[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 82 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5355-H5361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. CON. RES. 21,
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 409 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 409
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012. All
points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. 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.
General Leave
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 409.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk just described, House Resolution 409
provides for consideration of the conference report for S. Con. Res.
21, the fiscal year 2008 concurrent budget resolution.
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and
against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall
be considered as read.
The rule also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Budget.
Mr. Speaker, I said it before and I will say it again: Budgets, more
than anything else this government produces are moral documents. For
this reason, I am proud to report that this Democratic budget is a
victory for our working families and our communities. It is a budget
that embodies the highest ideals of our government.
The fiscal path set by past Congresses was unsustainable, and it put
the economic future of our children and grandchildren at risk. But we
are charting a new path, a path that is fiscally responsible and in
line with the needs and the priorities of the American people.
Our budget reverses years of reckless Republican mismanagement, and
restores fiscal responsibility to our government. The $5.6 trillion in
surpluses projected at the beginning of the Bush administration have
disappeared, and have sadly been replaced by a national debt that was
swelled to an estimated $9 trillion.
This Democratic budget, in contrast to that reckless spending,
reaches balance by 2012 and strictly adheres to the pay-as-you-go
principle. And at the same time, it rebalances our priorities to help
our communities and those most in need.
Our budget increases funding for jobs and education, essential to my
home State of Ohio, which has lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs
since 2001.
Our budget rejects the President's cuts to vital health care programs
such as SCHIP, Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, our budget provides for
a significant increase in SCHIP funding that, in contrast to the
President's proposal, will help cover the 242,000 children in Ohio who
remain uninsured. And our budget increases funding for our veterans and
our veterans health care programs. These brave men and women who have
served our Nation so heroically, deserve only the best services and
treatment when they return home.
{time} 1300
Our budget increases funding for the Community Development Block
Grant and the Social Services Block Grant, and it saves the Community
Services Block Grant, which the President completely zeroed out.
I'm especially proud to have fought for these increases because
almost 100,000 people in my congressional district alone have
experienced the benefits of the CDBG funding.
This budget provides a new direction for our Nation, and let me be
clear, Mr. Speaker, no matter what may be said by those on the other
side of the aisle, this budget does not call for a single cent in tax
increases. Let me repeat, no matter what may be said by those on the
other side of the aisle, this budget does not call for a single cent in
tax increases.
We have also ensured that no additional taxpayers will be ensnared by
the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2007 and have provided a reserve fund
for a permanent fix.
For three of the last 5-years, the Federal Government has had to
operate without a budget resolution because the past Congresses failed
to pass one, which is why it is critical that we adopt the resolution
before us today. It is a budget that reaches balance in 5 years and
restores fiscal responsibility through PAYGO rules. We do all this
while keeping our priorities in line
[[Page H5356]]
with the needs and priorities of the people we have been elected to
serve.
As a moral document that reflects the priority of our Nation, I
believe we have crafted a strong budget, and I'm proud to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the
time, the gentlewoman from Ohio, my friend on the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to
the outrageous tax increase conference report that the Democrat
majority is bringing to the House floor today.
Mr. Speaker, once again, we will reiterate, the Democrat Party says
it's not a tax increase, but if it's not a tax increase, then it's
several hundred billion dollars more worth of spending. It's one or the
other, because what we see here today is exactly that. They are going
to give us the largest single tax increase in the history of this
country, and even though they say it's not a tax increase, then it's
going to be an outrageous spending spree because they intend to spend
more money or have more taxation, and that's why we're opposed to this
bill.
I wish I could report to my colleagues that the majority Democrats
had seen the downside of their tax-and-spend ways since the House last
considered the budget in March, but on the positive side this budget
does contain a 1 year Alternative Minimum Tax patch which prevents over
20 million middle class Americans from being slammed by this tax.
And this tax in this budget also represents the largest tax increase
in history, not the first anyway, but I'm sorry to report that it's
about as good as it gets from here because the massive and
irresponsible tax increase included in the House budget would still be
the second largest in American history, weighing in at least $217
billion over the next 5 years.
It also contains a trigger that could nearly double it by including
increases in taxes in marginal rates, capital gains and dividend taxes,
among other tax relief that was provided previously by the Republican
majority.
As further evidence that the Democrats continue to ignore their
campaign trail promises to demonstrate fiscal discipline, the
additional spending envisioned by this plan will trigger an automatic
tax hike that will affect every single taxpaying American.
This means that as Democrats continue to implement their true tax-
and-spend agenda, important middle class tax relief provisions passed
by the Republican majorities of the past, such as the marriage penalty
and the child tax credit, will shrink or disappear, raising the
Democrats' tax increase right back to the original House-passed level
of $400 billion, or restoring it to its historic infamy, which it would
truly be, as the largest tax increase in American history.
And if this insatiable appetite for taxing were not enough, Democrats
leave themselves enough room in this budget to raise taxes even further
to pay for more than $190 million of additional, unfunded spending
promises.
This budget also promises and provides for a massive new spending
spree by increasing nondefense appropriations by $22 billion over 2007
levels. This is in addition to the $26 billion that they have already
proposed to spend outside the normal appropriations process through the
omnibus and supplemental legislation that they have forced through the
House.
This conference report abandons the emergency set-aside fund included
in last year's budget and opens the way for unlimited future spending
by dropping any limitation on what can be considered emergency
spending. But it has new funds for peanut farmers and spinach growers,
so I guess that's a good thing.
But in a surprising bit of consistency, the Democrats do hold true to
their pay-for rules and allow the 23 shell reserve funds to spend an
additional $190 billion, as soon as appropriate because these will be
tax increases that they intend to identify and then pay for.
This irresponsible budget continues to ignore the brewing entitlement
crisis and puts off any major reform for at least another 5 years. This
is despite the fact that around 77 million baby boomers will be
retiring in the near future and will begin collecting Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid. Funding this new spending represents the
greatest economic challenge of our era, and it is a challenge that the
Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore while going on their
own spending spree everywhere else.
And what's worse, this budget completely shirks its oversight
responsibility to root out waste, fraud and abuse in Federal spending
by providing only $750 million of reconciliation spending out of an
$8.5 trillion Federal budget. This is the legislative equivalent of
checking under the seat cushions to pay the Federal Government's rent,
and I believe, for one, that the American people deserve better.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, despite these massive tax increases, the
Democrats fail to provide a surplus large enough to halt the raid on
Social Security, directly contradicting their previous campaign trail
promises to do precisely that. This is something that the Republican
budget provided a surplus large enough to do starting in the next 5
years, and it did so by controlling, among other things, spending, not
raising taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the voters watching this debate on C-SPAN can
understand what these tax increases will mean for our economy and for
our ability to compete globally. I think that they can see through this
charade, and I know that they deserve better than this massive tax
increase and spending spree that is on their dime and against the
future of our children.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying tax
increase.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's
permission to speak on this bill because I am pleased, as having joined
with her as a member of the Budget Committee, to embrace a new
direction in terms of the Democratic management of the budget.
I have been in this Chamber for the last 11 years and watched
Republican performance fall short of what Republican promises were
made. We have watched people who are preaching austerity fall short
time after time after time, record deficits, coupled with tax benefits
concentrated for those who need it the least and truly Draconian budget
cuts.
We have watched, in a particular that I have specialized in in terms
of the environment, the natural resource funding, the Function 300, has
been cut 16 percent, and anybody who's been in our national parks has a
chance to see the consequences. There have been lost conservation
opportunities and Superfund cleanup has languished.
I am pleased that we have a budget framework that focuses on tax
relief for those who need it the most, and there will be extended
obviously those areas where there is broad bipartisan consensus dealing
with the lowest income tax brackets, protection of family, marriage
benefit, but the Democrats will be focusing on the tax tsunami that is
bearing down on the American public, and that's the Alternative Minimum
Tax which once was supposed to be limited to the wealthiest of
Americans and now has morphed into a tax on middle America.
It's not the hedge fund managers that are going to be paying it, but
every middle class two-income family with children is going to be
threatened with this if we don't act, and that's what we have focused
on.
Last but not least, we have rejected further Draconian budget cuts.
They were offered up here on the floor, rejected, because people didn't
want to further erode environmental protections, erode educational
benefits, erode benefits for our veterans.
Instead, you have a budget that is on a path towards balance, tax
relief for those who need it most, and being able to focus on
critically neglected programs in the past.
Anybody who wants to look at the difference can look at what we have
supported with what the Republicans have failed to deliver over the
last 6 years when they controlled everything.
I appreciate the rule that's brought forward, look forward to its
passage
[[Page H5357]]
and the passage of this ultimate legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I'd like to get into this tax issue. I think we just heard this,
there's no tax increase in this budget. You're going to hear that claim
over and over and over.
The last speaker just mentioned that they are preserving some tax
relief for some people, marriage penalty, for child tax credit, the 10
percent bracket. What they mean, they're saying, they're acknowledging,
I'll give them credit on the face of it, they are going to preserve
some tax relief and prevent those tax increases from coming.
What that means is they are going to let all these other tax cuts
expire. More importantly, the fact is they are banking on the fact,
they are requiring all those other tax cuts to expire and all those
taxes to increase.
Numbers don't lie, Mr. Speaker, and what a budget is is basically a
page full of numbers, and the numbers don't lie.
This chart shows you how it works. The lower line, the green line, is
the line that our budget used, which assumes and requires the extension
of all the tax cuts, the per child tax credit, the income tax rates,
the abolishment of the death tax, cap gains, dividends, all tax cuts.
The dotted red line is what the Democrats are using in their budget,
and that line says they're going to raise all those taxes, marginal
rates, across the board, except we hope not to raise the child tax
credit tax or the marriage penalty tax or the 10 percent bracket. And
we're putting a trigger in the law, and I call this the trigger tax,
and that's the red line, the solid red line. And that is in the year
2010, if the Treasury Department says the surplus will be big enough in
2012 that we the government can afford tax cuts for some people, these
three tax cuts, then they will have their tax cuts.
But here's the vicious cycle that we're going into and the vicious
cycle is this. Their budget starts with a new $24 billion spending
spree just next year in domestic spending. Then they have a $217
billion tax increase in their budget. Then they have 23 promises, 23
wish lists, 23 reserve funds that amount to a call to spend another
$190 billion.
{time} 1315
They are going to have to raise taxes to pay for all of that. That's
going to have the fact that there is no entitlement reforms. What their
budget says is, tax more, spend more; tax more, spend more. Then come
2010, when those surpluses don't materialize, because we have done all
this spending, they won't even get those three tax cuts that they want
to extend, and this budget will go from having the second largest tax
increase in American history to having the largest tax increase in
American history.
Let's look at what the true intention of this budget was when it
passed the House just a month ago. The budget that passed the House a
month ago had a $392.5 billion tax increase in it. All the 2001 and
2003 tax cuts that got us out of recession, that created 7.6 million
new jobs, that gave us 3 years of double digit revenue growth, they
wanted to get rid of it.
Then in conference with the other body, with the Senate, they agreed
to the Senate to say, okay, we won't raise every one of these taxes, we
would like to preserve three of those tax cuts, but raise all the rest.
So they have a $217 billion tax increase in this budget.
But that's not even enough, because their trigger tax will say, if
they don't spend as much money now as they are saying now they want to
spend, then maybe the taxpayer will get some of those tax benefits. But
if they don't, then we are back to a $400 billion tax increase.
The point is this, this is a vicious cycle of tax taxing and
spending. The biggest problem with this budget is not what it includes,
it's what it doesn't include. It doesn't include any spending control
at all. There is no control on spending anywhere in the government, at
all, anywhere, no control, no reform of our entitlement programs, even
though witness after witness after witness, Democrats and Republicans,
the left and right came to Congress and told us, you guys in Congress
better get a handle on entitlements. You better get a handle on the
fact that next year the baby boomers start retiring, and we are not
ready for them. They say for 5 years let's do nothing, but let's just
spend more money.
The worst thing we could do is put this budget on a trajectory of
more spending and more taxes. What they will do, they will compromise
the economic growth we have had over the last 3 years. They will
compromise the recipe for success that have given us 3 years of double-
digit revenue growth, 7.6 million new jobs.
To tie it all up, they came into the majority 5 months ago declaring
new fiscal rules, more fiscal security, PAYGO, pay-as-you-go principle.
So what are they doing in this budget? They are getting rid of PAYGO.
In this budget, they are turning their PAYGO rules upside down.
This budget actually revises and turns upside down their entire PAYGO
principle. The idea that they came in the majority just 5 months ago
saying well, we will pay as we go, well, they are violating with this
budget, into itself.
The last final point, which I think is really a shame, because 2
weeks ago we had a vote here in the House, 364 Members of Congress,
Democrats and Republicans said, let's stop the raid of the Social
Security trust fund once and for all. Let's stop that. That's what we
said. We agreed that this budget should not raid Social Security. Both
parties are responsible for this.
I am not saying it's the Democrats' fault, it's the Republicans'
also. But what does this budget do? It raises the Social Security trust
fund. Every year that this budget has a proposal, they are raiding the
Social Security trust fund every year, even though 2 weeks ago 364 out
of 435 of us said let's stop doing that. They turned around and said,
and they are brining us a budget that continues to raid the Social
Security trust fund. That's wrong. Both parties have been responsible
for it. Both parties should fix it.
This budget should be defeated.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas
if he has any remaining speakers. I am the last speaker on this side.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do have an
additional speaker.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be on the House floor
today to raise a significant concern I have with the budget proposal
that will be before the House of Representatives this week before its
final passage.
At the moment, as we speak here on the House floor, Republican and
Democrat members of the House Agriculture Committee are gathered in the
House Agriculture Committee room to talk about a plan for a new 2002
farm bill. As we gather together, it's a wonderful thing that those of
us who care about the farmers and ranchers of the country, who care
about the environmental and conservation needs, who care about the food
and nutrition needs of Americans, have decided we want to craft a farm
bill together. We want to work side-by-side to reach the right
priorities within the farm bill.
The problem is the budget priorities established under this budget
are inadequate to provide a safety net for the farmers of America.
There is a ruse going on here. The budget provides for a $20 billion
reserve fund that the farm bill can access in the process of developing
a new farm bill, but only if we cut spending someplace else, or we
raise taxes.
So we are sitting in the Agriculture Committee trying to determine
how do we meet the needs of the agriculture producers and the consumers
of America, how do we meet the land and environmental and conservation
needs of the people of our cities and our countryside, and we are going
to try to determine that in a vacuum that suggests there is actually
$20 billion in the budget that's not there.
It is simply a gimmick to allow us to try to write a farm bill to
appeal to all the variety of interests that care about the outcome of
this farm bill debate. But the money is not available.
For too long we have had the gimmicks in the budgetary process. To
me,
[[Page H5358]]
this is one of the biggest I have seen in my time in Congress in which
we pretend there is a fund to draft farm bill legislation.
The farmers of America, certainly the farmers of Kansas, struggle
today. We are in perhaps the beginning of an end of a 6-year drought.
Commodity prices are higher. The last farm bill, 2002 farm bill, spent
$18 billion less than was expected. But do we get the advantage of that
in agriculture spending? The answer is no. It's taken away from us
because commodity prices at the moment are higher than they were. But
we know, in agriculture, we know the laws of supply and demand and
economic rules that govern our economy, that the result of higher
commodity prices is lower commodity prices.
So as we draft a farm bill, we are going to pretend there's money
there to meet the safety net needs of farmers when it's not there.
Commodity prices will be lower. That's a natural result of higher
commodity prices.
Conservation environmental needs will be greater. Food stamps and
nutrition programs will need to be funded. Yet, this budget fails to
meet those needs. Even the administration's proposal had a better offer
for American agriculture than the Democrat-passed budget on the House
floor today.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is talk about higher commodity prices for
our farmers, but very few people talk about the purpose of the farm
bill, which is to provide a safety net when the cost of production to
produce the crop is higher than the commodity price that the farmer
receives. Yes, commodity prices are higher this year than they were
last year or the year before, but let me remind people of this body
what has happened to the input costs that a farmer, in fact, all
Americans, face.
Agriculture is an energy dependent business, with the increasing cost
of fuel, fertilizer and natural gas, the price, the cost of producing
agricultural commodities in this country has skyrocketed since the 2002
farm bill. Yet the budget that we are presented with today will allow
us to do less for farmers, not more.
I rise just to raise serious objection to the budget, and to make my
colleagues aware, as we work together in a bipartisan fashion in the
Agriculture Committee, to craft a farm bill, the parameters that have
been laid out by the budget make that process almost impossible to
accomplish.
I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time. Again, I
rise to oppose this budget and its failure to meet the agricultural,
environmental and food safety needs of Americans.
Ms. SUTTON. Has the gentleman had all of his people speak?
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the inquiry from the gentlewoman. I will assume
that the gentlewoman is still going to hold her time with no additional
speakers?
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
It's an interesting discussion that we have here about taxation
policy. As you know, this budget is going to increase the taxes to the
American consumer more than any single time in our history.
But why should that matter? Why is that important? I will tell you
that the Governor of New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson, a staunch
Democrat said it best, when he is passing tax increases for New Mexico,
tax cuts create jobs. He said Democrats should get over it. They should
understand the economic principle. If tax cuts create jobs, then the
reverse is true, that tax increases are going to outsource jobs.
So what we have here is one of the largest outsourcing of jobs in
American history.
Now, if you would like an example of it, you could take a look at
Irish miracle. We are all familiar with an Irish economy that was
slugging along, so what they did is they cut taxes to their internal
companies. If you are internal, you paid like an 8 percent or maybe a
10 percent tax. If you were an external company, maybe someone outside
of Ireland, they still paid a 36 percent tax. Their economy began to
boom.
At that point the European Union said, you know, you Irish people
have got it wrong. You must change the tax structure. We are not going
to listen to this. We are not going to allow for it.
The Irish, being the Irish, looked at it and said, yes, you are
right. Our tax structure is wrong. So they lowered the taxes to all the
external companies. They did increase to 12 percent their internal
companies, lowered everyone to 12 percent, and that boom continued
tremendously.
New Mexico had a boom after we began to cut taxes. The United States
government, people would ask me, why did we cut taxes in a period of
deficit spending? We cut taxes to grow the economy. It has worked, and
over the last 3 or 4 years we have created over 7 million jobs in this
economy, which has been spurred on by tax cuts.
So what our friends on the other side of the aisle are doing is it
does not matter about the health of the economy. It does not matter
about the jobs that we are going to outsource. We are going to tax
people more in this country.
That's the fundamental difference between Republicans, Democrats, and
I would bring that to the attention of our audience today and ask you
to oppose the Democrat budget that increases taxes more than any other
budget in American history.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat
the previous question so that I may offer an amendment to the rule,
which will stop this Chamber from hiding behind a cheap procedural
maneuver invented by former Democrat Majority Leader Dick Gephardt.
This rule allows Members to duck the responsibility of taking a vote on
raising a limit on a public debt, a painful but necessary exercise of
this Chamber's legislative responsibilities.
Because of this rule invented by Democrats, Members who vote for this
underlying conference report will also be recorded as voting to raise
the public debt. Members need to be aware of this. They need to know
exactly what they are voting for.
For a long time, Members on both sides of the aisle have been
appalled by this practice. Members of growths as ideologically diverse
as the RSC, Blue Dogs and the New Democrat Coalition alike have called
for its repeal. It's time for members of the Blue Dogs and New Democrat
Coalition to demonstrate the courage of their convictions and end this
bait-and-switch practice.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment and extraneous material just prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here today is the
largest tax increase that will take place in American history. As the
Republican majority has done for a number of years, we recognize that
America needs to be more competitive with the world in cutting taxes,
making sure that the budgets, very clearly, help protect this country,
help protect the men and women of the United States military. They are
doing their daily job in trying to not only protect this country, but
to defeat terrorists all around the world.
Today we have an opportunity to stand very clearly, talking about
what a budget does. We have heard it's a moral piece of paper. It
defines very clearly about what someone's priorities are. Well, we know
what those priorities are. They are tax and spend.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. McHenry).
{time} 1330
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) yielding time to me.
As a member of the Budget Committee, we worked very hard to craft a
budget that was reasonable in previous Congresses and in this Congress
as well. And I want to congratulate the ranking member on the Budget
Committee, Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin, on his hard work, and I also want
to congratulate my colleague to the south, in South Carolina, for his
leadership as chairman of the Budget Committee. But I respectfully
disagree on this budget, and I will tell you why. The
[[Page H5359]]
Democrats are poised to pass a $217 billion tax increase on the
American people. This is the second largest tax increase in American
history.
A quick history lesson here. You might be wondering who holds the
record for the largest tax increase. A Democrat Congress and President
Bill Clinton, and they raised taxes by $241 billion in 1993, one year
before the 1994 Republican revolution.
Back to the present day, though. The American people should know,
when Democrats spend too much and future surpluses fail to materialize,
a second tax hike triggers automatically. Therefore, the $217 billion
tax hike could nearly double to $400 billion. In other words, the
Democrats will eclipse Bill Clinton's record for the largest tax
increase in American history. It is outrageous, and the American people
need to know that. The Democrats said that they would raise taxes, and
they actually are doing it, and as part of this $2.9 trillion Federal
budget, again, the largest spending bill ever passed by Congress. So it
is not just the largest tax increase, but it is the largest spending
piece as well. It shows their priorities, that they actually want to
take more from the American people.
Their tired old philosophy ignores the fact that tax receipts this
month were $70 billion above the same month in 2006. Tax cuts have
worked. In fact, this year government revenue is the highest it has
ever been in the history of our country. Let me repeat that. The
revenue to the Federal Government is the largest it has ever been in
the history of our country. And, in fact, there is more government
revenue coming in to our Federal Treasury this year than any time in
the Earth's history for any government, period.
Yet, it is not enough for the Democrats. They want to spend more,
they want to tax more, they want every American to pay more in taxes,
and they are going to do it through this budget.
And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I think this tax and spend, tax and
spend, tax and spend policy of the Democrat Party is the wrong thing
for our economy, it is the wrong thing for our communities, it is the
wrong thing for small business people who will be paying more taxes. It
is wrong for the single mother who is trying to make ends meet, it is
wrong for the American people and our economy. And that is why we
should vote down this rule and vote down this budget.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority a few years ago
heard the American people loud and clear that they wanted America to be
competitive with the world. We were tired of losing jobs overseas. That
is not happening. It has not happened in a couple years. As a matter of
fact, there are signs all over this country that say ``workers
needed.'' We need more workers in this country. And that comes as a
result of the tax cuts that were offered to allow American business,
corporations become competitive with the world, an opportunity to
attract new capital, to retool our companies here in this country to
give us the newest tools and the tool kits that are available.
We have a strong and vibrant economy. We have a strong and vibrant
economy because we have people who have money in their own pockets
creating jobs. We have some 5 million new jobs just in the last few
years, 7 million since 2001, that have been created.
This economy is doing the right thing. It is giving the Americans
their own dreams, their dreams to not only have their own homes, the
highest level ever of people who own their own homes, but it is also
giving America to save for our future because our stock market is back.
Just a few years ago, after 9/11, everybody was worried about their
retirement. Big worries. At that time, what did we hear from the
Democrat Party? Raise taxes. But that is not what the Republican
majority or President Bush did. We cut taxes; we grew our economy. We
have a strong and great economy today.
The Republican Party stands forth today on this day in Washington,
D.C., to say we will vote against the largest or second largest tax
increase in the history of the United States of America.
This budget that comes from the Democrat Party will raise taxes and
raise spending. The Republican Party disagrees with that. The
Republican Party disagrees with saying that we will have taxpayers who
will be without jobs in this country, because we will take away the
investment and the opportunity that goes forth to make investment
possible to where jobs are available. The Republican Party stands today
and says we are opposed to this new bill because of what it does by
having all sorts of special accounts, just spending opportunities that
sit out there in the future, undefined, but ready to spend money if the
money comes in.
We believe that we should have had more responsibility, as we have
tried to do for years, to do something responsible about Social
Security. But we have heard from the Democrats for the last 6 years,
there is nothing wrong with Social Security. There is no problem. Mr.
Speaker, we disagree with that. Republicans are going to oppose this
today. I ask my Members to join me in defeating the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my closing remarks by
returning us to the painful reality of what we begin with today.
This administration and these past Congresses took a $5.6 trillion
surplus and turned it into a $9 trillion debt. This Democratic budget,
in contrast, reaches balance by 2012, and strictly adheres to PAYGO
rules.
This budget contains not a dollar, not a quarter, not a dime, not a
penny of tax increases. And you don't just have to take my word for it.
The Concord Coalition says that the budget resolution does not have a
tax increase. ``Thus to be clear, the budget resolution does not call
for or require a tax increase,'' the Concord Coalition said on March
28. The Center on the Budget and Policy Priorities says the budget
resolution does not have a tax increase. ``This claim is incorrect. The
House plan does not include a tax increase,'' made on March 28, 2007.
The Brookings Institution says, ``The Democratic budget would not raise
taxes.'' ``The budget would not raise taxes.'' March 28.
Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear why passing this rule and passing
this budget is so important for our Nation, so let me wrap up this
debate by highlighting the facts about our budget.
The Democratic budget puts together the broken pieces left to us by
the mismanagement of previous Congresses and this administration. Our
budget returns fiscal responsibility to Congress, and allocates funding
for some of our most important national priorities. Our children, our
veterans, and our working families will be provided with the key
resources they need and deserve. Our budget protects tax cuts for
middle class families, and it does not raise taxes on anyone.
Mr. Speaker, this is the responsible budget that the American people
have been calling for, and it deserves our support. I urge a ``yes''
vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 409 Offered by Rep. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 2. Rule XXVII shall not apply with respect to the
adoption by the Congress of the conference report to
accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting
forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012.
(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
[[Page H5360]]
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
adopting 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 previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate 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.)
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, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 193, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 375]
YEAS--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--193
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Baird
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Harman
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Knollenberg
Lewis (KY)
McMorris Rodgers
Olver
Shays
Smith (NJ)
{time} 1402
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. COSTELLO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 194, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 376]
AYES--225
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
[[Page H5361]]
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Baird
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Harman
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Lewis (KY)
McMorris Rodgers
Reynolds
Shays
Tiahrt
Weldon (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes are remaining in this vote.
{time} 1409
Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 376 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted ``aye'' on rollcall
No. 376, adoption of the rule for the Conf. Rpt. on the FY '08 budget.
I would like the Record to reflect that I meant to vote ``nay.''
____________________