[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8129-8138]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1045
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 99, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                   ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 275 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?

[[Page 8130]]

  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 275

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 99) revising the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2007, establishing the congressional budget for 
     the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, and 
     setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
     2009 through 2012. The first reading of the concurrent 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the concurrent resolution shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution are waived. General debate shall 
     not exceed four hours, with three hours confined to the 
     congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget and one hour on the subject of economic goals and 
     policies equally divided and controlled by Representative 
     Maloney of New York and Representative Saxton of New Jersey 
     or their designees. After general debate the concurrent 
     resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as 
     read. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report, and shall 
     not be subject to amendment. All points of order against the 
     amendments printed in the report are waived except that the 
     adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution for amendment. After the conclusion of 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, the 
     Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to 
     the House with such amendment as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final 
     adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to 
     section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     of its adoption.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 99 pursuant to this resolution, 
     notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
     Chair may postpone further consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 
30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded 
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 275.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 275 provides for 
consideration of H. Con. Res. 99, the concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 2008 under a structured rule.
  The rule provides for 4 hours of general debate, three to be 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget and one to be controlled by Representative Maloney of New York 
and Representative Saxton of New Jersey.
  The rule also makes in order three substitute amendments by 
Representative Scott of Virginia, Representative Woolsey and 
Representative Ryan of Wisconsin.
  Madam Speaker, budgets, more than anything else this government 
produces, are a statement of what matters to us and what does not. They 
are moral documents. They tell us to what degree we care to look after 
the old and protect the young. They indicate our responsibilities to 
commitments both abroad and here at home. They give life to our 
greatest dreams as a Nation. They are the hope we leave for our 
children and become the legacy we bestow upon our people.
  And they can be examples of great courage, or an absolution of 
Congress's responsibility to set priorities consistent with 
strengthening our people and our communities.
  Madam Speaker, as it concerns the budget, it has been a long 6 years 
for this Nation. The budget has been out of balance fiscally, and it 
has been out of balance with the needs of the American people.
  Just 6 years ago, we were looking at a projected $5.6 trillion 
surplus. That has collapsed into a $9 trillion deficit. For every 
American in this country, there is $29,000 worth of debt.
  And to add insult to injury, most of the debt we have taken on in 
recent years will be sent to investors in foreign countries.
  It goes far beyond having been drunk at the wheel. Our predecessors 
in the majority not only crashed the car into a ditch, they accelerated 
after landing there, allowing mud to cave in on top of it.
  That was the fiscal situation Democrats found when we arrived here a 
few months ago in the majority.
  Since President Bush took office in 2001, my home State of Ohio alone 
has lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs; and 3 million have been lost 
nationwide.
  Job growth overall has slowed to a significantly slower pace in 
recent years than under the Clinton administration, at a rate even 
below the level necessary to keep pace with population growth. Sadly, 
our families have even less purchasing power today than they did in 
January of 2001.
  And the debt has continued to pile up, with no accountability, no 
fiscal responsibility, no effort to place priorities in the right 
places, to curb wasteful spending, to do what needs to be done to make 
sure that the programs consistent with the values of this Nation, 
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, SCHIP and Community Block 
Grants continue to be able to survive.
  In short, the policies enacted in recent years will have devastating 
effects on our future competitiveness and standard of living if we 
continue down the same destructive road.
  But it is a new day, and we have a new path to follow, one that says 
that it is more important to take care of our wounded veterans than it 
is to take care of oil companies, one that says that kids cannot grow 
up to thrive and give back to this great Nation if they do not have the 
health care when they are young, one that says that a measure of a 
Nation can be taken in small things like heating assistance for the 
elderly and nutrition programs in local schools and special assistance 
for those with disabilities.
  Indeed, it is in the small print of the Federal budget that we find 
our worth as a government, which is why I am proud, both as a member of 
the Budget Committee, and as a Member of Congress, to support this 
Democratic budget.
  It is the first time in a very long time that Congress has before it 
a budget that is fiscally responsible and in line with the needs of the 
American people.

                              {time}  1100

  This budget makes critical investments in education, health care, our 
veterans, our communities and our economy while at the same time 
adhering to PAYGO principles and returning our budget to balance by 
2012. The reckless economic policies of the last 6 years have been 
immensely damaging to our economy's long-term global competitiveness 
and particularly to our workers.
  The Democratic budget will strengthen middle-class families by 
providing funding for job training programs, health care, and 
education, particularly in math and science. These are all essential 
investments in our workforce that will lay a solid foundation for a 
growing economy and improve our competitiveness. The Democratic budget 
rejects the President's draconian cuts to programs that provide health 
care to the poor, to our children, and

[[Page 8131]]

our seniors. Nine million of the neediest children in this country and 
242,000 in the State of Ohio lack health insurance coverage, and the 
funding levels in the President's budget put as many as 1 million of 
these children at risk to fall off the SCHIP program by 2012. In 
contrast, the Democratic budget provides for a $50 billion increase to 
SCHIP, allowing us to reach millions more children than we reach right 
now, making our children's health care needs a Federal Government 
priority.
  The Democratic budget also rejects the $300 billion in Medicare and 
Medicaid cuts proposed by the administration. Access to health care 
should be a right, not a privilege, in this Nation and it does not 
serve any of us to roll back the clock on the health care initiatives 
that have served us so well up until now.
  The Democratic budget is also about investing in our communities. It 
provides for increased funding for Community Development Block Grants, 
the Social Service Block Grants, and it saves Community Services Block 
Grants which was zeroed out in the President's budget. I have 
personally spoken with a number of the community officials in my own 
district that would have been affected by the proposed cuts in block 
grant programs and I will tell you that at the local level, these 
programs are lifelines for our neighborhoods and towns. They address 
needs in affordable housing, education and nutrition. They promote 
financial literacy and assist with child care needs and special 
services to children with disabilities. And in our cities, the CDBG 
funds help provide affordable housing and services to our most 
vulnerable populations. In short, we should not be trying to do away 
with programs that work.
  The Democratic budget also makes education a priority, from early 
childhood to lifelong learning. To that end, our budget provides $3 
billion over the current services level for education, training and 
social services. These increases are an investment in our future and 
will be vital to our global competitiveness. We have increased funding 
for those just beginning their education, like the 38,000 children in 
Head Start in Ohio, and we have taken steps to make college education 
more affordable through Pell Grants and a higher education reserve 
fund. We have included funds to train more math and science teachers.
  Finally, the Democratic budget reflects a major shift in priorities 
by providing for a $5.4 billion increase in the Veterans Affairs budget 
which is an 18.1 percent increase over 2007 levels and the largest 
increase in history. Recently it has become clear that the needs of our 
brave men and women who have served our country so honorably have not 
been met. We have heard heartbreaking stories of wounded veterans who 
must wait up to 6 months for disability determinations and about VA 
facilities that are in disrepair. The more than 1 million veterans in 
Ohio and the more than 24 million nationwide deserve nothing less than 
our full support. Anything less is simply unacceptable.
  A budget reflects the soul of a nation. It can give life to our most 
honorable pursuits and provide proof of the best of our intentions. It 
is the Rosetta Stone which those who look upon us from the present and 
from the future can decipher our worth and our courage.
  It is with those thoughts in mind that I am proud to present this 
budget for consideration by the House.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
this rule and to the unprecedented tax increase that the Democrat 
majority is bringing to the House floor today. The massive and 
irresponsible tax increase included in this budget would be the largest 
in American history, weighing in at a shocking $392.5 billion over the 
next 5 years. This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of 
everyday taxpayers, will be used to finance bloated new government 
spending that my colleague just spoke about that will be well above the 
rate of inflation through 2012 while ignoring the brewing entitlement 
crisis. Spending, more spending, and more spending rather than worrying 
about the brewing entitlement crisis that faces this Nation. Around 77 
million baby boomers will be retiring in the near future and will begin 
collecting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Funding this new 
spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era and is a 
challenge the Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore while 
going on a spending spree everywhere else.
  If fiscal discipline is what the Democrats promised voters this past 
fall, then by my count it took all of about 3 months for the Democrat 
candidates to abandon their campaign trail promises and show their true 
tax-and-spend stripes here again on the floor today.
  This deeply flawed budget would increase taxes on almost 8 million 
taxpayers in my home State of Texas, costing each of them an average of 
$2,755 per year. It would collect these taxes by allowing the 2001 and 
2003 tax relief provided by the Republican Congress to expire. In real 
terms, for every taxpayer, this means reducing the child tax credit for 
working families so that government can collect $27 billion more to 
finance the new spending that the Democrat majority chooses. It means 
reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax to collect an 
additional $104 billion so that the majority can kick that further down 
the road rather than reforming and strengthening our Nation's 
entitlement programs. And it means completely ignoring the alternative 
minimum tax crisis which is projected to hit 23 million middle-class 
families if not dealt with quickly.
  Madam Speaker, I believe the voters watching this debate on C-SPAN 
understand what these tax increases mean for our economy and our 
ability to compete globally, for, you see, I remember just a few short 
years ago when America was shipping thousands and thousands of jobs 
overseas and then the tax cuts took place and now we can't find enough 
workers in America. Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you, that is the 
way to be globally competitive, when you have plenty of jobs in 
America. But the voters and those people watching this debate may not 
realize that for a family of four with $60,000 in earnings, it would 
mean a tax increase of some 61 percent. It means that a single parent 
with two children and $30,000 in earnings would see a tax increase of 
67 percent. And it means that an elderly couple with $40,000 in income 
would see their taxes increased by a whopping 156 percent.
  Now, one would think that a tax increase of almost $400 billion 
impacting every American taxpayer would be enough to finance the 
Democrats' appetite for big government programs. But hold on. This is 
just the start. There's more to come. This budget also contains 12 
reserve funds, or pet initiative IOUs, which set the stage for more 
than $115 billion in future higher spending which will have to be 
financed by, let me say, you guessed it, the taxpayer. Higher taxes.
  For the last 4 years, responsible budgets passed by the Republican 
Party kept discretionary spending at or below inflation for all non-
defense, non-homeland security spending. This budget plan brought 
forward by the Democrats brings this tradition to a screeching halt by 
allowing about $25 billion more in discretionary spending than 
requested by President Bush or even the spendthrift Senate, which asks 
for about $7 billion less than the House.
  Thankfully, it is not too late to stop this fiscal train wreck. My 
friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, has 
proposed an alternative budget that achieves balance by 2012 and ends 
the raid on Social Security without raising taxes. The Republican 
alternative maintains our strong economy, reforms and strengthens 
entitlement programs, and does this while keeping in place the tax 
relief that has contributed so much to our economy since 2001.
  Without meaningful tax relief passed by recent Republican Congresses, 
our economy would not have seen the massive job growth--with 7.6 
million new jobs or roughly 170,000 per month--and

[[Page 8132]]

 economic growth of 3.5 percent a year that it has experienced over the 
last 15 quarters.
  The Republican budget contains no increase in marginal rates and 
leaves in place the 10 percent bracket for low-income filers. It 
includes no reduction in child tax credit, no rollback of the marriage 
penalty or death tax relief, and no increase in capital gains or 
dividend tax rates. It provides for an extension of alternative minimum 
tax relief, the research and development tax credit, and the State and 
local sales tax deduction that is so important to people all across 
this country, including the 17 States that it benefits. It ends the 
raid on Social Security and fully funds the President's request for 
national defense and the war on terrorism. It also makes important 
budget reforms, such as a legislative line-item veto; earmark 
transparency; requiring PAYGO to be offset by spending reductions, not 
tax increases; discretionary spending caps; requiring a vote on any 
debt limit increase; and requiring a vote on any bill that seeks to 
spend or authorize more than $50 million.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to listen very 
carefully today about what the choices are that are on the floor of the 
House of Representatives and what they can support and to stand up for 
fiscal discipline, economic growth and responsible budgeting by 
opposing this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a distinguished member of the Rules and 
Budget Committees.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of this 
rule and in support of this budget resolution. It provides our 
families, seniors and children with economic security, health care, and 
nutrition.
  Madam Speaker, 5.4 million more people live in poverty today than in 
the year 2000. That is over 35 million total, and 12.4 million are 
children. One in every eight Americans is hungry. One in eight does not 
know whether they will be able to put food on the table. Madam Speaker, 
every single Member of this Congress should be ashamed of these 
statistics. The United States is the only wealthy industrialized nation 
in the world that tolerates widespread hunger amongst its people, 
including its children.

                              {time}  1115

  The decision to tolerate hunger in America has serious costs for us 
as a Nation. We constantly hear that we are a Nation committed to 
leaving no child behind. But children who are hungry, who live in 
poverty, cannot keep up. They cannot develop and thrive. They cannot 
learn or play with energy and enthusiasm.
  Hunger stunts the physical, mental and emotional growth of millions 
of our children. When these children become adults, they are more 
likely to have low earnings and low productivity in the workforce. 
Their poor health means more illness that requires large health care 
expenditures. Their early mortality robs our economy of their labor and 
consumption. They are more likely to engage in crime, which results in 
monetary and personal cost to their victims and to the taxpayers for 
the cost of our criminal justice system. And, sadly, they are also more 
likely to be victims, resulting in similar costs.
  In other areas, we see the difficulties faced by our seniors, who are 
dehumanized and demoralized when they have to choose between utilities 
and food. Many need special diets and adequate nutrition for their 
medications to work effectively. But, unfortunately, hundreds of 
thousands lack adequate food. And when we fail to end hunger among our 
elderly, we choose to add to their immediate and long-term health care 
costs, even while we hasten their deaths.
  These are some of the priorities addressed in the Democratic budget 
resolution.
  This budget resolution recognizes the burden faced by families when 
they are forced to choose between rent, food, heat and medicine, and 
provides funding for children's health care and provides funding for 
programs like LIHEAP, Head Start and low-income housing.
  I want to thank Chairman Spratt for holding a budget hearing on 
hunger and inviting Boston pediatrician Deborah Frank and South 
Carolina food banker Denise Holland to testify about the urgent need to 
address hunger in America. I only wish more of my colleagues attended 
that hearing.
  We heard how food stamp benefits provide a first defense against 
hunger but are too meager to solve the problem, how food stamp benefits 
average just $1 per person per meal, how the minimum monthly benefit is 
stuck at the decades-old level of $10, and how the program is missing 
four in every 10 eligible people.
  Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that the programs proven to 
attack hunger in America are continually under attack. The Commodity 
Food Supplemental Program is continually zeroed out by the Bush 
administration. The Food Stamp Program is constantly derided, with 
fraud, waste and abuse cited, when, according to the GAO, it is running 
at the most productive levels in the history of the program.
  It is unconscionable, Madam Speaker, that legal immigrants, people 
here legally with proper documentation, must wait 5 years for the food 
stamps they may need today, simply because they happen to be newcomers 
to our Nation. This is simply bad policy, and it needs to be fixed 
immediately. And it is unconscionable that children in need who receive 
breakfast and lunches during the school year are denied food during the 
summer months simply because school isn't in session.
  The next farm bill needs to invest the additional Federal resources 
to improve these Federal anti-hunger programs. It should improve the 
food stamp benefit, open eligibility to vulnerable and underserved 
groups, and adequately fund and fully utilize USDA resources to support 
emergency food assistance and other commodity assistance programs that 
serve the needy.
  This budget resolution, by providing a $20 billion reserve fund for 
the farm bill and by rejecting the President's arbitrary eligibility 
cuts to food stamps and the elimination of the Commodity Supplemental 
Food Program, not only makes a strong statement on the need to combat 
hunger in America, it actually takes concrete steps to do so.
  This resolution deserves support for the economic and food security 
it provides all our people, but, and let me stress, it is only a 
beginning. Ending hunger is not and should not be a partisan issue. The 
moral and economic costs affect every community in America. There is 
not a single community in America that is hunger-free.
  So I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work 
together here in the Congress and in our communities to create the 
sustained and comprehensive investment necessary to end hunger and to 
make us a stronger Nation. One step in this path is to pass the budget 
resolution before us.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague on the other 
side of the aisle, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), speak about the need to expand spending in a wide range of 
areas, I could not help but think about why it is that I chose to run 
for Congress and why I know my Republican colleagues stepped up to the 
plate to run for Congress. We want a defense capability that is second 
to none, but we also, Madam Speaker, want to do everything that we 
possibly can to reduce the size and scope of government, encouraging 
individual initiative and responsibility.
  One of the things that troubles me as I listen to the arguments 
propounded by so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
is that they talk about a need that is there. We all want to make sure 
that we address the very important societal needs that are there. We 
want to put into place entitlement reform in the area of both Medicare 
and Medicaid. Why? Not only so we can save taxpayer dollars but so

[[Page 8133]]

that we can ensure that the Medicare and Medicaid programs are more 
effective and provide needed assistance to those who are out there who 
truly are in need.
  The problem that I have is, as they talk about all of these programs, 
it undermines, it undermines initiative and responsibility. What we 
want to do with our budget, Madam Speaker, is everything within our 
power, as Mr. Sessions said so well, to make sure that we keep taxes 
low.
  One of the things that I find to be very troubling is that our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle hate most, hate most the 
taxes that have actually created a surge in revenues to the Federal 
Treasury.
  We all know that the budget that they are going to be bringing 
forward puts into place the largest tax increase in American history. 
We always held up the 1993 Clinton tax increase, that not one 
Republican voted for, as the largest increase in history; and I am 
proud that when we won our majority in 1994 we brought about major 
changes that, in fact, repealed large parts of that 1993 tax increase. 
But, Madam Speaker, that 1993 tax increase, which has been held up as 
the model, as the largest tax increase in American history, pales in 
comparison to this $392.5 billion tax increase that they are advocating 
in this budget.
  Madam Speaker, when I say that they hate most the tax cuts that have 
created the greatest surge in revenue, I am referring, of course, to 
capital gains. I have been one who has long advocated a zero capital 
gains tax rate. One of the things that we found is that reducing the 
top rate on capital gains has not done what virtually every green 
eyeshade prognosticator looked at as what happened. They said there 
would be a loss in revenues to the Federal Treasury.
  We found, of course, that there has been a surge in revenues to the 
Federal Treasury. Why? Because it has encouraged economic growth to the 
point where the deficit this year is actually $73 billion lower than it 
was last year. And that is as we have cut taxes, met the very important 
funding priorities of homeland security and national security, and we 
still have been able to actually reduce the Federal deficit. As a 
percentage of our Gross Domestic Product the deficit today, which 
everyone decries, Democrats and Republicans alike decry, is in fact 
lower as a percentage of the GDP than almost ever.
  In light of that, Madam Speaker, I think it is very important for us 
to recognize we have a strong, vibrant, growing economy today.
  I was very surprised when the distinguished Chair of the Committee on 
Rules last night, late last night when we were reporting out this rule, 
talked about how devastating the economy is.
  Madam Speaker, I will tell you it is a devastatingly good economy. 
Just this morning, we got the report that there has been an increase in 
durable goods purchases. We have a 4.5 percent unemployment rate: 146 
million Americans, more than ever in the history of our country, are 
working today. That is not an accident. We have gone through terrorist 
attacks, corporate scandals, the economic downturn; and, because of the 
policies that we put into place, we have the strongest, most dynamic, 
$13 trillion economy that we have ever seen in the history of the 
United States of America.
  Madam Speaker, I talked to an economist last night who said to me, 
``You know, I had no idea that they would move this quickly to increase 
spending and increase taxes.'' And that is exactly what they are doing, 
and that is why we need to reject this rule and clearly do everything 
that we can to reject the tax-and-spend budget that they have 
propounded and support Mr. Ryan's alternative.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I want to point out 
that the Democratic budget does not raise a single penny of taxes, 
period.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for 
yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this rule and to 
enthusiastically support this solid and balanced budget resolution. It 
invests in strategic priorities for the future, while putting the 
Nation on the path to fiscal stability.
  In approaching this debate, I would ask that Members and our 
constituents keep in mind that we are not starting from scratch. The 
previous leadership left us with a fiscal disaster that can't be 
repaired overnight. But this budget gets us on the right track in a 
responsible and strategic way.
  That is governing. Governing is not easy. It requires making hard 
choices. But making hard choices today is better than Congress 
abdicating its responsibility to choose altogether. Because the 
alternative to making hard choices is passing debt on to tomorrow's 
decisionmakers, leaving our children and grandchildren, like my own 
Anna and Robby, with a diminished quality of life.
  With PAYGO rules, the budget draws a line in the sand. If you want 
new mandatory spending or tax cuts, find a way to pay for it.
  Shifting the burden on to the next generation is no longer an option 
under this budget. We are not going to eradicate the deficit as quickly 
as some would like, and we can't spend as much on domestic priorities 
as some would like. But this budget gives us the type of solid 
foundation that will allow us to tackle our fiscal challenges, while 
still investing in the most important priorities.
  This budget recognizes that we need to invest in healthcare and 
education for our children. It recognizes that we must move to a clean 
energy economy by driving research and development and by promoting 
scientific innovation and that we must provide for our veterans, who 
have served honorably and deserve the best care possible. Finally, this 
budget recognizes that the Tax Code should be fair for hardworking 
families.
  All of this is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner, while 
ensuring the security of our Nation. That is a tremendous achievement, 
and I thank Chairman Spratt for his diligence in achieving this 
excellent legislative product. I urge my colleagues to provide the type 
of broad and enthusiastic support that it deserves.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the favorite son 
from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from 
Texas for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, there are two ways to balance a budget, whether it is 
your family budget or the Federal budget. You can either, one, reduce 
the amount of money being spent or, two, increase the amount of money 
coming in.
  Madam Speaker, the Democrats have flat-out rejected option number one 
of spending less and declared their allegiance to option number two of 
raising taxes; and they have done both with a fervor that our country 
has never seen before.
  The Democrat 5-year budget plan would spend more money each and every 
year and at a rate faster than the inflation rate. This means that each 
year the size of the Federal Government will grow bigger and more 
rapidly than the American economy. To pay for the record levels of 
spending in their budget, the Democrats plan to raise taxes on the 
American people more than at any other time in our country's history. 
That is right, raising spending to record levels and to pay for it with 
the largest tax increase in American history.

                              {time}  1130

  This budget does not extend tax relief from the marriage tax penalty. 
It doesn't extend the $1,000 child tax credit that many young families 
use. It doesn't end the death tax. It doesn't fix the alternative 
minimum tax for middle-class families. It doesn't protect the lowest 
tax rate, and would again impose taxes on lower income Americans who 
right now pay no taxes,

[[Page 8134]]

thanks to the 2001 tax relief law passed by the Republican Congress.
  This tax relief should not be repealed or allowed to expire to pay 
for more government spending. This tax relief that was passed in 2001 
and 2003 should remain permanent for the American people.
  Madam Speaker, on important priorities for my State, like the 
extention of the State and local sales tax deduction from the Federal 
tax and county payments for rural schools, the Democrat budget falls 
short. It offers only promises, but no real action. The Republican 
plan, on the other hand, sets aside real dollars to extend the State 
and local sales tax deduction for another year. So I encourage all 
Members who believe in sales tax fairness to think carefully about this 
when casting their vote.
  On the issue of payment to rural schools in counties with Federal 
forests, this budget allows an extension, but it takes no real steps to 
make it happen. As I have said before on this issue, I am disappointed 
that the Democratic leadership denied the opportunity to attach an 
extension of this legislation to another bill, a bill that has, in 
fact, been signed into law.
  Madam Speaker, the Republican plan I will be supporting holds the 
line on spending, sets priorities and allows taxpayers to keep more of 
their hard-earned money and invest it as they see fit, not how the 
Federal Government sees fit.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the budget resolution 
offered by the Democrat majority and support the substitute offered by 
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.
  You can hear the drumbeat from our friends on the other side of the 
aisle about the largest tax increase in American history. Well, the 
fact is we are today going to be able to talk about the largest tax 
increase in American history, but it is not contained in the Democratic 
budget. The largest tax increase in American history is $1.8 trillion 
that the President's budget anticipates as a result of the collection 
of the alternative minimum tax.
  It has never been a priority of the Republicans to deal with this 
looming disaster. Indeed, they squandered 8 years of hard-earned 
Democratic surpluses, unprecedented surpluses, squandered in a 
heartbeat in their relentless pursuit to give tax benefits for those 
who need them least.
  There are a few items in there that would have broad bipartisan 
agreement, the 10 percent bracket, tax credit for families, making some 
reasonable adjustment in the inheritance tax. But no, they were not 
interested in dealing with areas of agreement and then solving the 
alternative minimum tax. Each year, they have kicked the millionaire 
tax down the road. It has long since morphed into something that is not 
a millionaire's tax. It is going to be a tax under the President's 
proposal, and with the Republican priorities, it is going to be a tax 
on every two-income working family in America with children that have 
any sort of middle income.
  They are going to be paying the alternative minimum tax. And in fact, 
it is going to cost them more to compute in many cases than the actual 
tax. They get whacked twice.
  In 2001, in 2003, the Republicans refused to deal with this looming 
challenge and instead gave all sorts of tax breaks to all sorts of 
people and avoided solving this problem.
  In 2004, when we had a $4 billion problem with our overseas 
manufacturing tax credit, that morphed into a $137 billion tax grab bag 
and ignored the alternative minimum tax. I put forth to the 
administration in our hearings in both Ways and Means and in Budget to 
find out where their priority was. Well, their priority is not fixing 
the alternative minimum tax, just a 1-year patch. They want to extend 
all of these tax breaks, the good and, frankly, some of the bizarre, 
for people like Paris Hilton.
  Well, Madam Speaker, the Democratic alternative is focusing on what 
the real problem is. What we are doing in Ways and Means, we have made 
a commitment. Our number one priority is to solve the alternative 
minimum tax. Theirs, as is evidenced in their substitute, is going to 
take all of the potential headroom to make that challenge in solving 
the problem even more difficult by permanently extending all of those 
tax increases without any offset.
  The Democratic alternative is responsible, it speaks to the needs of 
working men and women, fiscal stability, and most important, our 
priorities stopping the looming tax tsunami of the alternative minimum 
tax, which will, in fact, be the largest tax increase in American 
history.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by the way, I encourage the gentleman 
from Oregon to read the bill. The Democrat budget does not address the 
alternative minimum tax, as he stated.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Is the gentleman familiar with the provisions in our 
bill that set up the reserve fund so that it permits the opportunity 
for the Ways and Means Committee to be able to move forward, hopefully 
on a bipartisan basis, to be able to establish that within the pay-as-
you-go rule?
  Mr. SESSIONS. You know, a reserve fund out there in the future does 
not fix a darn thing.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
chairman of the Suburban Caucus from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Madam Speaker, the budget coming before this House does more than 
approve the largest tax increase in American history. That is what it 
includes. But what this budget is notable for is what it also does not 
include.
  The leaders of the Republican Tuesday Group and the study committees 
came together to outline reforms to help the government spend less. And 
why should we do that? Let's note that in 1961, when President Kennedy 
took office, the Federal Government spent just $98 billion. We didn't 
hit our first trillion until 1987. We broke the second trillion in 
2002, and in 2010, we will go above the $3 trillion level.
  The Federal debt held by the public has climbed to over $3 trillion 
in 2006, a 300 percent increase in the last quarter century. This year, 
interest payments on our debt alone will top over $200 billion.
  Now, last night I offered an amendment cosponsored by Congressmen 
Dent, Pence and Hensarling. We laid out some commonsense reforms that 
this budget should include, like statutory discretionary spending 
limits, like the kind approved by President Clinton that helped us 
spend less; like provisions to slow the growth of entitlement spending 
by requiring offsets for any new benefits allowed; like enforcement 
tools that restricted the definition of ``emergency spending'' that 
would have helped us not declare a spinach farmer bailout last week as 
a national security emergency, which we did in the supplemental 
appropriations bill; like accrual accounting, to show what the 
taxpayers' long-term obligations are, and to clearly lay out for the 
American people our financial position.
  And finally, periodic audits and summaries updating the accounting 
rules we use so the American people always have the most transparent 
view of what their government is doing.
  Unfortunately, last night the Rules Committee rejected this 
amendment. We will not even be allowed to vote on these commonsense 
reforms. Ironic because most of these reforms were taken from the 
Democratic Blue Dog group that has advocated strong financial controls, 
but somehow backed this effort to deny this amendment from even a vote.
  I urge this House to reject this rule and allow these commonsense 
reforms to go through. If the past is our guide, even the budget that 
the Congress will consider today and tomorrow will be waived shortly 
because when the supplemental appropriations bill comes

[[Page 8135]]

back from Congress, it will include a provision that says the budget 
act is entirely waived and $125 billion, $23 billion over the 
President's request, will be passed, waiving the budget that we even 
approve tomorrow.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, before I yield, I would just like to 
remind the public that those on the other side of the aisle who are 
here today preaching about fiscal responsibility are the same people 
who, when they were in charge for 6 years, took a projected $5.6 
trillion surplus and collapsed it into a $9 trillion deficit.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I would yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget 
requests funding for the Iraq war through 2009. The Democratic budget 
accepts that timeline. It includes $145.2 billion for military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as requested by the President for 
fiscal year 2008. It requests $50 billion for fiscal year 2009. That is 
in addition to the $510 billion we have already spent on the war and 
another $97 billion pending in the supplemental, according to the CRS. 
The total, if approved, would be over $800 billion for war, while our 
schools, our health care and the quality of our environment are in 
decline. The budget should reflect the mandate Democrats were given in 
November, yet we are mirroring the President's plan for the war and his 
budget request to fund the war.
  The supplemental calls for withdrawal by August 2008. Why does the 
budget encourage the war to continue into 2009? If we were serious 
about trying to stop the war, the budget should not contradict the 
supplemental language.
  This budget does not end the war, it continues it through the end of 
President Bush's term. The American people want the war to end now, not 
in 2008, not in 2009, but the people want the war to end now.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Thank you, to my colleague from Texas, I 
appreciate the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule on the budget. 
It is unfair, and it unnecessarily limits debate on middle-class tax 
cuts.
  Together with a colleague from Pennsylvania, we offer an amendment to 
ensure that the child tax credit is included in the budget. But the 
majority won't allow us to offer that amendment today or even have a 
debate about it. It is a shame that this amendment in defense of the 
middle-class families was not allowed. The new majority must still be 
convinced it is their money and not the taxpayers'.
  Thirty-one million taxpayers will see their taxes increase in 2011 
when the per-child tax credit is cut in half, and that is just the 
start. The average tax hike on 975,000 middle-class families and 
taxpayers in Nevada will be almost $3,000. We will likely be told that 
the budget assumes the cost of this tax provision will be addressed, 
along with seven others, through some vague ``smoke and mirrors'' 
policy. My western values told me what happens when you assume. 
Instead, the Murphy-Heller amendment guaranteed that funds would be 
there for families instead of wishful thinking.
  Madam Speaker, to my colleagues, do the middle-class families make 
too much money? Is a child born after 2011 somehow less expensive than 
a child born in 2010? Is the child tax credit a partisan issue? Have 
those colleagues of mine in the majority like the Blue Dogs lost their 
way, or have they just been muzzled?
  We are going to hear a lot from the majority today about the 
children, but apparently that is only when it comes to government 
spending, not middle-class tax cuts. Their rhetoric on tax rings hollow 
when Congress is muzzled on such a critical debate. Don't assume. Vote 
this rule down and for middle-class tax cuts for families.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, a distinguished member of 
the Budget Committee (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Let's be clear. The 2008 budget resolution, the 
Democratic proposal leaves the tax cuts in place, it plans for their 
extension, and it extends the child tax credit and will do that. If my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle cared a whit about the child 
tax credit, they would entertain lowering the eligibility threshold so 
that families who make less than $10,500 a year in this Nation could be 
eligible for the child tax credit. They refuse to do that. So take 
their words with a grain of salt today, my friends.
  As a nation, we face great challenges, challenges in education and in 
health care, challenges that the Federal Government has the ability, 
the capacity, the resources and the moral obligation to help us meet.

                              {time}  1145

  Our job is to help create real opportunity, to give people the tools 
that they need to succeed. The budget that we consider today reflects 
our Nation's values and puts us on the right path to meet our 
obligations.
  I am proud of the work that we have done with this budget because I 
believe it addresses our most urgent priorities, and for the first time 
in 6 years we have a budget that makes an investment in children and in 
families. It puts children first by addressing their health care needs. 
It rejects the inadequate funding level proposed by the President for 
the SCHIP, the children's health care program. Our Nation's health care 
problems have become increasingly desperate. SCHIP is virtually the 
only success story that we have, covering nearly 1 million more 
children and working families today than even President Clinton 
anticipated when he created it.
  And Republicans agree. Recently, I received a letter from my 
Republican Governor from the State of Connecticut saying as much.
  This expands coverage to the estimated 6 million children eligible 
but not currently enrolled in SCHIP.
  This budget focuses on education. A quality education is more closely 
tied to our economic prosperity than ever. It is critical to staying 
competitive in today's global economy. The President's budget reduces 
our commitment to education investment for a third year in a row. As we 
face record school enrollments, the academic requirements under No 
Child Left Behind and rising college costs, to say nothing of increased 
competition from China and India, the President's budget takes us in 
the wrong direction for this country.
  Now is the time to invest more in education and not less. The funding 
allows for an infusion of new resources for No Child Left Behind and 
IDEA, where the Federal Government has a promise to keep, and it works 
to make higher education more affordable through a commitment to the 
Pell Grants.
  Madam Speaker, I support this rule. I support this budget. It 
represents a commitment to fiscal responsibility and a greater 
investment in our future.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee does not charge for 
people to come and attend our meetings, and it seems like a good number 
of Members probably needed to be there last night.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut would have heard that this big 
increase that she is talking about in SCHIP is in a reserve fund. It is 
not paid for. As a matter of fact, it is going to have to find an 
offset somewhere if they are going to get to it. So it is not reserved 
in the budget as necessarily to be paid for; it is in a reserve fund.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the budget expert from the 
Republican Party from the Fifth District of Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank my good friend and the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It is anti-family, 
it is anti-tax, it is fiscally irresponsible. And I agree with my 
colleague from Texas. I can hardly believe some of the things I am 
hearing on the House floor.
  The Democrats, Madam Speaker, obviously want to have it both ways. 
They claim on the one hand that they have done this incredible job of 
balancing the Federal budget, and then

[[Page 8136]]

they claim that they actually preserve tax relief in the budget. But if 
anybody would bother to read the document, the only way they achieve 
balance is by taking away all of the tax relief that we have enjoyed in 
the last several years. They would bring forth the single largest tax 
increase in American history.
  And guess what, Madam Speaker? Twelve years ago, the last time that 
they were in power, guess what they did? They brought forth the single 
largest tax increase in American history. Certainly they at least get 
an A for consistency, but you have to give them an F for fiscal 
responsibility.
  I would point out to the preceding speaker, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, and I have the honor of serving with her on the Budget 
Committee, had the Democrats felt so strongly about preserving the tax 
relief, they had ample opportunity in committee to preserve the tax 
relief for American families, and they chose not to do it.
  This is a budget which may be worthy of a Pulitzer Prize in fiction. 
It is full of Orwellian-speak. It is something that is worthy of the 
Twilight Zone. It makes no sense. You cannot claim that you are not 
reducing spending, you are preserving tax relief, and you are balancing 
budget all at the same time. You are taking three different sides of 
the argument. It does not wash.
  This Democrat budget is also silent, absolutely stone cold silent on 
the number one fiscal issue facing our Nation, and that is out-of-
control entitlement spending. If we don't reform these entitlement 
programs, it will lead to a doubling of taxes on the American people, 
our children, and our grandchildren. The single largest tax increase in 
history will pale in comparison if we don't act today.
  And this is a budget for the next election, it is not a budget for 
the next generation. You can't have a fiscally responsible budget and 
remain silent on the number one fiscal challenge facing the Nation 
today. If you want to save Medicare, if you want to save Social 
Security, if you want to save Medicaid, you have to reform these 
programs; and the Democrat budget, again, is stone cold silent.
  They speak of their reserve funds, but, Madam Speaker, there is no 
reserve and there is no funds. Again, this is fiction. This is pure, 
unadulterated fiction.
  What isn't fiction is the largest single tax increase in American 
history that is going to fall upon American families. It is going to 
fall upon them hard. Because every time the Democrats increase the 
Federal budget, they are cutting some family budget. They are taking 
away from a family's ability to send a child to college. They are 
taking away from a family's ability to help a parent with long-term 
health care. They are taking away a family's ability to buy that first 
home, make a down payment on their first home. Every time you take 
away, every time you increase the Federal budget, you are taking away 
from the family budget.
  So these two documents stand in stark contrast. The Democrat budget, 
the single largest tax increase in history. Again, this contrast could 
not be more stark. The single largest tax increase in American history. 
And I remind my colleagues on the other side to please, please think 
about the families that are in your district that actually pay these 
taxes.
  You may think we are having a debate on how much our society is going 
to spend on health care and housing and education. That is not the 
debate I think we are having. I think we are having a debate about who 
is going to do that spending. Is it going to be government bureaucrats, 
or is it going to be American families?
  In my State of Texas, the average Texas family is going to have to 
pay an additional $2,700 a year under the Democrat plan to have the 
single largest tax increase in American history. I asked my 
constituents, Madam Speaker, what is this going to mean to you? And I 
heard from several of them.
  I heard, for example, from Diana in Mesquite, Texas. She wrote, 
``Dear Congressman, I wanted to let you know that I am a single mom 
that does not receive any type of child support, and an increase of 
this amount would break me. I would be at the risk of losing my home 
with this type of increase. I am writing to ask your help to keep this 
from happening. This would be devastating to middle-income families.'' 
That is what Diana in Mesquite wrote.
  Brian in Dallas, ``This tax increase would affect our ability to pay 
tuition and books for our daughter to go to college. While she's a 
junior this year, we are trying to save money for her education. But as 
the cost of education increases this year, the loss of these funds, 
this increase in taxes, will have a negative impact on our ability to 
send her to college.''
  Again, this largest single tax increase in American history will have 
devastating impacts on American families. So the two budgets sit in 
stark contrast. One preserves the tax relief that has helped bring down 
the deficit, has given us the most tax revenues we have ever had 
before. We are awash in tax revenues, because people rolled up their 
sleeves, they went out, they worked, they saved. And that is why we 
have to vote down this rule.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, before I yield, I would just like to 
respond.
  Again, our budget resolution does not contain a single penny of tax 
increases, period. And I will tell you what does not wash to the 
distinguished gentleman who just spoke. What doesn't wash is that we 
are getting this lesson in fiscal responsibility from the party that 
took a projected $5.6 trillion surplus and collapsed it into a $9 
trillion deficit.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and 
the Democratic budget for fiscal year 2008. This measure provides 
robust funding for our most important programs, while maintaining our 
firm commitment to fiscal discipline.
  Last year, Democrats promised to move the country in a new direction, 
and that is exactly what this budget does. This budget restores many 
programs the President proposed to cut, while achieving balance by 
2012.
  It meets our commitments to defense and homeland security by 
implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations and funding port 
security and first responders. It also recognizes those who have served 
our country with significant increases for veterans health care.
  The resolution meets our domestic priorities by blocking proposed 
cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, while providing funding to cover 
millions of children without health insurance, something particularly 
important to my constituents in Rhode Island.
  It boosts funds for education programs such as Pell Grants and 
promotes investment in programs that helps us move closer to energy 
independence and improve our environment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the Democratic budget 
so that we can meet the needs of all Americans and restore fiscal 
responsibility through this process.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard the debate today about this budget, about 
the priorities of the new Democrat majority, about how they have set 
aside all these 11 reserve funds; and we have seen Member after Member 
after Member from the new Democrat majority take credit for all these 
things that are going to be done. And yet, in fact, what they are is 
reserve funds set aside to find a way to either increase taxes or to 
find an offset.
  We think that this is an irresponsible way to run the government. We 
think this is an irresponsible budget. We think raising taxes $395 
billion, which is included in that budget; we heard the testimony last 
night from the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member 
that the assumptions that are based on the Democrat budget are that the 
tax cuts will go away, that tax increases will fill their

[[Page 8137]]

place. We disagree with that. We think that hardworking American 
families deserve the right and the opportunity to continue their best 
wishes for their families, for their children's education, and take 
care of their family needs through the hard-earned money that they 
earned, to be able to keep that rather than bringing it for more 
spending that this new Democrat majority has in mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question 
so that I may amend the rule to make in order a very thoughtful 
amendment offered by Mr. Brady of Texas which was rejected by the Rules 
Committee last night. The Democrats in the committee voted down on 
party line.
  Mr. Brady's amendment would amend the budget resolution to add 
reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Ways and Means to 
extend the State and local sales tax deduction through 2012.
  Currently, the Democrat budget resolution does not contemplate the 
extension of any meaningful tax relief provided by Republicans in 2001 
or 2003. In fact, the Democrat budget resolution is relying on tax 
increases to reach this balance. As Americans make their household 
budgets, they should be able to rely on a consistent and fair Tax Code. 
The Democrat budget resolution will undermine this goal by imposing 
double taxation and will help eliminate the stability in the Tax Code 
that Americans deserve.
  So even if all the substitutes are defeated, we will still be able to 
consider and debate this very important amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material printed in the Record just prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Becerra). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In a document released March 28, the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities stated: ``Some are claiming that the budget plan adopted 
last week by the House Budget Committee, which the full House is 
expected to vote on this week, would constitute `the largest tax 
increase in history.' This claim is incorrect. The House plan does not 
include a tax increase.'' That is what the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities stated.
  Mr. Speaker, last November the American people made it clear they are 
ready for a government that will be fiscally responsible. This Nation 
spoke loud and clear when it put a new party in power in Congress, 
asking for responsibility and a new direction in our fiscal priorities. 
Education, health care, the care of our children and our seniors and 
our veterans, these are issues that Americans are concerned about.
  Our budget restores common sense to our national spending and sanity 
to our national priorities. It restores the President's attempt to cut 
children's health care programs and Community Block Grants, and it puts 
forth the single largest increase in veterans spending in our Nation's 
history, and not a moment too soon.
  It funds math and science programs for our kids, and programs like 
Head Start and Pell Grants that provide access to education that so 
many of our children need. And this budget concerns itself with the 
need to create jobs and build a bright economic future. It restores 
funding for job training programs.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to be accountable to American 
taxpayers once again. It is time for Congress to be accountable to our 
children's future once again. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adoptinlg the resolution . . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the revious question, who may offer 
     a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for 
     detiate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
                                  ____


                        Amendment to H. Res. 275

                   Offered by Rep. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Brady 
     of Texas or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 
     30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:
       Reduce the amounts on page 3, lines 10 through 12, and page 
     4, lines 1 through 3, by the following amounts:
       Fiscal year 2008: $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $3,800,000,000.
       Amend page 4, lines 7 through 12 to read as follows:
       Fiscal year 2008: $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $3,800,000,000.
       Insert at the end of Title VI (page 61, line 10), the 
     following section:

     SEC. 602. RECONCILIATION FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX 
                   FAIRNESS.

       (a) In the House.--The House Committee on Ways and Means 
     shall report a reconciliation bill not later than May 8, 
     2008, that consists of changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues by not more than 
     $10,400,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.
       (b) Purpose.--The reconciliation legislation reported 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall make the changes in the 
     Internal Revenue Code such that the deduction of State and 
     Local Sales Taxes shall not decrease during the fiscal years 
     covered by this resolution.


[[Page 8138]]

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________