million veterans in
Ohio and the more than 24 million nationwide deserve nothing less than
our full support. Anything less is simply unacceptable.
A budget reflects the soul of a nation. It can give life to our most
honorable pursuits and provide proof of the best of our intentions. It
is the Rosetta Stone which those who look upon us from the present and
from the future can decipher our worth and our courage.
It is with those thoughts in mind that I am proud to present this
budget for consideration by the House.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
this rule and to the unprecedented tax increase that the Democrat
majority is bringing to the House floor today. The massive and
irresponsible tax increase included in this budget would be the largest
in American history, weighing in at a shocking $392.5 billion over the
next 5 years. This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of
everyday taxpayers, will be used to finance bloated new government
spending that my colleague just spoke about that will be well above the
rate of inflation through 2012 while ignoring the brewing entitlement
crisis. Spending, more spending, and more spending rather than worrying
about the brewing entitlement crisis that faces this Nation. Around 77
million baby boomers will be retiring in the near future and will begin
collecting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Funding this new
spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era and is a
challenge the Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore while
going on a spending spree everywhere else.
If fiscal discipline is what the Democrats promised voters this past
fall, then by my count it took all of about 3 months for the Democrat
candidates to abandon their campaign trail promises and show their true
tax-and-spend stripes here again on the floor today.
This deeply flawed budget would increase taxes on almost 8 million
taxpayers in my home State of Texas, costing each of them an average of
$2,755 per year. It would collect these taxes by allowing the 2001 and
2003 tax relief provided by the Republican Congress to expire. In real
terms, for every taxpayer, this means reducing the child tax credit for
working families so that government can collect $27 billion more to
finance the new spending that the Democrat majority chooses. It means
reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax to collect an
additional $104 billion so that the majority can kick that further down
the road rather than reforming and strengthening our Nation's
entitlement programs. And it means completely ignoring the alternative
minimum tax crisis which is projected to hit 23 million middle-class
families if not dealt with quickly.
Madam Speaker, I believe the voters watching this debate on C-SPAN
understand what these tax increases mean for our economy and our
ability to compete globally, for, you see, I remember just a few short
years ago when America was shipping thousands and thousands of jobs
overseas and then the tax cuts took place and now we can't find enough
workers in America. Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you, that is the
way to be globally competitive, when you have plenty of jobs in
America. But the voters and those people watching this debate may not
realize that for a family of four with $60,000 in earnings, it would
mean a tax increase of some 61 percent. It means that a single parent
with two children and $30,000 in earnings would see a tax increase of
67 percent. And it means that an elderly couple with $40,000 in income
would see their taxes increased by a whopping 156 percent.
Now, one would think that a tax increase of almost $400 billion
impacting every American taxpayer would be enough to finance the
Democrats' appetite for big government programs. But hold on. This is
just the start. There's more to come. This budget also contains 12
reserve funds, or pet initiative IOUs, which set the stage for more
than $115 billion in future higher spending which will have to be
financed by, let me say, you guessed it, the taxpayer. Higher taxes.
For the last 4 years, responsible budgets passed by the Republican
Party kept discretionary spending at or below inflation for all non-
defense, non-homeland security spending. This budget plan brought
forward by the Democrats brings this tradition to a screeching halt by
allowing about $25 billion more in discretionary spending than
requested by President Bush or even the spendthrift Senate, which asks
for about $7 billion less than the House.
Thankfully, it is not too late to stop this fiscal train wreck. My
friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, has
proposed an alternative budget that achieves balance by 2012 and ends
the raid on Social Security without raising taxes. The Republican
alternative maintains our strong economy, reforms and strengthens
entitlement programs, and does this while keeping in place the tax
relief that has contributed so much to our economy since 2001.
Without meaningful tax relief passed by recent Republican Congresses,
our economy would not have seen the massive job growth--with 7.6
million new jobs or roughly 170,000 per month--and
[[Page H3194]]
economic growth of 3.5 percent a year that it has experienced over the
last 15 quarters.
The Republican budget contains no increase in marginal rates and
leaves in place the 10 percent bracket for low-income filers. It
includes no reduction in child tax credit, no rollback of the marriage
penalty or death tax relief, and no increase in capital gains or
dividend tax rates. It provides for an extension of alternative minimum
tax relief, the research and development tax credit, and the State and
local sales tax deduction that is so important to people all across
this country, including the 17 States that it benefits. It ends the
raid on Social Security and fully funds the President's request for
national defense and the war on terrorism. It also makes important
budget reforms, such as a legislative line-item veto; earmark
transparency; requiring PAYGO to be offset by spending reductions, not
tax increases; discretionary spending caps; requiring a vote on any
debt limit increase; and requiring a vote on any bill that seeks to
spend or authorize more than $50 million.
Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to listen very
carefully today about what the choices are that are on the floor of the
House of Representatives and what they can support and to stand up for
fiscal discipline, economic growth and responsible budgeting by
opposing this rule and the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a distinguished member of the Rules and
Budget Committees.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of this
rule and in support of this budget resolution. It provides our
families, seniors and children with economic security, health care, and
nutrition.
Madam Speaker, 5.4 million more people live in poverty today than in
the year 2000. That is over 35 million total, and 12.4 million are
children. One in every eight Americans is hungry. One in eight does not
know whether they will be able to put food on the table. Madam Speaker,
every single Member of this Congress should be ashamed of these
statistics. The United States is the only wealthy industrialized nation
in the world that tolerates widespread hunger amongst its people,
including its children.
{time} 1115
The decision to tolerate hunger in America has serious costs for us
as a Nation. We constantly hear that we are a Nation committed to
leaving no child behind. But children who are hungry, who live in
poverty, cannot keep up. They cannot develop and thrive. They cannot
learn or play with energy and enthusiasm.
Hunger stunts the physical, mental and emotional growth of millions
of our children. When these children become adults, they are more
likely to have low earnings and low productivity in the workforce.
Their poor health means more illness that requires large health care
expenditures. Their early mortality robs our economy of their labor and
consumption. They are more likely to engage in crime, which results in
monetary and personal cost to their victims and to the taxpayers for
the cost of our criminal justice system. And, sadly, they are also more
likely to be victims, resulting in similar costs.
In other areas, we see the difficulties faced by our seniors, who are
dehumanized and demoralized when they have to choose between utilities
and food. Many need special diets and adequate nutrition for their
medications to work effectively. But, unfortunately, hundreds of
thousands lack adequate food. And when we fail to end hunger among our
elderly, we choose to add to their immediate and long-term health care
costs, even while we hasten their deaths.
These are some of the priorities addressed in the Democratic budget
resolution.
This budget resolution recognizes the burden faced by families when
they are forced to choose between rent, food, heat and medicine, and
provides funding for children's health care and provides funding for
programs like LIHEAP, Head Start and low-income housing.
I want to thank Chairman Spratt for holding a budget hearing on
hunger and inviting Boston pediatrician Deborah Frank and South
Carolina food banker Denise Holland to testify about the urgent need to
address hunger in America. I only wish more of my colleagues attended
that hearing.
We heard how food stamp benefits provide a first defense against
hunger but are too meager to solve the problem, how food stamp benefits
average just $1 per person per meal, how the minimum monthly benefit is
stuck at the decades-old level of $10, and how the program is missing
four in every 10 eligible people.
Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that the programs proven to
attack hunger in America are continually under attack. The Commodity
Food Supplemental Program is continually zeroed out by the Bush
administration. The Food Stamp Program is constantly derided, with
fraud, waste and abuse cited, when, according to the GAO, it is running
at the most productive levels in the history of the program.
It is unconscionable, Madam Speaker, that legal immigrants, people
here legally with proper documentation, must wait 5 years for the food
stamps they may need today, simply because they happen to be newcomers
to our Nation. This is simply bad policy, and it needs to be fixed
immediately. And it is unconscionable that children in need who receive
breakfast and lunches during the school year are denied food during the
summer months simply because school isn't in session.
The next farm bill needs to invest the additional Federal resources
to improve these Federal anti-hunger programs. It should improve the
food stamp benefit, open eligibility to vulnerable and underserved
groups, and adequately fund and fully utilize USDA resources to support
emergency food assistance and other commodity assistance programs that
serve the needy.
This budget resolution, by providing a $20 billion reserve fund for
the farm bill and by rejecting the President's arbitrary eligibility
cuts to food stamps and the elimination of the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program, not only makes a strong statement on the need to combat
hunger in America, it actually takes concrete steps to do so.
This resolution deserves support for the economic and food security
it provides all our people, but, and let me stress, it is only a
beginning. Ending hunger is not and should not be a partisan issue. The
moral and economic costs affect every community in America. There is
not a single community in America that is hunger-free.
So I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work
together here in the Congress and in our communities to create the
sustained and comprehensive investment necessary to end hunger and to
make us a stronger Nation. One step in this path is to pass the budget
resolution before us.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague on the other
side of the aisle, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), speak about the need to expand spending in a wide range of
areas, I could not help but think about why it is that I chose to run
for Congress and why I know my Republican colleagues stepped up to the
plate to run for Congress. We want a defense capability that is second
to none, but we also, Madam Speaker, want to do everything that we
possibly can to reduce the size and scope of government, encouraging
individual initiative and responsibility.
One of the things that troubles me as I listen to the arguments
propounded by so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
is that they talk about a need that is there. We all want to make sure
that we address the very important societal needs that are there. We
want to put into place entitlement reform in the area of both Medicare
and Medicaid. Why? Not only so we can save taxpayer dollars but so that
we can ensure that the Medicare and Medicaid programs are more
effective and provide needed assistance to those who are out there who
truly are in need.
[[Page H3195]]
The problem that I have is, as they talk about all of these programs,
it undermines, it undermines initiative and responsibility. What we
want to do with our budget, Madam Speaker, is everything within our
power, as Mr. Sessions said so well, to make sure that we keep taxes
low.
One of the things that I find to be very troubling is that our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle hate most, hate most the
taxes that have actually created a surge in revenues to the Federal
Treasury.
We all know that the budget that they are going to be bringing
forward puts into place the largest tax increase in American history.
We always held up the 1993 Clinton tax increase, that not one
Republican voted for, as the largest increase in history; and I am
proud that when we won our majority in 1994 we brought about major
changes that, in fact, repealed large parts of that 1993 tax increase.
But, Madam Speaker, that 1993 tax increase, which has been held up as
the model, as the largest tax increase in American history, pales in
comparison to this $392.5 billion tax increase that they are advocating
in this budget.
Madam Speaker, when I say that they hate most the tax cuts that have
created the greatest surge in revenue, I am referring, of course, to
capital gains. I have been one who has long advocated a zero capital
gains tax rate. One of the things that we found is that reducing the
top rate on capital gains has not done what virtually every green
eyeshade prognosticator looked at as what happened. They said there
would be a loss in revenues to the Federal Treasury.
We found, of course, that there has been a surge in revenues to the
Federal Treasury. Why? Because it has encouraged economic growth to the
point where the deficit this year is actually $73 billion lower than it
was last year. And that is as we have cut taxes, met the very important
funding priorities of homeland security and national security, and we
still have been able to actually reduce the Federal deficit. As a
percentage of our Gross Domestic Product the deficit today, which
everyone decries, Democrats and Republicans alike decry, is in fact
lower as a percentage of the GDP than almost ever.
In light of that, Madam Speaker, I think it is very important for us
to recognize we have a strong, vibrant, growing economy today.
I was very surprised when the distinguished Chair of the Committee on
Rules last night, late last night when we were reporting out this rule,
talked about how devastating the economy is.
Madam Speaker, I will tell you it is a devastatingly good economy.
Just this morning, we got the report that there has been an increase in
durable goods purchases. We have a 4.5 percent unemployment rate: 146
million Americans, more than ever in the history of our country, are
working today. That is not an accident. We have gone through terrorist
attacks, corporate scandals, the economic downturn; and, because of the
policies that we put into place, we have the strongest, most dynamic,
$13 trillion economy that we have ever seen in the history of the
United States of America.
Madam Speaker, I talked to an economist last night who said to me,
``You know, I had no idea that they would move this quickly to increase
spending and increase taxes.'' And that is exactly what they are doing,
and that is why we need to reject this rule and clearly do everything
that we can to reject the tax-and-spend budget that they have
propounded and support Mr. Ryan's alternative.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I want to point out
that the Democratic budget does not raise a single penny of taxes,
period.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for
yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this rule and to
enthusiastically support this solid and balanced budget resolution. It
invests in strategic priorities for the future, while putting the
Nation on the path to fiscal stability.
In approaching this debate, I would ask that Members and our
constituents keep in mind that we are not starting from scratch. The
previous leadership left us with a fiscal disaster that can't be
repaired overnight. But this budget gets us on the right track in a
responsible and strategic way.
That is governing. Governing is not easy. It requires making hard
choices. But making hard choices today is better than Congress
abdicating its responsibility to choose altogether. Because the
alternative to making hard choices is passing debt on to tomorrow's
decisionmakers, leaving our children and grandchildren, like my own
Anna and Robby, with a diminished quality of life.
With PAYGO rules, the budget draws a line in the sand. If you want
new mandatory spending or tax cuts, find a way to pay for it.
Shifting the burden on to the next generation is no longer an option
under this budget. We are not going to eradicate the deficit as quickly
as some would like, and we can't spend as much on domestic priorities
as some would like. But this budget gives us the type of solid
foundation that will allow us to tackle our fiscal challenges, while
still investing in the most important priorities.
This budget recognizes that we need to invest in healthcare and
education for our children. It recognizes that we must move to a clean
energy economy by driving research and development and by promoting
scientific innovation and that we must provide for our veterans, who
have served honorably and deserve the best care possible. Finally, this
budget recognizes that the Tax Code should be fair for hardworking
families.
All of this is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner, while
ensuring the security of our Nation. That is a tremendous achievement,
and I thank Chairman Spratt for his diligence in achieving this
excellent legislative product. I urge my colleagues to provide the type
of broad and enthusiastic support that it deserves.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the favorite son
from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from
Texas for yielding.
Madam Speaker, there are two ways to balance a budget, whether it is
your family budget or the Federal budget. You can either, one, reduce
the amount of money being spent or, two, increase the amount of money
coming in.
Madam Speaker, the Democrats have flat-out rejected option number one
of spending less and declared their allegiance to option number two of
raising taxes; and they have done both with a fervor that our country
has never seen before.
The Democrat 5-year budget plan would spend more money each and every
year and at a rate faster than the inflation rate. This means that each
year the size of the Federal Government will grow bigger and more
rapidly than the American economy. To pay for the record levels of
spending in their budget, the Democrats plan to raise taxes on the
American people more than at any other time in our country's history.
That is right, raising spending to record levels and to pay for it with
the largest tax increase in American history.
{time} 1130
This budget does not extend tax relief from the marriage tax penalty.
It doesn't extend the $1,000 child tax credit that many young families
use. It doesn't end the death tax. It doesn't fix the alternative
minimum tax for middle-class families. It doesn't protect the lowest
tax rate, and would again impose taxes on lower income Americans who
right now pay no taxes, thanks to the 2001 tax relief law passed by the
Republican Congress.
This tax relief should not be repealed or allowed to expire to pay
for more government spending. This tax relief that was passed in 2001
and 2003 should remain permanent for the American people.
Madam Speaker, on important priorities for my State, like the
extention of the State and local sales tax deduction from the Federal
tax and county payments for rural schools, the Democrat budget falls
short. It offers only promises, but no real action. The Republican
plan, on the other hand, sets
[[Page H3196]]
aside real dollars to extend the State and local sales tax deduction
for another year. So I encourage all Members who believe in sales tax
fairness to think carefully about this when casting their vote.
On the issue of payment to rural schools in counties with Federal
forests, this budget allows an extension, but it takes no real steps to
make it happen. As I have said before on this issue, I am disappointed
that the Democratic leadership denied the opportunity to attach an
extension of this legislation to another bill, a bill that has, in
fact, been signed into law.
Madam Speaker, the Republican plan I will be supporting holds the
line on spending, sets priorities and allows taxpayers to keep more of
their hard-earned money and invest it as they see fit, not how the
Federal Government sees fit.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the budget resolution
offered by the Democrat majority and support the substitute offered by
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.
You can hear the drumbeat from our friends on the other side of the
aisle about the largest tax increase in American history. Well, the
fact is we are today going to be able to talk about the largest tax
increase in American history, but it is not contained in the Democratic
budget. The largest tax increase in American history is $1.8 trillion
that the President's budget anticipates as a result of the collection
of the alternative minimum tax.
It has never been a priority of the Republicans to deal with this
looming disaster. Indeed, they squandered 8 years of hard-earned
Democratic surpluses, unprecedented surpluses, squandered in a
heartbeat in their relentless pursuit to give tax benefits for those
who need them least.
There are a few items in there that would have broad bipartisan
agreement, the 10 percent bracket, tax credit for families, making some
reasonable adjustment in the inheritance tax. But no, they were not
interested in dealing with areas of agreement and then solving the
alternative minimum tax. Each year, they have kicked the millionaire
tax down the road. It has long since morphed into something that is not
a millionaire's tax. It is going to be a tax under the President's
proposal, and with the Republican priorities, it is going to be a tax
on every two-income working family in America with children that have
any sort of middle income.
They are going to be paying the alternative minimum tax. And in fact,
it is going to cost them more to compute in many cases than the actual
tax. They get whacked twice.
In 2001, in 2003, the Republicans refused to deal with this looming
challenge and instead gave all sorts of tax breaks to all sorts of
people and avoided solving this problem.
In 2004, when we had a $4 billion problem with our overseas
manufacturing tax credit, that morphed into a $137 billion tax grab bag
and ignored the alternative minimum tax. I put forth to the
administration in our hearings in both Ways and Means and in Budget to
find out where their priority was. Well, their priority is not fixing
the alternative minimum tax, just a 1-year patch. They want to extend
all of these tax breaks, the good and, frankly, some of the bizarre,
for people like Paris Hilton.
Well, Madam Speaker, the Democratic alternative is focusing on what
the real problem is. What we are doing in Ways and Means, we have made
a commitment. Our number one priority is to solve the alternative
minimum tax. Theirs, as is evidenced in their substitute, is going to
take all of the potential headroom to make that challenge in solving
the problem even more difficult by permanently extending all of those
tax increases without any offset.
The Democratic alternative is responsible, it speaks to the needs of
working men and women, fiscal stability, and most important, our
priorities stopping the looming tax tsunami of the alternative minimum
tax, which will, in fact, be the largest tax increase in American
history.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by the way, I encourage the gentleman
from Oregon to read the bill. The Democrat budget does not address the
alternative minimum tax, as he stated.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Is the gentleman familiar with the provisions in our
bill that set up the reserve fund so that it permits the opportunity
for the Ways and Means Committee to be able to move forward, hopefully
on a bipartisan basis, to be able to establish that within the pay-as-
you-go rule?
Mr. SESSIONS. You know, a reserve fund out there in the future does
not fix a darn thing.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
chairman of the Suburban Caucus from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr.
Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Madam Speaker, the budget coming before this House does more than
approve the largest tax increase in American history. That is what it
includes. But what this budget is notable for is what it also does not
include.
The leaders of the Republican Tuesday Group and the study committees
came together to outline reforms to help the government spend less. And
why should we do that? Let's note that in 1961, when President Kennedy
took office, the Federal Government spent just $98 billion. We didn't
hit our first trillion until 1987. We broke the second trillion in
2002, and in 2010, we will go above the $3 trillion level.
The Federal debt held by the public has climbed to over $3 trillion
in 2006, a 300 percent increase in the last quarter century. This year,
interest payments on our debt alone will top over $200 billion.
Now, last night I offered an amendment cosponsored by Congressmen
Dent, Pence and Hensarling. We laid out some commonsense reforms that
this budget should include, like statutory discretionary spending
limits, like the kind approved by President Clinton that helped us
spend less; like provisions to slow the growth of entitlement spending
by requiring offsets for any new benefits allowed; like enforcement
tools that restricted the definition of ``emergency spending'' that
would have helped us not declare a spinach farmer bailout last week as
a national security emergency, which we did in the supplemental
appropriations bill; like accrual accounting, to show what the
taxpayers' long-term obligations are, and to clearly lay out for the
American people our financial position.
And finally, periodic audits and summaries updating the accounting
rules we use so the American people always have the most transparent
view of what their government is doing.
Unfortunately, last night the Rules Committee rejected this
amendment. We will not even be allowed to vote on these commonsense
reforms. Ironic because most of these reforms were taken from the
Democratic Blue Dog group that has advocated strong financial controls,
but somehow backed this effort to deny this amendment from even a vote.
I urge this House to reject this rule and allow these commonsense
reforms to go through. If the past is our guide, even the budget that
the Congress will consider today and tomorrow will be waived shortly
because when the supplemental appropriations bill comes back from
Congress, it will include a provision that says the budget act is
entirely waived and $125 billion, $23 billion over the President's
request, will be passed, waiving the budget that we even approve
tomorrow.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, before I yield, I would just like to
remind the public that those on the other side of the aisle who are
here today preaching about fiscal responsibility are the same people
who, when they were in charge for 6 years, took a projected $5.6
trillion surplus and collapsed it into a $9 trillion deficit.
Madam Speaker, with that, I would yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
requests funding for the Iraq war through 2009. The Democratic budget
accepts that timeline. It includes $145.2 billion
[[Page H3197]]
for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as requested by the
President for fiscal year 2008. It requests $50 billion for fiscal year
2009. That is in addition to the $510 billion we have already spent on
the war and another $97 billion pending in the supplemental, according
to the CRS. The total, if approved, would be over $800 billion for war,
while our schools, our health care and the quality of our environment
are in decline. The budget should reflect the mandate Democrats were
given in November, yet we are mirroring the President's plan for the
war and his budget request to fund the war.
The supplemental calls for withdrawal by August 2008. Why does the
budget encourage the war to continue into 2009? If we were serious
about trying to stop the war, the budget should not contradict the
supplemental language.
This budget does not end the war, it continues it through the end of
President Bush's term. The American people want the war to end now, not
in 2008, not in 2009, but the people want the war to end now.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Thank you, to my colleague from Texas, I
appreciate the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule on the budget.
It is unfair, and it unnecessarily limits debate on middle-class tax
cuts.
Together with a colleague from Pennsylvania, we offer an amendment to
ensure that the child tax credit is included in the budget. But the
majority won't allow us to offer that amendment today or even have a
debate about it. It is a shame that this amendment in defense of the
middle-class families was not allowed. The new majority must still be
convinced it is their money and not the taxpayers'.
Thirty-one million taxpayers will see their taxes increase in 2011
when the per-child tax credit is cut in half, and that is just the
start. The average tax hike on 975,000 middle-class families and
taxpayers in Nevada will be almost $3,000. We will likely be told that
the budget assumes the cost of this tax provision will be addressed,
along with seven others, through some vague ``smoke and mirrors''
policy. My western values told me what happens when you assume.
Instead, the Murphy-Heller amendment guaranteed that funds would be
there for families instead of wishful thinking.
Madam Speaker, to my colleagues, do the middle-class families make
too much money? Is a child born after 2011 somehow less expensive than
a child born in 2010? Is the child tax credit a partisan issue? Have
those colleagues of mine in the majority like the Blue Dogs lost their
way, or have they just been muzzled?
We are going to hear a lot from the majority today about the
children, but apparently that is only when it comes to government
spending, not middle-class tax cuts. Their rhetoric on tax rings hollow
when Congress is muzzled on such a critical debate. Don't assume. Vote
this rule down and for middle-class tax cuts for families.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, a distinguished member of
the Budget Committee (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Let's be clear. The 2008 budget resolution, the
Democratic proposal leaves the tax cuts in place, it plans for their
extension, and it extends the child tax credit and will do that. If my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle cared a whit about the child
tax credit, they would entertain lowering the eligibility threshold so
that families who make less than $10,500 a year in this Nation could be
eligible for the child tax credit. They refuse to do that. So take
their words with a grain of salt today, my friends.
As a nation, we face great challenges, challenges in education and in
health care, challenges that the Federal Government has the ability,
the capacity, the resources and the moral obligation to help us meet.
{time} 1145
Our job is to help create real opportunity, to give people the tools
that they need to succeed. The budget that we consider today reflects
our Nation's values and puts us on the right path to meet our
obligations.
I am proud of the work that we have done with this budget because I
believe it addresses our most urgent priorities, and for the first time
in 6 years we have a budget that makes an investment in children and in
families. It puts children first by addressing their health care needs.
It rejects the inadequate funding level proposed by the President for
the SCHIP, the children's health care program. Our Nation's health care
problems have become increasingly desperate. SCHIP is virtually the
only success story that we have, covering nearly 1 million more
children and working families today than even President Clinton
anticipated when he created it.
And Republicans agree. Recently, I received a letter from my
Republican Governor from the State of Connecticut saying as much.
This expands coverage to the estimated 6 million children eligible
but not currently enrolled in SCHIP.
This budget focuses on education. A quality education is more closely
tied to our economic prosperity than ever. It is critical to staying
competitive in today's global economy. The President's budget reduces
our commitment to education investment for a third year in a row. As we
face record school enrollments, the academic requirements under No
Child Left Behind and rising college costs, to say nothing of increased
competition from China and India, the President's budget takes us in
the wrong direction for this country.
Now is the time to invest more in education and not less. The funding
allows for an infusion of new resources for No Child Left Behind and
IDEA, where the Federal Government has a promise to keep, and it works
to make higher education more affordable through a commitment to the
Pell Grants.
Madam Speaker, I support this rule. I support this budget. It
represents a commitment to fiscal responsibility and a greater
investment in our future.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee does not charge for
people to come and attend our meetings, and it seems like a good number
of Members probably needed to be there last night.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut would have heard that this big
increase that she is talking about in SCHIP is in a reserve fund. It is
not paid for. As a matter of fact, it is going to have to find an
offset somewhere if they are going to get to it. So it is not reserved
in the budget as necessarily to be paid for; it is in a reserve fund.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the budget expert from the
Republican Party from the Fifth District of Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank my good friend and the gentleman from Texas
for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It is anti-family,
it is anti-tax, it is fiscally irresponsible. And I agree with my
colleague from Texas. I can hardly believe some of the things I am
hearing on the House floor.
The Democrats, Madam Speaker, obviously want to have it both ways.
They claim on the one hand that they have done this incredible job of
balancing the Federal budget, and then they claim that they actually
preserve tax relief in the budget. But if anybody would bother to read
the document, the only way they achieve balance is by taking away all
of the tax relief that we have enjoyed in the last several years. They
would bring forth the single largest tax increase in American history.
And guess what, Madam Speaker? Twelve years ago, the last time that
they were in power, guess what they did? They brought forth the single
largest tax increase in American history. Certainly they at least get
an A for consistency, but you have to give them an F for fiscal
responsibility.
I would point out to the preceding speaker, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, and I have the honor of serving with her on the Budget
Committee, had the Democrats felt so strongly about preserving the tax
relief, they had ample opportunity in committee to preserve the tax
relief for American families, and they chose not to do it.
This is a budget which may be worthy of a Pulitzer Prize in fiction.
It is full of Orwellian-speak. It is something that is worthy of the
Twilight Zone. It makes no sense. You cannot claim that you are not
reducing spending, you are
[[Page H3198]]
preserving tax relief, and you are balancing budget all at the same
time. You are taking three different sides of the argument. It does not
wash.
This Democrat budget is also silent, absolutely stone cold silent on
the number one fiscal issue facing our Nation, and that is out-of-
control entitlement spending. If we don't reform these entitlement
programs, it will lead to a doubling of taxes on the American people,
our children, and our grandchildren. The single largest tax increase in
history will pale in comparison if we don't act today.
And this is a budget for the next election, it is not a budget for
the next generation. You can't have a fiscally responsible budget and
remain silent on the number one fiscal challenge facing the Nation
today. If you want to save Medicare, if you want to save Social
Security, if you want to save Medicaid, you have to reform these
programs; and the Democrat budget, again, is stone cold silent.
They speak of their reserve funds, but, Madam Speaker, there is no
reserve and there is no funds. Again, this is fiction. This is pure,
unadulterated fiction.
What isn't fiction is the largest single tax increase in American
history that is going to fall upon American families. It is going to
fall upon them hard. Because every time the Democrats increase the
Federal budget, they are cutting some family budget. They are taking
away from a family's ability to send a child to college. They are
taking away from a family's ability to help a parent with long-term
health care. They are taking away a family's ability to buy that first
home, make a down payment on their first home. Every time you take
away, every time you increase the Federal budget, you are taking away
from the family budget.
So these two documents stand in stark contrast. The Democrat budget,
the single largest tax increase in history. Again, this contrast could
not be more stark. The single largest tax increase in American history.
And I remind my colleagues on the other side to please, please think
about the families that are in your district that actually pay these
taxes.
You may think we are having a debate on how much our society is going
to spend on health care and housing and education. That is not the
debate I think we are having. I think we are having a debate about who
is going to do that spending. Is it going to be government bureaucrats,
or is it going to be American families?
In my State of Texas, the average Texas family is going to have to
pay an additional $2,700 a year under the Democrat plan to have the
single largest tax increase in American history. I asked my
constituents, Madam Speaker, what is this going to mean to you? And I
heard from several of them.
I heard, for example, from Diana in Mesquite, Texas. She wrote,
``Dear Congressman, I wanted to let you know that I am a single mom
that does not receive any type of child support, and an increase of
this amount would break me. I would be at the risk of losing my home
with this type of increase. I am writing to ask your help to keep this
from happening. This would be devastating to middle-income families.''
That is what Diana in Mesquite wrote.
Brian in Dallas, ``This tax increase would affect our ability to pay
tuition and books for our daughter to go to college. While she's a
junior this year, we are trying to save money for her education. But as
the cost of education increases this year, the loss of these funds,
this increase in taxes, will have a negative impact on our ability to
send her to college.''
Again, this largest single tax increase in American history will have
devastating impacts on American families. So the two budgets sit in
stark contrast. One preserves the tax relief that has helped bring down
the deficit, has given us the most tax revenues we have ever had
before. We are awash in tax revenues, because people rolled up their
sleeves, they went out, they worked, they saved. And that is why we
have to vote down this rule.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, before I yield, I would just like to
respond.
Again, our budget resolution does not contain a single penny of tax
increases, period. And I will tell you what does not wash to the
distinguished gentleman who just spoke. What doesn't wash is that we
are getting this lesson in fiscal responsibility from the party that
took a projected $5.6 trillion surplus and collapsed it into a $9
trillion deficit.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and
the Democratic budget for fiscal year 2008. This measure provides
robust funding for our most important programs, while maintaining our
firm commitment to fiscal discipline.
Last year, Democrats promised to move the country in a new direction,
and that is exactly what this budget does. This budget restores many
programs the President proposed to cut, while achieving balance by
2012.
It meets our commitments to defense and homeland security by
implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations and funding port
security and first responders. It also recognizes those who have served
our country with significant increases for veterans health care.
The resolution meets our domestic priorities by blocking proposed
cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, while providing funding to cover
millions of children without health insurance, something particularly
important to my constituents in Rhode Island.
It boosts funds for education programs such as Pell Grants and
promotes investment in programs that helps us move closer to energy
independence and improve our environment.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the Democratic budget
so that we can meet the needs of all Americans and restore fiscal
responsibility through this process.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the debate today about this budget, about
the priorities of the new Democrat majority, about how they have set
aside all these 11 reserve funds; and we have seen Member after Member
after Member from the new Democrat majority take credit for all these
things that are going to be done. And yet, in fact, what they are is
reserve funds set aside to find a way to either increase taxes or to
find an offset.
We think that this is an irresponsible way to run the government. We
think this is an irresponsible budget. We think raising taxes $395
billion, which is included in that budget; we heard the testimony last
night from the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member
that the assumptions that are based on the Democrat budget are that the
tax cuts will go away, that tax increases will fill their place. We
disagree with that. We think that hardworking American families deserve
the right and the opportunity to continue their best wishes for their
families, for their children's education, and take care of their family
needs through the hard-earned money that they earned, to be able to
keep that rather than bringing it for more spending that this new
Democrat majority has in mind.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question
so that I may amend the rule to make in order a very thoughtful
amendment offered by Mr. Brady of Texas which was rejected by the Rules
Committee last night. The Democrats in the committee voted down on
party line.
Mr. Brady's amendment would amend the budget resolution to add
reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Ways and Means to
extend the State and local sales tax deduction through 2012.
Currently, the Democrat budget resolution does not contemplate the
extension of any meaningful tax relief provided by Republicans in 2001
or 2003. In fact, the Democrat budget resolution is relying on tax
increases to reach this balance. As Americans make their household
budgets, they should be able to rely on a consistent and fair Tax Code.
The Democrat budget resolution will undermine this goal by imposing
double taxation and will help eliminate the stability in the Tax Code
that Americans deserve.
[[Page H3199]]
So even if all the substitutes are defeated, we will still be able to
consider and debate this very important amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material printed in the Record just prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Becerra). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1200
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In a document released March 28, the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities stated: ``Some are claiming that the budget plan adopted
last week by the House Budget Committee, which the full House is
expected to vote on this week, would constitute `the largest tax
increase in history.' This claim is incorrect. The House plan does not
include a tax increase.'' That is what the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities stated.
Mr. Speaker, last November the American people made it clear they are
ready for a government that will be fiscally responsible. This Nation
spoke loud and clear when it put a new party in power in Congress,
asking for responsibility and a new direction in our fiscal priorities.
Education, health care, the care of our children and our seniors and
our veterans, these are issues that Americans are concerned about.
Our budget restores common sense to our national spending and sanity
to our national priorities. It restores the President's attempt to cut
children's health care programs and Community Block Grants, and it puts
forth the single largest increase in veterans spending in our Nation's
history, and not a moment too soon.
It funds math and science programs for our kids, and programs like
Head Start and Pell Grants that provide access to education that so
many of our children need. And this budget concerns itself with the
need to create jobs and build a bright economic future. It restores
funding for job training programs.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to be accountable to American
taxpayers once again. It is time for Congress to be accountable to our
children's future once again. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous
question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adoptinlg the resolution . . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the revious question, who may offer
a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for
detiate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
____
Amendment to H. Res. 275
Offered by Rep. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in the report
of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Brady
of Texas or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for
30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
Reduce the amounts on page 3, lines 10 through 12, and page
4, lines 1 through 3, by the following amounts:
Fiscal year 2008: $300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $3,800,000,000.
Amend page 4, lines 7 through 12 to read as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $3,800,000,000.
Insert at the end of Title VI (page 61, line 10), the
following section:
SEC. 602. RECONCILIATION FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX
FAIRNESS.
(a) In the House.--The House Committee on Ways and Means
shall report a reconciliation bill not later than May 8,
2008, that consists of changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues by not more than
$10,400,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2012.
(b) Purpose.--The reconciliation legislation reported
pursuant to subsection (a) shall make the changes in the
Internal Revenue Code such that the deduction of State and
Local Sales Taxes shall not decrease during the fiscal years
covered by this resolution.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________