[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[House]
[Pages 34007-34015]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4351, AMT RELIEF ACT OF 2007

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 861 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 861

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide 
     individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum 
     tax, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions of 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 4351 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 861.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 861 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 4351, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007, under a 
closed rule. The

[[Page 34008]]

rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and clause 10 of rule 
XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, the Democratic philosophy is simple: We believe in 
pay-as-you-go. In other words, we believe that you should live within 
your financial means. Every family that makes these choices around the 
kitchen table every month in order to live within its budget 
understands that simple fact of life. The Federal Government used to 
understand this, too. In fact, the Clinton administration and the 
Democratic Congress worked with Republicans on a bipartisan basis and 
turned decades of exploding budget deficits into 4 straight years of 
budget surpluses through the use of pay-as-you-go or PAYGO rules in 
this House.
  The use of PAYGO through the 1990s and early 2000s helped lead us to 
the first Federal budget surpluses in over 30 years at that time, and 
we saw record economic growth during that period which resulted in the 
addition of 22 million American jobs. And in that time, America 
actually began to pay down the national debt to foreign nations. 
Despite the proven success of PAYGO, President Bush and the Republican 
Congress abandoned the PAYGO rules in the year 2002, allowing it to 
expire with no interest in reinstating it.
  According to the Bush administration's own numbers, President Bush's 
policies are on track to increase the Federal debt by over $4 trillion 
by the year 2008.
  It took, Madam Speaker, 41 Presidents combined to accumulate the 
total of $4 trillion in debt. This means that the debt America incurred 
over the first 200 plus years of our Nation will be doubled in only 8 
years under the Bush administration.
  Worse, Madam Speaker, about 80 cents of every dollar of new debt 
since the year 2001 has been financed by foreign investors, including 
foreign governments, especially China. This has resulted in 50 percent 
of our Nation's debt now being owned by the following countries: China, 
Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
  At the start of the 110th Congress, Democrats provided real choices 
and a new direction for America. We made good on our commitment to 
PAYGO and did what 6 years of Republican Congresses before us refused 
to do: We restored PAYGO rules to make sure that we do not spend more 
money than we have.
  Once again, the Democratic leadership brings to the floor H.R. 4351, 
the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007, that provides millions 
of middle-class families with tax cuts to help grow our economy without 
increasing our national debt. H.R. 4351 prevents 23 million families 
from being hit by the AMT, and it helps 12 million children by 
expanding their child tax credit.
  The Republicans will surely say that this bill raises taxes, but that 
is far from the truth. Let me set the record straight right from the 
beginning. This bill closes tax loopholes that allows a privileged few 
on Wall Street to pay a lower tax rate on their income than other 
hardworking Americans, such as school teachers, police officers, 
firefighters, and our Nation's veterans. This bill stops hedge fund 
managers from making hundreds of millions of dollars by using offshore 
tax havens to avoid paying income tax while other middle-class families 
play by the rules and pay their fair share.
  It also prevents multinational companies from shifting their income 
to offshore entities and from creating sham corporations in tax-
friendly jurisdictions to avoid Federal taxation. We would all love not 
to have to pay our taxes. Why should we allow these big corporations to 
go offshore to avoid paying their fair share?
  It seems only fair that if hardworking American middle-class families 
play by the rules and pay their fair share that the wealthy and huge 
multinational corporations that are gaming the system should pay their 
fair share as well.
  Madam Speaker, this Congress has made great strides to get our fiscal 
house in order. If we want to continue down the path towards fiscal 
sanity, we must make sure that every piece of legislation that we 
consider, including this bill, fixing the AMT, complies with the PAYGO 
rules. The Blue Dogs and the House Democratic leadership are standing 
strong behind our commitment to fiscal responsibility through PAYGO. I 
would like to thank Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer and Chairman Rangel 
for their unwavering commitment to sticking with the PAYGO rules. I 
would also like to reiterate to the other body that our leadership is 
committed to abiding by the PAYGO rules and not considering any AMT 
bill on the House floor that is not fully paid for.
  Madam Speaker, the $9.1 trillion debt that our country has 
irresponsibly racked up, nearly half of which has happened in the last 
6 years, must be paid back, and it will be paid back by our children 
and our grandchildren if not by us. We need to adhere to the old adage 
that we should provide a better life for our children than the ones 
that we found ourselves. Quite simply, we should be investing in our 
children's future and not borrowing from it.
  I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make the 
right choice today, to stand by PAYGO today, to stand by PAYGO 
tomorrow, and support this commonsense legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a tax bill 
that would raise taxes permanently to give 1 year's worth of tax 
relief. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker. This rule provides for 
consideration of a tax bill that would raise taxes permanently to give 
1 year's worth of tax relief.
  The AMT was enacted in 1969 to prevent a small number of wealthy 
taxpayers from using, at that time, legitimate deductions and credits 
to avoid paying taxes altogether. Back then, the tax affected only 155 
people, the super-rich. The AMT was never adjusted to match inflation. 
Therefore, the AMT is affecting more and more taxpayers today. Without 
fixing the AMT problem, millions of taxpayers will be hit by the AMT, 
costing the average taxpayer about $2,000.
  When Republicans gained control of the Congress, we passed 
legislation to protect American taxpayers from the unintended 
consequences of the bracket creep of AMT. Unfortunately, this measure 
was vetoed by President Clinton. So here we are again today trying to 
temporarily protect taxpayers from the AMT.
  The longer we wait to fix the AMT, the longer it will take for the 
IRS to make the necessary changes in the tax forms and to process tax 
returns under the changes in the law. That is for this tax year. As of 
right now, the Democrat majority's failure to pass an AMT fix will 
force the IRS to delay processing tax refunds until mid-March at the 
earliest. This is likely to delay returns for over 20 million taxpayers 
who currently would be subjected to the AMT but who, with the patch, 
would not have to pay the AMT. This comes out, Madam Speaker, to about 
a $75 billion interest-free loan to the Federal Government from the 
taxpayer and paid for by the taxpayer.
  I support fixing the AMT trap, but it is a tax that was never 
intended to occur. It is going to affect millions of Americans. But the 
Democrat leaders in the House are making it nearly impossible to help 
these Americans. Let's just pass a bill to eliminate the tax. Stop 
using this tax relief bill to raise taxes by over $50 billion.
  Just as disappointing as the tax increases included in the bill is 
tax relief that is not included in this bill, and I am talking about a 
particular loophole in the tax law. I am dismayed that an extension of 
the sales tax deduction is not in this bill, the sales tax deduction 
for those States that do not have a

[[Page 34009]]

State income tax. It is a matter of fairness. The AMT fix is for 1 
year. I think it is only a matter of fairness to extend the sales tax 
deduction for those States who don't have a State income tax for 1 
year.
  I attempted to offer an amendment in the Rules Committee last night, 
to allow me to offer an amendment to close this loophole or adjust this 
loophole on the floor today to extend the sales tax deduction again to 
those States that don't have State income taxes.

                              {time}  1115

  It was defeated unfortunately on a party-line vote of 2-8 with every 
Democrat voting to block allowing this amendment to be made in order, 
including two Members from Florida, which is one of the eight States 
affected by this legislation.
  But there is another way, Madam Speaker, and the House will vote 
today on extending the sales tax deduction so it doesn't expire at the 
end of the year. If you are from Washington, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, 
Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota and Alaska, join me in voting ``no'' on 
the previous question.
  I will then amend the rule so we can vote to extend the deduction and 
modify this loophole that I was talking about and ensure that our 
constituents in States that do not have a State income tax are treated 
fairly.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time 
remains on either side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 22\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/4\ 
minutes to Mr. Costa from California, who has been a champion of the 
PAYGO rules and fiscal responsibility since the day he walked into 
these hallowed Halls.
  Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cardoza) for yielding me this time to speak in support of this rule.
  What we are really talking about this morning is do we choose the 
easy road of least resistance to provide tax relief with the 
alternative minimum tax or do we choose the more difficult road that 
requires fiscal discipline, that requires us to be honest with the 
American taxpayers as to how we are plotting our fiscal priorities for 
our Nation today, tomorrow and for future generations.
  We are debating the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007. It is 
important tax relief for millions of Americans. I support this 
legislation as it stands now. It is actually the second time in recent 
months that the House will send a paid-for alternative minimum tax 
relief to the Senate. It is important that we do this.
  According to Secretary Paulson and the Department of the Treasury, 
unless we fix the AMT, 25 million taxpayers will be subject to it in 
2007. That is 21 million more Americans than in 2006.
  However, it is important, I believe, and I think many of those in the 
Blue Dog Caucus feel as well, that we pay as we go, that we provide the 
PAYGO provision that has been in every measure that has passed this 
House since January of this year.
  PAYGO was implemented by the Democratic Congress actually back in 
1990. It was signed into law by the elder President George Bush, and it 
was part of the rules of the Congress for 11 years. It was a tool that 
we put in place to rein in deficits that the Federal Government had 
experienced since the early 1970s.
  This Congress pledged to reenact that pledge to the American people, 
to bring our House back in fiscal order. We have kept that promise 
since January of this year. Every single bill that we have voted on has 
complied with the PAYGO rule.
  It is important that we note that our current debt is $9 trillion. 
Enough is enough. Much of that debt is owed by foreign nations. We can 
pass today the Alternative Minimum Tax Act by not borrowing money from 
China because of this PAYGO provision. I want to thank the leadership 
of this House for sticking with PAYGO. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this measure, the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from 
California for his eloquent comments and say I agree with him 
wholeheartedly.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I listen to my friend from Washington 
repeating the same lame line from the talking points of my Republican 
friends.
  They knew this was coming. Yes, President Clinton vetoed a flawed tax 
measure back in the previous administration. What have they been doing 
for the last 6 years when they controlled everything?
  They decided not to deal with the alternative minimum tax. They made 
a cynical decision to cut taxes for those who are the most fortunate in 
this country and be able to use this money in the budget calculations 
to be able to justify these massive tax reductions. They spent this 
money and they count on spending this money for years to come. It is in 
President Bush's budget.
  We reject that cynical effort. We implored them time and time again 
when they were having their tax reductions to deal with the alternative 
minimum tax, this fiscal tsunami that is going to sweep away middle and 
upper middle-income Americans. They refused. They bet on the other 
side.
  Now we are coming forward not with a tax increase but with a tax 
adjustment. The Federal Government will get the same amount of money; 
it is who are you going to benefit. We are going to save 23 million 
Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax, making some 
reasonable tax adjustments and not putting the cost of this patch on 
the credit card of our children.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I appreciate my friend from Oregon making his remarks. I am glad he 
acknowledges that President Clinton vetoed the permanent tax relief 
from the AMT. Let me make my points, and then I will be happy to yield.
  Ever since that time, I might point out to my colleague, there has 
been a 1-year fix. We know that issue is coming. We know that this 
issue is coming and it needs to be resolved. It hasn't been resolved, 
and we know that it won't be resolved by raising taxes on other people.
  I know my friends on the other side of the aisle can say no, these 
are adjustments. If they are adjustments, I hope they will acknowledge 
with me that what I am trying to do on the previous question is to make 
an adjustment for those States, for the people in States that don't 
have a State sales tax, to make that adjustment so they can have 
fairness across the board of being able to deduct sales tax from their 
Federal income tax. I will be making that motion, Madam Speaker, on the 
previous question.
  I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman.
  I appreciate we are sort of finalizing history here, and I appreciate 
your referring to that past.
  But is it not true that for the last 6 years when you were in 
control, you made a decision to have other tax cuts that were financed 
in part by the assumption that we are going to collect this AMT?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. No. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
not correct on that, because in all of the budgets that we put 
together, there was never a provision that said that this income was 
something that we would use.
  That is, by the way, in your budget. You do it with a mechanism 
called the reserve fund which says you have to offset.
  But I will say this, and I will talk about economic policy and tax 
policy. Because of the tax policies we have put in place with the tax 
cuts in 2001 and 2003, we have seen an extraordinarily

[[Page 34010]]

strong economy in this country. I think that is pretty hard to refute, 
and so I just want to point that out to my friend.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. My good friend from Washington talked past the point. 
Those budgets assumed the alternative minimum tax. President Bush's 
budget assumes the alternative minimum tax. And I want to make clear 
that this is something that we are simply not going to do. We do not 
want to continue their practice of assuming this tax to be able to 
finance other priorities.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), a former cochair of the Blue Dog Coalition and 
a great Member of this House who is committed to fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. COOPER. Madam Speaker, there is no reason to make this debate 
more complicated than it is. It all revolves around a very simple but 
vitally important principle: whether the United States Government pays 
its bills. We think that it should. The principle is called PAYGO, pay-
as-you-go. I am thankful that 31 Blue Dogs have signed a letter that 
said they will not vote for anything that means the free lunch 
mentality of the past. I am thankful that so many of our progressive 
friends across the caucus have similarly strong feelings. And I am 
thankful that our Democratic leadership has put in PAYGO, what Alan 
Greenspan said was the single most important domestic reform we can 
take.
  Let's stand for fiscal responsibility in this House. America must pay 
its bills.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the Chair of the Blue 
Dog Coalition and someone for the last 11 years who has fought hard on 
this particular issue to bring fiscal sanity back to our country.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cardoza) for leading this debate.
  Let's be very clear. I think it is well understood by the country, 
the fiscal recklessness of the period, the 6-year period from January 
2001 to January 2007, a recklessness which included record spending 
levels at the same time revenues were being reduced to a level that 
created record deficits during that period of time which are going to 
have a serious negative effect on the future of this country, the 
economy, the kind of life that our children and grandchildren will see 
if we don't get under control this recklessness that has been 
demonstrated over the last 6 years since the 2000 Presidential 
election.
  Madam Speaker, you have to fix those problems by, first of all, 
believing in some principles. And the principle that we believe in is 
if you are going to have a program, you ought to be able to pay for it. 
We all understand the serious consequences of the AMT and we want to 
fix it, but many of us believe if you are going to fix it, you are 
going to do it in a revenue-neutral way. That is the difference between 
this leadership and the previous 6 years' leadership, which says just 
damn the port, torpedoes, full steam ahead; tax cuts and increased 
spending, it doesn't make any difference, as long as everybody is happy 
at the moment. Our children and grandchildren are the ones who are 
going to pay that bill in the end.
  And I want to thank Speaker  Nancy Pelosi and the majority leader, 
Steny Hoyer, for standing tall with us on this principle of PAYGO and 
this particular vote on the AMT as we send another AMT, paid-for AMT to 
the Senate. It is a very critical time in the future of this country 
and how we are going to handle our fiscal responsibility.
  Again, I want to thank our leader, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cardoza) and the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pasco, 
Washington.
  Madam Speaker, we are sitting here watching our good friends on the 
other side talk about all this great work that they have done, how 
fiscal responsibility is so important and all these problems with the 
country, and yet we are sitting here in the middle of December with 10 
out of the 11 spending bills not even done because the Democrat 
majority is interested in spending record levels of money, more and 
more and more money and talking about tax increases, taxes that 
continue and keep going.

                              {time}  1130

  And yet they want to stand up and eat both sides of that cake and 
talk about fiscal responsibility and how Nancy Pelosi, as our Speaker, 
has done such a great job.
  Well, Madam Speaker, I would like to encourage my friends to go home 
maybe on a weekend sometime and talk to people and find out how well 
we're doing. How well we're doing is not yet well understood by the 
American people because we're up here and can't even get our work done, 
and yet we're up here crowing, trying to take credit for all this great 
work that has been done, and none of it is passed, not even a 
negotiation with the President and the White House. No negotiation; 
bills that show up, 1,700 pages worth of a bill last week that we were 
given 20 minutes before the Rules Committee went in.
  We find out all sorts of earmarks, billions of dollars worth of 
earmarks, and then we have people that come down here and start crowing 
about fiscal responsibility. That's malarkey. That is ridiculous. We're 
trying to get our work done, and we're over here standing up acting 
like we've just won the race.
  The American people know the difference. The Republican Party is here 
to say we're going to try and get our work done, and we're here to show 
up and to try and do that work. We're waiting for those other 10 out of 
the 11 bills to come to the floor. We're waiting to be able to see 
those bills so that we can know what's in the bills. And then one side 
stands up and talks about fiscal responsibility. Absolutely ridiculous.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke talks about 
malarkey. I would say that his side of the aisle should know about 
malarkey after they raised the Federal deficit over $4 trillion in the 
last 6 years.
  I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Harman), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and an absolute 
fighter on behalf of fiscal responsibility in this House.
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, as the only grandmother Blue Dog, I rise 
in support of this rule and the underlying bill. I strongly support AMT 
relief for 55,000 taxpayers in my congressional district, and 23 
million Americans nationwide. But there is a right way and a wrong way 
to do it. Simply providing relief to this generation while raising 
taxes on future generations is the wrong way.
  Put another way, the $50 billion price tag for this AMT vote can 
either be paid for responsibly, or we can send the bill to our children 
and grandchildren.
  In my seven terms in Congress, I have always supported fiscal 
responsibility and have made scores of votes that are faithful to that 
principle. Among them was a career-risking vote in 1993 for the Clinton 
budget; my vote in 1994 to cut $100 billion from Federal spending; my 
vote in 1997 for a balanced budget; my vote against the Bush tax 
package which provided unnecessary relief for the top tax brackets; and 
now these AMT votes.
  Madam Speaker, I dedicate my vote today to my first grandchild, Lucy, 
and to her brother and cousin, who will be born early next year.

[[Page 34011]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 21 
minutes. The gentleman from California has 14\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as 
much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I just don't get it. I just can't figure 
this thing out. Under the Democrats' logic, they're saying that we have 
to increase taxes to avoid a tax increase. We have to increase taxes to 
avoid a tax increase. That's what the fiscally responsible thing is for 
us to do.
  Madam Speaker, last Saturday morning I had the privilege of riding in 
the Glendora Christmas parade. Glendora, California, beautiful, ``pride 
of the foothills'' they call this city. As I arrived, I happened to run 
into a guy called Marshall Mouw, who is a former city council member in 
that great city. He worked for the U.S. Postal Service for many years. 
The first thing he said when he looked at me is, what are you going to 
do to make sure that we're not victimized by the alternative minimum 
tax? And I told him, we have tried time and time again to do at least 
what's called a 1-year patch, a 1-year patch, which would ensure that 
23 million Americans aren't going to be saddled with this unfair tax. 
And personally, I would like to flat out repeal completely the 
alternative minimum tax.
  Now, let's remember what the alternative minimum tax is. Back in 
1969, the Democratic Congress found that there were 155 Americans who 
were millionaires, and they weren't paying their fair share of taxes. 
They, of course, were doing things legally. They had all kinds of 
investments. They were creating jobs. But they weren't paying their 
fair share of taxes, so-called. And so the alternative minimum tax was 
put into place to go after those 155 Americans who many believed were 
cheating somehow and not paying their fair share.
  What has happened? Well, due to bracket creep, we now see 23 million 
Americans. I would like to describe this, Madam Speaker, as unintended 
consequences. It's one of the things that we often don't think about in 
this institution when we try to pass sweeping legislation, well-
intentioned but sweeping legislation. And that's one of the reasons 
that the framers of our Constitution, James Madison especially, wanted 
the process of law-making to be very, very hard; very, very difficult.
  I see my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations here, Mr. Obey, and I will say that it's very clear that 
Madison's vision, I guess, is working now, when you look at how hard it 
is for us to get our work done, how hard it is for us to get through 
this appropriations process. I'm very, very relieved that many of the 
things that this new majority would like to put through, which I 
believe in many ways undermine what the American people want, like 
putting into place a massive tax increase to avoid a tax increase, 
can't happen, and they're not going to happen.
  As the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, Mr. McCrery, said yesterday, all we need to do is take the 
last debate that we had on AMT, paste that thing in, and then we'll see 
exactly what happens.
  We know that our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol are not 
going to accept this. And so what we need to do if we in fact are going 
to ensure that the American people are going to get that much needed 
relief from the alternative minimum tax, it's very important for us to 
do everything that we can to try and come to an agreement as quickly as 
possible. We know what that agreement is. We know what we're going to 
agree to. We're going to agree to what we've done in the past, a 1-year 
patch to ensure that these 23 million Americans don't get this massive 
tax increase.
  Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague, I was just told by one 
of our staff members that they've been talking about how horrible the 
last 6 years have been, how awful the last 6 years have been. I would 
like to remind our colleagues of the fact that we got a report 2 weeks 
ago of the third quarter gross domestic product growth rate that we've 
had in this country. It's 4.9 percent. I would like to remind our 
colleagues who continue to wring their hands over the deficit, yes, I'd 
like to see the deficit lower, but as a percentage of our gross 
domestic product, the deficit today is $81 billion lower than had been 
projected in February of this year, putting it at $164 billion.
  Now, people don't often think about the fact that the United States 
of America has a $13.3 trillion economy, clearly the strongest, most 
dynamic economy that the world has ever known.
  Do we have problems? Of course we do. I mentioned at the outset one 
of the communities I represent in Southern California, the subprime 
issue is something with which we're trying to contend and to work 
through. If you look at the value of the currency, if you look at lots 
of other issues out there, we do have problems. But this notion of 
claiming that the last 6 years have been a living hell for all 
Americans is preposterous.
  What we need to do is we need to make sure that we do everything that 
we possibly can to rein in wasteful Federal spending, make sure that we 
pursue opportunities to open up markets around the world for U.S. 
workers to be able to export into those markets, and we need to make 
sure that we continue cutting taxes so that we can see the kind of 
economic growth that we've been enjoying in the past. That's why it's 
silly for us to be sitting around wasting our time, wasting our time 
doing exactly what we did last week on this so-called alternative 
minimum tax when we know exactly what is going to happen here.
  At the end of the day, we're going to have, Madam Speaker, a 1-year 
patch to ensure that 23 million Americans don't face a massive tax 
increase. Let's reject this crazy notion that we've got before us and 
move ahead with what we know can be agreed to in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the distinguished chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, and an absolute champion on this issue, 
Mr. Obey.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond briefly to some 
of the assertions made a few minutes ago under which the Clinton 
administration was attacked for supposedly not correcting the 
alternative minimum tax problem.
  I want to read from the administration's statement when the President 
vetoed the budget reconciliation bill, which contained the so-called 
AMT fix. The President pointed out at the time that in addition to 
supposedly dealing with the alternative minimum tax, that that bill 
would have cut Medicare by $270 billion, it would have cut Federal 
Medicaid payments to States by $163 billion, it would have virtually 
eliminated the direct student loan program, it would have provided huge 
tax cuts, over 47 percent of the benefits would have gone to the top 12 
percent of earners in the country. I think that's enough said.
  If you want to understand why the Clinton administration vetoed the 
bill, it was not because they were against an alternative minimum tax 
fix. In fact, the President specifically supported it in his comments. 
What he objected to was using the alternative minimum tax proposal as a 
Trojan horse to bring in huge gifts for the most well off people in 
this society paid for by huge funding cuts for those in our society who 
were the most vulnerable. The President didn't apologize for his action 
at the time, and we shouldn't, either. It was the right thing to do.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 2 minutes, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the previous 
speaker, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He has always 
been one that

[[Page 34012]]

believes that this House ought to do their work, and he has worked 
extraordinarily hard to make sure that this House does their work on 
the appropriation process.
  But I find it ironic that in the gentleman's remarks talking about 
what happened with a bill that President Clinton vetoed is because, at 
least the inference is there's a lot of extraneous stuff on that bill.
  My goodness, how history repeats itself, because here we are in the 
closing days of the first session of this 110th Congress, and what are 
we contemplating? There are so many rumors around here about an omnibus 
bill. And we know what omnibus bills are. There are so many things that 
are stuck in there to extract votes, generally they come out after the 
fact, embarrasses the institution, and yet we seem to be going down 
exactly the same path.
  I appreciate the gentleman for acknowledging that President Clinton 
did veto a permanent repeal of the AMT, which was simply the point that 
I made in the outset of my remarks.
  But I would just say, Madam Speaker, it seems to me we're going, that 
there will be a speech maybe later on this week, probably next week, 
about everything put into one package. And maybe we should take my 
friend from Wisconsin's remarks and just repeat them again, because 
history does repeat itself.
  With that, I will reserve my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire how 
much time either side has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 12\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Washington has 13 minutes.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. Rosa 
DeLauro.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
rule we are considering and the bill, the AMT relief bill.
  Last month, this Congress stepped up. We passed responsible 
legislation providing millions of hardworking middle-class families 
with the tax cuts they need and they deserve. And we're back today, 
working once again to protect over 23 million middle-class families 
from the encroaching alternative minimum tax.
  In my home State, Connecticut, failing to act on the AMT would mean 
new taxes on 358,842 households, including almost 67,000 in my 
district. This is must-pass legislation for our families and for our 
changing economy.
  I commend Chairman Rangel for leading the way for providing relief in 
a way that allows us to get our fiscal house in order by sticking to 
the PAYGO rules that this Congress adopted.

                              {time}  1145

  This legislation also includes a long overdue expansion of the child 
tax credit. Last year, because of the way the laws were written, 7 
million children, most of them infants and toddlers, in working 
families across the country remained ineligible for even a partial 
credit.
  This year we do better. We return to the original intent of the child 
tax credit. By lowering the earnings threshold to $8,500, we will 
capture additional millions of children who will be eligible for the 
tax credit, and the families of 10 million others will receive larger 
refunds.
  With this bill, we have an opportunity to help these kids. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this rule and to pass this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, you know, we've had probably 
close to 1,100 votes this session. We've been here since January. In 
fact, January we had more work scheduled than I've seen in a long, long 
time because January is usually a light month. But we had all those 
votes, and here we are with just a few days left in this session and we 
haven't done a darn thing.
  In my opinion, the accomplishments of this Congress under the 
Democrat leadership has been a big zero. The appropriation bills that 
the President wanted to sign and get through this process have not been 
given to him, and now you're going to come up with an omnibus spending 
bill right here at the end with a lot of pork in it that nobody knows 
what's in it, and you're going to present that to the American people 
as a job well done.
  Well, it is not a job well done. That omnibus spending bill, if it 
has all that pork in it that we've heard of, the President's likely to 
veto, and then we're going to have to come back with a continuing 
resolution to get us through the end of the year into the middle of 
January.
  So I'd just like to say to my colleagues, whom I respect a great 
deal, the promises that you made at the beginning of the year when you 
took charge of this House have not been met. We have not gotten 
anything done of substance, and we're going to leave here with an 
omnibus spending bill that may or may not be vetoed, and the American 
people are going to wonder what in the world's in that bill.
  So I'd just like to say to my colleagues, I'd like to say a job well 
done, but I can't. It's been a total zero this year.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will again remind Members to 
address their comments to the Chair.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I have the distinct honor to yield 1 
minute to a member of the Rules Committee and a member of the Blue Dog 
Coalition, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I stand today in strong support of this rule, a rule 
that supports a very important bill, a fix for the AMT, that does it in 
a way that is fiscally responsible, which is extremely important.
  When I look at the things that this House has done this year, things 
like appropriating money so that student loans are increased, Pell 
Grants are increased so that our children who go to college leave 
college with less debt, less saddled for the future; when I think of 
the sacrifices that parents make so that they can help their children 
through college, so that when their children finish college they're not 
saddled with debt; those are the kind of considerations that we need to 
take into consideration today in fixing the AMT so that we don't saddle 
our children with incredible debt in the future, that we fix the AMT 
and we do it in a responsible way.
  So I am proud to support this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve my time, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Budget 
Committee, a distinguished member of this body, Mr. Doggett.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Responsible, pay-as-you-go government is a significant part of the 
new direction to which this Congress committed our country last 
January. Now is hardly the time to abandon that important commitment.
  For 7 years, spend-and-borrow Republicans have seldom met a problem 
in this country that they didn't address by borrowing more money and 
incurring more public debt. Now, when America faces a credit crunch, 
they say ``get more credit.'' They insist on borrowing even more money 
to finance another tax cut.
  Admittedly, under Republican rule, the AMT, the Alternative Minimum 
Tax, turned into the ``Aggressive Middle-income Tax.'' Republicans were 
so busy treating the Federal Treasury like an ATM to finance tax cuts 
for the wealthy few that they largely forgot about the need to 
permanently fix the AMT affecting the middle class.
  We need that permanent fix that President Bush continues to refuse to 
support, but correcting and reducing the AMT can be accomplished in a 
fiscally responsible manner. We Democrats understand that discipline is 
required for fiscal responsibility. You simply cannot make a mountain 
of debt disappear, say, the way they erased the CIA torture video.

[[Page 34013]]

  This bill pays for the AMT fix in part by adopting most of the 
Abusive Tax Shelter Shutdown Act that I first authored in June of 1999, 
but which year after year House Republicans have blocked. Indeed, they 
blocked it even after Senate Republicans approved the measure.
  Today, we can stop corporate tax dodgers from shifting the tax burden 
to middle-class families, ensuring both tax fairness and fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, how much time do we have available to us?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) 
has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
to support fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
  In my southern Arizona district, over 40,000 families are going to be 
directly impacted if Congress and our President do not take action.
  The AMT was never intended to impact middle-class families. That is 
why we must fix this tax and allow families instead to make decisions 
about investing into their futures.
  This is a critical, critical priority. As a Blue Dog Member, I'm 
pleased that this bill also respects what Americans respect, what 
Arizonans respect, which is fiscal accountability. And that is why this 
bill is offset by closing a tax loophole.
  Congress has to play by the same rules that our families in America 
play by, balancing budgets and being fiscally responsible. This is a 
priority that we're going to continue to push and push and push.
  Today, we're standing strong for tax policies that help middle-class 
families, the backbone of America, and I urge Members to support the 
rule and support fixing the AMT.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, a founding member 
of the Blue Dog Coalition and absolute champion on the issue of fiscal 
responsibility and making sure that this House returns to fiscal 
sanity, Mr. Tanner.
  Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, this rule embodies a fundamental principle 
of responsible stewardship of this country, and that is to live within 
our means and pay our bills.
  There are some folks around here who apparently don't believe the 
laws of arithmetic apply past the steps of the Capitol or the front 
door of the White House. Well, they do. And there's some who've said 
deficits don't matter. Well, if that was true, we'd just borrow what we 
need to get along and forget about it, not have any Tax Code at all. 
Everybody knows that that is ludicrous.
  What we have witnessed over the last 72 months is something that has 
not occurred in the history of this country since 1776, and that is the 
willful and knowing plunge into debt by our continued refusal to pay 
our bills.
  When they say we can pass the AMT fix and we don't have to pay for it 
because it was never intended on these folks, and therefore, it doesn't 
exist, if I said that in Tennessee, they would say that fellow's been 
in Washington too long; we've got to get him home. That is absurd.
  The arguments to justify borrowing more money right now for all 
future generations plus us, to me, are the worst of political rhetoric.
  Somebody's going to pay this bill. We have asked the CBO, and they 
say if we don't pay for it, instead of $50 billion, with the interest 
carry, it will be $80 billion. And so it's not unlike a credit card, 
and we have a Nation's credit card here.
  I think we are looking at warning signs all over the world. When 
people begin to talk about the dollar, when the dollar has fallen to 
where it is, to when people say maybe the euro is a better alternative 
for us right now than the dollar, these are warning signs that this 
country cannot and must not continue down this fiscal path.
  All of us took an oath to uphold the Constitution against all 
enemies, foreign and domestic. I think there's financial vulnerability 
that has been created and in a way that has never been done before.
  Go to the U.S. Treasury Web site. This administration and this 
Congress over the last 6 years, before last year when we started trying 
to pay the bills, borrowed more money from foreign sources than all 42 
administrations before it put together. That's not a political 
argument; that was the numbers. And the more we do, the more the 
interest is. We have transferred over $700 billion in interest payments 
to people around the world. This year we have removed, basically from 
the tax base that we had in the summer of 2001, $131 billion, by CBO's 
calculations, every year.
  When we don't pay the bills when we pass these measures, when we 
don't pay for them, what we are basically doing is enacting a tax on 
the American people in the form of interest payments that cannot be 
repealed. That is wrong. It is, I think, a violation of our oath of 
office to continue to argue that we can pass bills without paying for 
them.
  I thank Mr. Cardoza and the Rules Committee for bringing another bill 
here, and I hope our colleagues here in the House and the Senate will 
understand what we're trying to say.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, you know, I find this whole 
debate rather perplexing. What the majority party is saying is that in 
order to leave people's taxes the same, in order to leave them where 
they are now, they have to raise taxes on somebody else. They have to 
pay for leaving your taxes alone by raising taxes on somebody else. 
Now, that's just warped logic. But let's just accept that warped logic 
for a minute and let's say that somehow leaving taxes alone required 
being paid for.
  What about reducing spending to pay for it? Where in this rule is the 
ability to have an amendment to do that? What about reducing spending 
instead of raising taxes?
  Now, later this week, we are likely to see a gigantic budget bill 
that will spend $50 billion more than last year. Where is the pay-for 
for that? Now, that's pretty clear. If you spend $50 billion, nearly 
$50 billion more than last year, that's a clear increase in spending 
for which you would think someone would want to pay for it. But 
instead, here you're going to leave people's taxes alone, the same as 
last year, and somehow that's a tax cut that has to be paid for? The 
logic is so distorted here, and the rationale is so distorted.
  Let's go ahead and spend all this extra money and not pay for it. You 
know that if you held the line on spending and didn't increase that 
spending this year and you looked at what that did over a 10-year 
period, you could almost pay for repealing the alternative minimum tax 
completely.

                              {time}  1200

  But, no, that is not what the majority party is doing. That is not 
what this rule talks about. That is not what this rule allows. This 
rule continues this distorted logic that says that spending more money 
is okay and doesn't have to be paid for but leaving people's taxes 
alone is not okay.
  This rule and this proposal should both lose.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the gentleman 
from Washington if he has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for 
time and I am prepared to close if the gentleman from California is 
prepared to close.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on my side and so I 
would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let's put this thing in perspective. This Democrat tax 
plan essentially allows the State sales tax deduction for those States 
that don't have a State income tax to expire.
  Residents of States with no income tax deserve to be allowed to 
deduct

[[Page 34014]]

their State sales tax from their Federal income tax bill. To me, Mr. 
Speaker, it's a matter of fairness, which is why the Republican 
Congress acted in 2004 to restore the State and local sales tax 
deduction. This law provided tax fairness to Washingtonians and those 
who live in other non-income tax States for the first time in nearly 20 
years.
  Now, this deduction, Mr. Speaker, expires in just days, at the end of 
this year. But this House will have the chance to vote today, Mr. 
Speaker, to extend the State sales tax deduction by joining me in 
voting ``no'' on the previous question. I will then amend the rule to 
allow an amendment to be offered on the underlying bill to extend the 
State and local sales tax deduction for 1 year, just for 1 year, as a 
matter of fairness.
  To all the Members from Washington, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, 
Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota and Alaska, vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we can give State sales tax deduction fairness for our 
constituents. This is a bipartisan issue, and we can achieve an 
extension today with a bipartisan vote against the previous question. 
Our constituents deserve fair treatment; so let's give this to them. 
The underlying bill that this rule makes in order is going to raise 
taxes by $50 billion. The very least we can do is to extend the sales 
tax deduction out of fairness.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear because there has been a great 
deal of discussion on the floor today about PAYGO. I think PAYGO has a 
lot of merit. I happen to disagree as it relates to this particular tax 
plan in the underlying bill, but there has been a great deal of 
discussion about PAYGO. So let me make perfectly clear this previous 
question vote does not waive the PAYGO rule. If the previous question 
is defeated and my amendment is made in order, the PAYGO rule is not 
waived. If a Member then wants to raise, when the issue is on the 
floor, a point of order against that amendment, they are perfectly able 
to do that. So my amendment does not waive the PAYGO rule.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of 
the amendment and extraneous material in the Record prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have said that this bill 
raises taxes, but that's far from the truth. Let me again, as I did in 
my opening, set the record straight. This bill closes tax loopholes 
that allow a privileged few on Wall Street to pay a lower tax rate on 
their income than the average hardworking American does on their 
income. That includes school teachers, police officers, firefighters, 
our Nation's veterans, and, frankly, even us privileged that are able 
to serve here as Members of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans need to make a choice today. Are they 
going to stand with tax cheats and hedge fund managers, or are they 
going to stand with the 23 million hardworking Americans who will be 
affected by this policy?
  Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is united in our commitment 
to fiscal discipline and ensuring that government lives within its 
means. The Democratic Congress pledged to exercise spending restraint 
and to stop shouldering our country's needs on the backs of our 
children and grandchildren. We strongly urge the other body, Democrats 
and Republicans, to have the courage and good sense to keep the promise 
they made to the American people to be good stewards of their taxpayer 
dollars. We can't pick and choose when we comply with PAYGO rules if we 
want to reverse the irresponsible fiscal policy of the Bush 
administration and the prior Republican Congresses.
  By restoring budget discipline and getting back on the path to budget 
surpluses, we ensure America is economically strong and that we are not 
beholden to foreign nations such as China, Japan, Iran and Saudi Arabia 
whom we are borrowing this money from; that we are protecting our 
Social Security and Medicare programs; and that paying down the 
national debt is not a burden that we are going to put on the backs of 
our children and generations to come.
  With this, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a 
``yes'' vote on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendments to H. Res. 861 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       (1) In section 1, insert ``and any amendment thereto'' 
     after ``ordered on the bill''.
       (2) In section 1. strike ``and (2) one motion to 
     recommit'', and insert:
       ``(2) the amendment printed in section 3, if offered by 
     Representative Hastings of Washington or his designee, which 
     shall he in order without intervention of an point of order 
     (except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI) or demand 
     for division of the question, shall he considered as read, 
     and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions''.
       (3) At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as 
     follows:
       ``At the end of the bill add the following new section:

     SEC.  . DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting January 1, 2009''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply, to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007.''
                                  ____

       (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 form 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.''

[[Page 34015]]

       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. CARDOZA. 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________