[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.''

                          ____________________