[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 12, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1553-H1560]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 312, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1036 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1036
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) revising the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2008, establishing the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2009, and
setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2010 through 2013. The first reading of the concurrent
resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the concurrent resolution are
waived. General debate shall not exceed four hours, with
three hours confined to the congressional budget equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget and one hour on the
subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and
controlled by Representative Maloney of New York and
Representative Saxton of New Jersey or their designees. After
general debate the concurrent resolution shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. The concurrent
resolution shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be
in order except those printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All
points of order against the amendments printed in the report
are waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of
consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.
After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent
resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report
the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and
amendments thereto to final adoption without intervening
motion except amendments offered by the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical
consistency. The concurrent resolution shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.
Sec. 2. After a motion that the Committee rise has been
rejected on a legislative day, the Chair may entertain
another such motion on that day only if offered by the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget or the Majority
Leader or a designee. After a motion to strike out the
resolving words of the concurrent resolution (as described in
clause 9 of rule XVIII) has been rejected, the Chair may not
entertain another such motion during further consideration of
the concurrent resolution.
Sec. 3. During consideration in the House of House
Concurrent Resolution 312 pursuant
[[Page H1554]]
to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the
previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the concurrent resolution to such time as
may be designated by the Speaker.
Sec. 4. After adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 312,
it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table Senate
Concurrent Resolution 70 and to consider the Senate
concurrent resolution in the House. All points of order
against the Senate concurrent resolution and against its
consideration are waived. It shall be in order to move to
strike all after the resolving clause of the Senate
concurrent resolution and to insert in lieu thereof the
provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 312 as adopted by
the House. All points of order against that motion are
waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 1036.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1036 provides for
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 312, the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget for FY 2009, under a structured rule.
The rule provides a total of 4 hours of general debate, 3 hours to be
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Budget and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies
to be controlled by Representative Maloney of New York and
Representative Saxton of New Jersey.
The rule makes in order the three substitute amendments: one by
Representative Kilpatrick of Michigan; one by Representative Lee of
California; and a final substitute by Representative Ryan of Wisconsin.
Each amendment is debatable for 60 minutes. The rule also permits the
chairman of the Budget Committee to offer amendments in the House to
achieve mathematical consistency. Finally, the rule provides that the
concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question of its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, this is the traditional rule for consideration of the
budget resolution, and I welcome today's debate on the alternative
budgets that will be presented by the Republican leadership, the
Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my thanks and appreciation
to Budget Committee Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan for their
leadership and hard work on the House Budget Committee. Although they
hold very different points of view, the committee always operates in a
cordial and collegial manner. I have served on the Budget Committee for
2 years, and it has been a privilege to learn from two such
distinguished Members how to work in a bipartisan way despite sharp
philosophical differences. And all of us are supported, Mr. Speaker, by
a superb and dedicated committee staff.
Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents. They reflect our
priorities. And for too long, this Congress passed budgets with the
wrong priorities. For too long, our budgets put the desires of the
powerful before the needs of the poor. For too long, our budgets
pretended that people who were struggling didn't even exist, let alone
matter. That has begun to change. The Democratic budget before us today
is a budget with a conscience.
Today, we continue the new direction set last year to bring the
Federal budget back to fiscal health and responsibility. As we begin
this debate, our country faces major challenges: a looming recession, a
crisis in the credit markets, a plunging housing market, rising
unemployment, declining family income, skyrocketing costs in health
care, aging infrastructure, and a safety net struggling to keep up with
the growing number of Americans unable to meet their basic needs.
Faced with these challenges, President Bush proposed the same tired,
worn-out, failed fiscal and economic policies. After 7 years, the Bush
legacy is the highest deficits in our Nation's history. Let us
remember, Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office, when the
Republicans had total control over the White House, the Senate and this
House, they were welcomed with a $5.6 trillion projected 10-year budget
surplus, the financial gift of the last Democrat to sit in the White
House. That has been completely squandered, resulting in the largest
fiscal deterioration in American history. And the President's FY 2009
budget proposed only more of the same.
The national debt exploded under President Bush and his Republican
rubber-stamp Congress. At the end of 2008, CBO projects a $9.6 trillion
debt, an increase of nearly $4 trillion, brought to you courtesy of
George Bush. Future generations, our children and our grandchildren,
will be forced to pay the price for this unprecedented rise in debt
thanks to the Republicans' fiscally reckless and irresponsible
policies.
And to top it off, the President's budget continues the Bush legacy
of deep cuts in many of the most important programs and services for
the American people:
$500 billion in cuts to Medicare.
$100 billion in cuts to Medicaid, which serves the poorest Americans,
including families with children.
The elimination of the Community Services Block Grant and the Social
Services Block Grant, and deep cuts in the Community Development Block
Grant, which provides nearly every city and town in America with
Federal support for basic services.
Elimination of the Community Oriented Policing grants, the COPS
grants, and deep cuts for State and local law enforcement at a time
when States and local communities are finding it hard to meet the needs
of their first responders.
And deep cuts in many other vital programs that provide health care,
infrastructure, environmental protection, and other services to our
States and to our neighborhoods.
Let me give but one example, Mr. Speaker, the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Last week, the worst snow storm in a
century hit the people of Ohio and the Midwest. Two weeks ago, the
people of central Massachusetts were facing over three feet of snow.
Across the country, people are suffering in the cold. Home heating
costs have gone up by 80 percent under George Bush. A barrel of oil now
costs $108. But President Bush decided to cut $570 million out of the
LIHEAP program. The President decided to turn off the heat for 1.2
million households, forcing families to choose either to heat or to
eat. And why? So we could continue tax cuts for the wealthiest, most
fortunate billionaires in America.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic budget rejects the President's
priorities. It rejects the callous view of the Republican Party that
tens of millions of American families are expendable, that our
communities can manage without basic services, that our roads, bridges
and water systems should be allowed to crumble and fail, and that we
can run up America's credit card without costs or consequences.
Instead, the Democratic budget restores fiscal responsibility to the
Federal budget, returning it to balance in the year 2012. It rejects
the President's harmful cuts to basic services, and invests in proven
programs that boost economic growth, create jobs, and make America
safer.
The Democratic budget helps families struggling to make ends meet in
this economic downturn, and provides fiscally responsible tax relief to
millions and millions of households.
Finally, the Democratic budget remembers those who serve at home and
abroad. It provides strong and substantial funding for national
defense, including quality of life for our troops and our families.
It provides more funding for homeland security programs, including
first responders, than the President would. And finally, it takes care
of our veterans and rejects President Bush's cynical new fees for
veterans health care.
[[Page H1555]]
Instead, the Democratic budget increases health care funding for our
veterans well above current services, enough to allow the VA to treat
5.8 million patients in 2009, including over 333,000 Iraq and
Afghanistan war veterans.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, House Concurrent Resolution
312, the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, is a budget all Americans
who believe in fiscal responsibility and the common good can support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there are only two
ways to balance a budget, whether it's your family budget or the
Federal budget. You can either spend less, or you can increase the
amount of money coming in. The majority, as reflected in their budget,
have flat out rejected option one and have chosen higher spending,
higher taxes, and an ever-growing Federal Government.
The Republicans have chosen what I believe is a more responsible
approach by committing to spending less and letting workers, families
and small businesses keep more of their hard-earned income to save,
invest, and spend as they see fit.
While Republicans have faith in the ability of families and workers
to decide how best to use their paychecks, the majority budget reflects
their belief that the Federal Government can make better choices at
spending money than individual Americans. And that's really a
fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.
In order for the majority to fund their government spending, their
budget raises taxes, Mr. Speaker, by two-thirds of a trillion dollars
over the next 5 years. Let me repeat that, two-thirds of a trillion
dollars.
Now, you can call this a tax increase or you can call it letting tax
cuts expire, but the bottom line is that under the Democrats' budget
every American will pay more of their paycheck to the Federal
Government.
Although the majority will try to claim otherwise, the numbers in
their own budget document show that taxes will increase nearly three
times more under their budget than the largest enacted tax increase to
date in history, making this the largest tax increase in American
history.
While the majority claims that their budget will protect middle-class
families, their budget numbers tell a different story. Under the
massive tax increases in the majority's budget, the average taxpayer in
the State of Florida, for example, will see their annual tax bill rise
over $3,000.
The majority's budget does not extend tax relief from the marriage
tax penalty. This means approximately 48 million married couples will
face an average tax increase of $3,000 a year. It does not extend the
$1,000 tax credit that many young families use. The majority's budget
would cut that credit in half. It doesn't extend the State sales tax
deductibility fairness. The majority's budget, Mr. Speaker, even
manages to resurrect the death tax. It doesn't fix the alternative
minimum tax for middle-class families. It does not protect those who
pay the lowest tax rate either. It would again impose taxes on six
million lower income Americans who now pay no taxes thanks to the 2001
tax relief law passed by Congress.
Mr. Speaker, in order to boost our economy to incentivize growth,
increase investment in the United States and create jobs, Congress
should not be raising taxes by the largest amount in history. This
critically important tax relief should not be repealed or allowed to
expire to pay for the majority's spending plan. It should be made
permanent.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1400
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will insert into the Record letters from The Hamilton Project and
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which state clearly and
unequivocally that the Democratic budget resolution does not raise
taxes.
The Hamilton Project,
Washington, DC, March 7, 2008.
Congressman John Spratt,
Longworth Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Spratt: Per your request, I have analyzed
the House Budget Committee's budget resolution. The budget
would not raise taxes. The revenue levels in the budget are,
in net total, the same as the baseline revenue levels
projected by the Congressional Budget Office. These revenue
levels are consistent with continuing current law, not with
changes to the law that would raise or lower taxes.
The purpose of a budget baseline is to establish a neutral
starting point to debate and evaluate alternative priorities
for spending, taxes, and the debt. The budget resolution
adopts the baseline recommended by several respected, non-
partisan groups including the Concord Coalition, the
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Committee for Economic
Development.
But the choice of a baseline does not commit policymakers
to any specific tax or spending policy. Instead a baseline,
in conjunction with the restoration of the pay-as-you-go
rules, would provide a framework for making tradeoffs between
different priorities. Indeed, your budget indicates that one
of your priorities is making up-front cuts in taxes for
alternative minimum tax relief that would ultimately be paid
for without increasing the budget deficit.
The founding strategy paper of The Hamilton Project states
that one of the greatest economic risks our nation faces
today is our country's large fiscal imbalance. The papers
notes that ``the decisions necessary to restore fiscal
balance might be easier to enact and to enforce if
policymakers reinstated credible budget rules governing both
spending and taxes.'' The pay-as-you-go proposal in the
budget resolution will hopefully help policymakers make the
tough choices required to put America on a path to a balanced
budget.
I hope this analysis is helpful and please do not hesitate
if you have any follow-up questions.
Thank you,
Jason Furman.
____
Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities,
Washington, DC, March 7, 2008.
Claim That Congressional Budget Plans Call for ``Largest Tax Increase
in History'' Is Inaccurate
Some are claiming that the budget plans adopted this week
by the House and Senate Budget Committees--the full House and
Senate are scheduled to consider their respective committee's
plan next week--would constitute ``the largest tax increase
in history.'' This claim is inaccurate, just as the same
claim was inaccurate with regard to the budget resolution the
Congress adopted last year. Neither of the plans recommended
this week by the budget committees include a tax increase.
The House plan simply assumes the same level of revenues over
the 2008-2013 period as projected by the Congressional Budget
Office under its current policy baseline, which essentially
assumes no change in current laws governing taxes. The Senate
plan actually calls for a small reduction in revenues,
reflecting its assumption that Alternative Minimum Tax relief
will be extended for one year without any offset of the
revenues that will be lost as a result of that extension and
that a second stimulus bill this year may include a small tax
cut.
The charge that the budget plans proposed by the House and
Senate Budget Committees include a large tax increase arises
not from any policy changes proposed in those plans, but
instead from policies enacted in 2001 and 2003. Legislation
enacted in those years put in place tax cuts proposed by
President Bush but provided for those tax cuts to expire at
the end of 2010, unless current law is changed. Both the
House and Senate Budget Committee plans assume that current
law will be amended to extend some of the expiring tax cuts
(especially those affecting middle-class families) and make
other changes in tax policy, but they assume (except in the
case of temporary AMT relief and stimulus legislation in the
Senate plan) that the cost of such changes will he offset by
other changes in policy. They do not assume that total
revenues will be increased above what is expected to be
collected under current policies.
It should be recalled that the President's tax cuts expire
in 2010 because their supporters deliberately designed them
that way, in order to fit the tax cuts within the cost
constraints imposed by the Congressional budget resolutions
adopted in 2001 and 2003. While acknowledging that their real
goal was to make the tax cuts permanent, supporters of those
measures opted to ``sunset'' the tax cuts before the end of
the ten-year budget window, partly in order to avoid
recognizing the cost of permanent tax cuts. Now, a few years
from the tax cuts' expiration, some of these same supporters
are trying to act as though the tax cuts are already
permanent and any proposal to offset the cost of extending
them is a ``tax increase.''
To extend the tax cuts without paying for them--and to
attack those who simply seek to require that any extension of
the tax cuts
[[Page H1556]]
be paid for--further heightens the irresponsible fiscal
nature of the original actions.
Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to point out to the gentleman that in the
budget resolution it is specifically mentioned that we endorse the
extension of the middle class tax cuts, including things like the
marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, and the 10 percent tax
bracket. Our budget also provides paid-for relief from the alternative
minimum tax.
I think the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is we
believe in paying for these tax cuts so that we don't add to the debt
and further burden our kids and our grandkids.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas, a member of the Budget Committee, (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, some folks think that President Bush's term ends on
January 20, 2009. Many Americans have a big red circle or a happy face
on their calendar already on that date, or perhaps on their key chains,
and their watches that tick down ever so slowly, backwards toward that
happy time.
But while President Bush may be gone from the White House in 314
days, this administration and its congressional enablers have done so
much damage that generations of American families will be footing the
bill for their fiscal recklessness, with compounded interest, long,
long after President Bush retires to Texas. This administration has
consistently chosen to sacrifice long-term fiscal stability on the
altar of political expediency. They have offered the ``free lunch''
plan, the ``pain-free'' solution to almost every challenge that our
country has encountered. And the greatest sacrifice that they have
demanded at a time of national peril for most Americans is to tell them
to ``go shopping''.
Well, this administration has now created a record $3 trillion of
additional national debt on its own during the Bush years. What would
even just one of those trillions of dollars of debt have accomplished
had it been expended in a more appropriate manner?
One trillion, that's millions of public school teachers; that's
health care for hundreds of million children; that's university
scholarships for millions of students. And in Iraq, this administration
this week, every week, week after week, month after month, year after
year, $3 billion. With the cost of the war in Iraq in 2 weeks, we could
pay for the entire cancer budget of the National Institutes of Health
for a year. Showering tax breaks on the richest, the most privileged
few, while hemorrhaging $12 billion every month in Iraq, this
administration has created more than a Federal deficit; it has created
deficits, opportunity deficits, for millions of American families.
The administration's failure to address our educational needs means
that there's an opportunity deficit, that millions of young people are
not able to achieve their full God-given potential because of the lack
of support at both the public education level and for student financial
assistance.
The failure of the Bush administration to address our health care
problems means a health care deficit for millions of American families,
the largest single cause of personal bankruptcy in America today, the
health care crisis.
And the failure of the Bush administration to address our energy
deficit, that is a deficit that every American feels at the pump when
they get all their money taken out of their pocket and shifted over to
some tyrant in an oil-producing area. The cost of the Bush
administration's budget approach, their fiscal failure, is felt the
most by those, who are least able to bear it: our students, our
uninsured, our minimum wage workers, the elderly, and small business
owners.
This Democratic budget attempts to bail out, to bail us all out. But
it's mighty hard to keep this country afloat and keep our families
afloat when the administration is still so busy drilling holes in the
bottom of the boat.
I urge support for the rule and support for the Democratic budget as
the best hope we have to do that in this difficult time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege
to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin,
ranking member of the Budget Committee, in my view, the premier
economic mind in the Congress of the United States (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we are about to decide which path we want to take in
America. We are about to decide what budget is right for Americans.
Well, let's think about what Americans are facing today as we consider
their budget for the next 5 years. What's happening in America today?
Well, joblessness is up. The economy is in a downturn. It may be
going into a recession. Prices are up. People are having a hard time to
afford the cost of living. Gas prices are at an all-time high. Health
care costs are at an all-time high and growing very fast. Home heating
costs are very high. And it's a lot more expensive just to pay for food
today because food prices are up. So the question is, as we debate the
values that are underneath this budget, can the American people afford
this Democratic budget?
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to try to
say all day today they're not raising taxes. We really aren't, believe
us, trust us.
Well, my friends, numbers don't lie. And this budget is a series of
numbers. And the numbers they're bringing before this House in their
budget resolution requires, assumes, banks, plans on the largest tax
increase in American history.
When we looked at the 1993 budget that passed last decade, even then
Senator Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, a very, very wise man, a
statesman, adored by both sides, said at that time that that was the
largest tax increase in history. That tax increase was $241 billion.
Under the same logic, under the same math, under the same process that
we have here today, the tax increase in this budget is $683 billion.
But let's look at what kinds of taxes we're talking about. And this
begs the question, can the American people afford this budget? This
increases the marriage penalty in 2\1/2\ years. Can the American people
afford that? It cuts the $1,000 child tax credit in half. It eliminates
the marriage penalty tax relief and increases marginal tax rates. It
eliminates capital gains and dividends relief, and it brings back the
death tax.
Let's take a look at what the numbers are. Income tax rates go up
across the board to the top rate of almost 40 percent. Capital gains
and dividends, which are the taxes on our pensions and our savings and
our 401(k)s, go up across the board as high as 40 percent. The death
tax comes back in to 55 percent. The marriage penalty comes and hits an
average of $1,400 per couple. The child tax credit goes from $1,000
down to $500. And the lowest tax bracket goes from 10 percent up to 15
percent.
Let me just give you some numbers of what this will mean to average
Americans. Roughly 116 million taxpayers will see their taxes increase,
on average, by $1,833. An estimated 84 million women would sustain, on
average, a tax increase of $2,121. Approximately 48 million married
couples would incur an average tax increase of over $3,000. Taxes would
increase by an average of $2,323 for 43 million families with children.
Some 12 million single women with children would see their taxes
increase, on average, by $1,091. For 18 million elderly individuals,
taxes would increase, on average, $2,181. And the tax bills for 27
million small business owners would rise, on average, by more than
$4,000. More than 6 million taxpayers who previously owed no taxes at
all would become subject to the individual income tax as a consequence
of the tax increase in this budget.
These aren't rich people. These are ordinary Americans working
paycheck to paycheck trying to get by. The problem we have today is our
paychecks aren't going as far as they did before because we have rising
gas prices, high home heating costs, high health care costs.
So the question is, can the American people afford this budget?
I ask people watching this to send us your e-mail. Give us a call.
Call your Member of Congress and tell us, is that what you want us to
do?
And the more important question is, should we balance the budget?
Yes.
[[Page H1557]]
Both Republicans and Democrats say we ought to balance the budget.
Here's the difference: We believe we ought to balance the budget by
controlling spending, not by raising taxes. And, unfortunately, what
the Democrats choose to do is increase spending and taxes.
So their budget will show, by the Congressional Budget Office in
their numbers, they will achieve balance. The way they achieve balance
is they spend an extra $280 billion over 5 years, but they increase
taxes a whole lot more than that to get to a balanced budget.
What's more important about this budget for our children and
grandchildren is not the economic damage that would be done by this
budget with these huge tax increases for every income taxpayer, for
married people, for people with children, for small businesses, for
farmers, for investors. What really is troubling about this budget is
not as much as what is in this budget, the largest tax increase in
history. What's really almost the most troubling about this budget is
doing nothing, doing nothing to save money, doing nothing to reform our
entitlement programs. We just heard my friend from Texas. I'm on two
committees with the gentleman. He said a $3 trillion increase in debt
over the last 5 years. This budget proposes, in just two programs, to
increase the debt by $14 trillion.
Let me go through that again. By doing nothing to rescue and save
Social Security and Medicare, this budget proposes, by its own virtue,
to increase the debt to those two programs by $14 trillion.
We have an obligation to the next generation to be good stewards of
taxpayer dollars. We have an obligation to the next generation to leave
them with a better fiscal state.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle have chosen to walk away
from that responsibility. They have chosen to have more money to spend
today, to raise taxes, and to make matters worse for the next
generation.
We think that's the wrong way to go. We don't think the American
people at this time of economic downturn, at this time of high prices,
we can afford a tax increase of all times. We don't think there ever
should be a time where we increase taxes, because you know what, Mr.
Speaker? Washington doesn't have a tax revenue problem; Washington has
a spending problem. And our friends on the other side of the aisle are
making it worse by not only increasing spending but even increasing
taxes.
That's the wrong recipe for this Congress. That's the wrong message
to send our children and grandchildren. And that's the dead wrong thing
to do at a time of high prices and economic downturn.
I think we should vote this budget down and do so on behalf of our
children and our grandchildren and the American taxpayer so we can give
a chance to our economy to actually grow. You're not going to grow an
economy by giving us the largest tax increase in American history.
That's for certain.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). Members are reminded to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman asked the right question: What are American families
facing? What are American families facing after 7 years of Bush budgets
and Republican budgets? What they're facing are challenges like never
before.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the real income of a typical
family has fallen by almost $1,000 since George Bush became President.
The Democratic budget provides funds to keep up with rising food,
housing, and heating and transportation costs.
In the area of education, the Democratic budget provides $7.1 billion
more for education and job training than the Bush budget. It increases
funding for Head Start, special education, No Child Left Behind, and
title I. Under George Bush, only four out of 10 children eligible for
Head Start received services. The Democratic budget increases funding
for Head Start so that more children will enter school ready to learn.
And, again, let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. The Hamilton Project of the
Brookings Institution, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and
the Concord Coalition have all sent Members of Congress letters stating
emphatically that the Democratic budget does not increase taxes.
Let me say one thing the Democratic budget does do, and that is it
relieves the burden of debt that has been thrust upon our kids and our
grandkids. The Republicans, during these last several years, have
increased the debt to historic highs, and in doing so, they have
created a debt tax on our kids and our grandkids. We want to remove
that tax burden from future generations.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia, a member of the Budget Committee (Mr. Scott).
{time} 1415
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule
because it makes in order the Congressional Black Caucus alternative.
The Congressional Black Caucus budget offers this Congress and the
American people the choice between fiscal and moral responsibility and
tax cuts for the wealthy. Under the stewardship of the Congressional
Black Caucus alternative, the Federal budget returns to balance, as
this chart show, in the fourth year and the fifth year. The President's
budget is in red, in deficit, all the way through. It even returns to
deficit in the fifth year.
If compared to the President's budget, we save $564 billion better on
the bottom line. In fact, we save so much that we save $48 billion in
interest compared to the President's budget. At the same time, we
provide significant funding for essential priorities, for example,
education, health care, veterans, justice programs, all much better
funded under the Congressional Black Caucus budget than the President's
budget.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard that we do this by canceling the tax cuts
that got us in the fiscal mess that we are in today, except for those
tax cuts that primarily affect that portion of your income under
$200,000. Now, canceling those tax cuts has been called the greatest
tax increase or whatever they want to call it. Mr. Speaker, all we are
doing is canceling the tax cuts that got us in the ditch. When these
tax cuts first passed, we had a projected surplus of $5.5 trillion for
a 10-year budget. Those 10 years look like they are going to come in at
a $3 trillion deficit.
We haven't created jobs at the same time. We have a choice. We can
have fiscal responsibility and address our important needs, or we can
fund those tax cuts for the wealthy. The Congressional Black Caucus
chooses fiscal responsibility and a morally supportable budget
addressing our priorities. And therefore, I support the rule that makes
the Congressional Black Caucus budget in order.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr.
McGovern if he has any additional speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. I am the last speaker.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
On February 14, the majority decided to leave Washington to take a
Presidents Day recess and allowed the Protect America Act to expire 2
days later, rendering U.S. intelligence officials unable to begin new
terrorist surveillance without cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles. At the
end of this week, the House and Senate plan to adjourn for a 2-week
district work period. Therefore, we only have a few days left to
address one very important issue, and that is taking action on
permanently modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
This didn't have to happen, Mr. Speaker. In February, the Senate
passed, by a bipartisan vote of 68-29, legislation updating the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, a bill that the chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee said ``is the right way to go, in terms
of the security of the Nation.''
We could have easily considered that legislation. But the majority,
instead, decided to head home. And they may just do that again this
week. The House should vote on the Senate measure, and we should do it
now. We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish harm on
Americans. Now is not the time to, in any way, tie the
[[Page H1558]]
hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign
intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critical national
security priority.
I am pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle agree. On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a
letter to the Speaker in support of the Senate FISA legislation. The
letter states, ``The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains
satisfactory language addressing all these issues and we would fully
support that measure should it reach the House floor without
substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong
national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism around the globe
and save American lives here in our country.''
Today, I will give all Members of the House an opportunity to vote on
the bipartisan, long-term modernization of FISA. I call on all my
colleagues, including members of the Blue Dog Coalition that signed the
letter to the Speaker, to join with me in defeating the previous
question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate
amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law.
I will remind my colleagues that defeating the previous question will
not prohibit consideration of the budget, but would merely require that
we first take a vote on FISA.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent
solution that helps protect American lives from international
terrorism.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that security
also means the economic well-being of our citizens. And because of
Republican priorities over the last 7 years, record numbers of our
citizens are struggling like never before. The very rich have done very
well. And the rest have not. Those are the facts.
The Democratic budget that has been put forward restores fiscal
responsibility. It rejects the President's harmful cuts in programs
like Medicare and Medicaid. It rejects the President's proposal to
impose new fees for our veterans and our military retirees. It
strengthens our economy. It invests more in innovation. It invests more
in energy, renewable and clean energy. It invests more in education and
in our infrastructure. It also provides tax relief to help struggling
families. It accommodates the tax relief from the alternative minimum
tax for more than 20 million households, as well as middle income tax
cuts and other tax relief so long as they comply with the pay-as-you-go
rule.
It invests more in children's health. It provides more funding for
safety net programs. Record numbers of our citizens are literally
falling through the cracks in our country. It invests in defense, in
veterans, and in homeland security.
The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that for years we have been forced to
accept the priorities of George Bush and his Republican colleagues who
have controlled the Congress. That is now changing. For nearly 7 years,
we have watched as they have accumulated huge debt, historical debt. We
have watched as they have chipped away at some of the most important
programs that help some of the most desperate people in our country.
The American people have had enough. That is what the last election was
about. They have had their chance. They have shown us their priorities.
And the American people have rejected them. It is now time to create a
budget that has a conscience that responds to the needs of the
struggling middle class in this country. The Democratic budget that
will be offered today will do that and change the course of this
country.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.
Res. 1036, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2009,
introduced by my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Chairman
Spratt.
This Rule will allow this body to debate the economic goals and
policies of this great Nation. At a time, when this country is on the
verge of a recession and the housing market is at one of its worst
points in history, there is little else that is as important as our
Nation's fiscal security.
A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and
economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the
Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the
maintenance of historically Black Colleges and Universities. This
budget provides greater funding to our Nation's schools and colleges.
We must not only be economically healthy, but assist in the physical
health of our citizens. This budget will properly fund SCHIP, to help
one of our most vulnerable populations--children. Our President
proclaims his support for securing our Nation's current and future
economic success. However, it is our children that will bring forth a
successful future. We need to invest in tomorrow by investing in them
today. This starts with their physical well-being. Children, who cannot
see the doctor when they are sick, will not be in anyone's classroom.
For African Americans, health and education concerns spill beyond
budgetary issues into the criminal justice consequences. In Texas, over
87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately
48,000 African-Americans attending college or university.
The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus
the number of young people in college, particularly in the African-
American community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education
continues to be one of the main pathways to social and economic
mobility, particularly in the African-American and Hispanic
communities.
Under the Republican Budget the national debt continues to explode.
The gross federal debt reached $9.0 trillion at the end of 2007. The
CBO projects that the debt will rise by a total of $3.9 trillion at the
end of 2008. This unprecedented rise in debt puts our President in the
history books. During the seven years of the current Administration,
the government has posted the highest deficits in this Nation's
history.The President's 2009 Budget continues the failed policies that
brought us to this point.
The amount of foreign debt has doubled since 2001, with most of this
increased debt purchased by foreign lenders. Since 2001, the increases
in foreign holdings of Treasury securities account for over 80 percent
of the newly accumulated public debt--a trend that has more than
doubled foreign holding of Treasury securities.
This high level of indebtedness to foreign investors heightens the
economy's exposure to potential instability with additional burdens on
our children and grandchildren.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to claim that
the budget resolution being considered on the floor this week raises
taxes, when in fact, the budget resolution does not raise taxes by one
penny. The budget resolution accommodates tax cuts and indeed
prioritizes tax cuts that would benefit middle-income families, while
ensuring that the burden of paying for the tax cuts will not fall
undeservedly on our future generations.
Section 501 of the budget resolution specifically calls for
additional middle-income tax relief subject to the pay-as-you-go rule,
including but not limited to:
AMT relief (both immediate/temporary, and more permanent reform
measures);
Extension of ``middle-class'' elements of 2001 tax cuts: child tax
credit, marriage penalty relief, and 10 percent bracket;
Eliminating the estate tax on all but a minute fraction of estates;
Extension of the research and experimentation tax credit;
Extension of the deduction for state and local taxes;
Extension of small business expensing;
Enactment of a tax credit for school construction bonds; and
Tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy which are
accommodated in a separate deficit-neutral reserve fund.
The budget resolution honors PAYGO and the new House rules on using
reconciliation in a fiscally responsible way. By abiding by the pay-as-
you-go principle, we immediately begin digging our way out of the
mountains of debt that have accumulated as a result of the Bush
Administration's fiscal policies.
The President's budget and the Republican alternatives violate PAYGO
and the fiscal responsibility that reconciliation is intended to
achieve, by proposing tax cuts that are not offset.
The sunsets for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were part of the tax
legislation which Republicans voted for and passed. The expiration of
the tax cuts is their policy. The Democratic budget actually calls for
the extension of many of these tax cuts, but responsibly requires that
tax cut extensions, like other policies, must be fiscally sound, and
not make the deficit worse.
This important piece of legislation gives us a budget that is
balanced fiscally and morally.
[[Page H1559]]
It does not sacrifice the many programs and services that this Nation
needs for a war that the President seems never to end.
Defense of our Nation is important; however, we must not support only
one portion of the budget to the detriment of everything else. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1036 and the Democratic
Budget for FY2009.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1036 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 5. ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before
consideration of any order of business other than one motion
that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a
procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign
intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment
thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the
Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate
amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without
intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and
the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
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.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adoption, if ordered; and the motion to suspend the
rules on H.R. 5563.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 196, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 129]
YEAS--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
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
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
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
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
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)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
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
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--196
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
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
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
[[Page H1560]]
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Cannon
Gutierrez
Hooley
Oberstar
Rangel
Renzi
Rush
Tancredo
Terry
Woolsey
Young (AK)
{time} 1448
Mr. PICKERING changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. ESHOO, and Messrs. HILL, JOHNSON of
Georgia and DELAHUNT changed their 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.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 195, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 130]
YEAS--223
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
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
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
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
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
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)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
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
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
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
Cubin
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
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
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
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hooley
Linder
Oberstar
Rangel
Renzi
Rush
Tancredo
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1458
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.
____________________