[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3865-3873]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 312, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                   ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1036 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1036

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) revising the 
     congressional

[[Page 3866]]

     budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, 
     establishing the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2010 through 
     2013. The first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution are waived. General debate shall 
     not exceed four hours, with three hours confined to the 
     congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget and one hour on the subject of economic goals and 
     policies equally divided and controlled by Representative 
     Maloney of New York and Representative Saxton of New Jersey 
     or their designees. After general debate the concurrent 
     resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as 
     read. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order 
     against the amendments printed in the report are waived 
     except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration 
     of the concurrent resolution for amendment. After the 
     conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
     amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent 
     resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final 
     adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to 
     section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     of its adoption.
       Sec. 2.  After a motion that the Committee rise has been 
     rejected on a legislative day, the Chair may entertain 
     another such motion on that day only if offered by the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget or the Majority 
     Leader or a designee. After a motion to strike out the 
     resolving words of the concurrent resolution (as described in 
     clause 9 of rule XVIII) has been rejected, the Chair may not 
     entertain another such motion during further consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution.
       Sec. 3.  During consideration in the House of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 312 pursuant to this resolution, 
     notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
     Chair may postpone further consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 4.  After adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 312, 
     it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table Senate 
     Concurrent Resolution 70 and to consider the Senate 
     concurrent resolution in the House. All points of order 
     against the Senate concurrent resolution and against its 
     consideration are waived. It shall be in order to move to 
     strike all after the resolving clause of the Senate 
     concurrent resolution and to insert in lieu thereof the 
     provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 312 as adopted by 
     the House. All points of order against that motion are 
     waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1036.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1036 provides for 
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 312, the Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for FY 2009, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides a total of 4 hours of general debate, 3 hours to be 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Budget and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies 
to be controlled by Representative Maloney of New York and 
Representative Saxton of New Jersey.
  The rule makes in order the three substitute amendments: one by 
Representative Kilpatrick of Michigan; one by Representative Lee of 
California; and a final substitute by Representative Ryan of Wisconsin. 
Each amendment is debatable for 60 minutes. The rule also permits the 
chairman of the Budget Committee to offer amendments in the House to 
achieve mathematical consistency. Finally, the rule provides that the 
concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
the question of its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the traditional rule for consideration of the 
budget resolution, and I welcome today's debate on the alternative 
budgets that will be presented by the Republican leadership, the 
Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my thanks and appreciation 
to Budget Committee Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan for their 
leadership and hard work on the House Budget Committee. Although they 
hold very different points of view, the committee always operates in a 
cordial and collegial manner. I have served on the Budget Committee for 
2 years, and it has been a privilege to learn from two such 
distinguished Members how to work in a bipartisan way despite sharp 
philosophical differences. And all of us are supported, Mr. Speaker, by 
a superb and dedicated committee staff.
  Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents. They reflect our 
priorities. And for too long, this Congress passed budgets with the 
wrong priorities. For too long, our budgets put the desires of the 
powerful before the needs of the poor. For too long, our budgets 
pretended that people who were struggling didn't even exist, let alone 
matter. That has begun to change. The Democratic budget before us today 
is a budget with a conscience.
  Today, we continue the new direction set last year to bring the 
Federal budget back to fiscal health and responsibility. As we begin 
this debate, our country faces major challenges: a looming recession, a 
crisis in the credit markets, a plunging housing market, rising 
unemployment, declining family income, skyrocketing costs in health 
care, aging infrastructure, and a safety net struggling to keep up with 
the growing number of Americans unable to meet their basic needs.
  Faced with these challenges, President Bush proposed the same tired, 
worn-out, failed fiscal and economic policies. After 7 years, the Bush 
legacy is the highest deficits in our Nation's history. Let us 
remember, Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office, when the 
Republicans had total control over the White House, the Senate and this 
House, they were welcomed with a $5.6 trillion projected 10-year budget 
surplus, the financial gift of the last Democrat to sit in the White 
House. That has been completely squandered, resulting in the largest 
fiscal deterioration in American history. And the President's FY 2009 
budget proposed only more of the same.
  The national debt exploded under President Bush and his Republican 
rubber-stamp Congress. At the end of 2008, CBO projects a $9.6 trillion 
debt, an increase of nearly $4 trillion, brought to you courtesy of 
George Bush. Future generations, our children and our grandchildren, 
will be forced to pay the price for this unprecedented rise in debt 
thanks to the Republicans' fiscally reckless and irresponsible 
policies.
  And to top it off, the President's budget continues the Bush legacy 
of deep cuts in many of the most important programs and services for 
the American people:
  $500 billion in cuts to Medicare.
  $100 billion in cuts to Medicaid, which serves the poorest Americans, 
including families with children.
  The elimination of the Community Services Block Grant and the Social 
Services Block Grant, and deep cuts in the Community Development Block 
Grant, which provides nearly every city and town in America with 
Federal support for basic services.
  Elimination of the Community Oriented Policing grants, the COPS

[[Page 3867]]

grants, and deep cuts for State and local law enforcement at a time 
when States and local communities are finding it hard to meet the needs 
of their first responders.
  And deep cuts in many other vital programs that provide health care, 
infrastructure, environmental protection, and other services to our 
States and to our neighborhoods.
  Let me give but one example, Mr. Speaker, the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Last week, the worst snow storm in a 
century hit the people of Ohio and the Midwest. Two weeks ago, the 
people of central Massachusetts were facing over three feet of snow. 
Across the country, people are suffering in the cold. Home heating 
costs have gone up by 80 percent under George Bush. A barrel of oil now 
costs $108. But President Bush decided to cut $570 million out of the 
LIHEAP program. The President decided to turn off the heat for 1.2 
million households, forcing families to choose either to heat or to 
eat. And why? So we could continue tax cuts for the wealthiest, most 
fortunate billionaires in America.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic budget rejects the President's 
priorities. It rejects the callous view of the Republican Party that 
tens of millions of American families are expendable, that our 
communities can manage without basic services, that our roads, bridges 
and water systems should be allowed to crumble and fail, and that we 
can run up America's credit card without costs or consequences.
  Instead, the Democratic budget restores fiscal responsibility to the 
Federal budget, returning it to balance in the year 2012. It rejects 
the President's harmful cuts to basic services, and invests in proven 
programs that boost economic growth, create jobs, and make America 
safer.
  The Democratic budget helps families struggling to make ends meet in 
this economic downturn, and provides fiscally responsible tax relief to 
millions and millions of households.
  Finally, the Democratic budget remembers those who serve at home and 
abroad. It provides strong and substantial funding for national 
defense, including quality of life for our troops and our families.
  It provides more funding for homeland security programs, including 
first responders, than the President would. And finally, it takes care 
of our veterans and rejects President Bush's cynical new fees for 
veterans health care. Instead, the Democratic budget increases health 
care funding for our veterans well above current services, enough to 
allow the VA to treat 5.8 million patients in 2009, including over 
333,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, House Concurrent Resolution 
312, the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, is a budget all Americans 
who believe in fiscal responsibility and the common good can support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are only two ways to balance a budget, whether 
it's your family budget or the Federal budget. You can either spend 
less, or you can increase the amount of money coming in. The majority, 
as reflected in their budget, have flat out rejected option one and 
have chosen higher spending, higher taxes, and an ever-growing Federal 
Government.
  The Republicans have chosen what I believe is a more responsible 
approach by committing to spending less and letting workers, families 
and small businesses keep more of their hard-earned income to save, 
invest, and spend as they see fit.
  While Republicans have faith in the ability of families and workers 
to decide how best to use their paychecks, the majority budget reflects 
their belief that the Federal Government can make better choices at 
spending money than individual Americans. And that's really a 
fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.
  In order for the majority to fund their government spending, their 
budget raises taxes, Mr. Speaker, by two-thirds of a trillion dollars 
over the next 5 years. Let me repeat that, two-thirds of a trillion 
dollars.
  Now, you can call this a tax increase or you can call it letting tax 
cuts expire, but the bottom line is that under the Democrats' budget 
every American will pay more of their paycheck to the Federal 
Government.
  Although the majority will try to claim otherwise, the numbers in 
their own budget document show that taxes will increase nearly three 
times more under their budget than the largest enacted tax increase to 
date in history, making this the largest tax increase in American 
history.
  While the majority claims that their budget will protect middle-class 
families, their budget numbers tell a different story. Under the 
massive tax increases in the majority's budget, the average taxpayer in 
the State of Florida, for example, will see their annual tax bill rise 
over $3,000.
  The majority's budget does not extend tax relief from the marriage 
tax penalty. This means approximately 48 million married couples will 
face an average tax increase of $3,000 a year. It does not extend the 
$1,000 tax credit that many young families use. The majority's budget 
would cut that credit in half. It doesn't extend the State sales tax 
deductibility fairness. The majority's budget, Mr. Speaker, even 
manages to resurrect the death tax. It doesn't fix the alternative 
minimum tax for middle-class families. It does not protect those who 
pay the lowest tax rate either. It would again impose taxes on six 
million lower income Americans who now pay no taxes thanks to the 2001 
tax relief law passed by Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to boost our economy to incentivize growth, 
increase investment in the United States and create jobs, Congress 
should not be raising taxes by the largest amount in history. This 
critically important tax relief should not be repealed or allowed to 
expire to pay for the majority's spending plan. It should be made 
permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will insert into the Record letters from The Hamilton Project and 
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which state clearly and 
unequivocally that the Democratic budget resolution does not raise 
taxes.

                                         The Hamilton Project,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2008.
     Congressman John Spratt,
     Longworth Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Spratt: Per your request, I have analyzed 
     the House Budget Committee's budget resolution. The budget 
     would not raise taxes. The revenue levels in the budget are, 
     in net total, the same as the baseline revenue levels 
     projected by the Congressional Budget Office. These revenue 
     levels are consistent with continuing current law, not with 
     changes to the law that would raise or lower taxes.
       The purpose of a budget baseline is to establish a neutral 
     starting point to debate and evaluate alternative priorities 
     for spending, taxes, and the debt. The budget resolution 
     adopts the baseline recommended by several respected, non-
     partisan groups including the Concord Coalition, the 
     Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Center on 
     Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Committee for Economic 
     Development.
       But the choice of a baseline does not commit policymakers 
     to any specific tax or spending policy. Instead a baseline, 
     in conjunction with the restoration of the pay-as-you-go 
     rules, would provide a framework for making tradeoffs between 
     different priorities. Indeed, your budget indicates that one 
     of your priorities is making up-front cuts in taxes for 
     alternative minimum tax relief that would ultimately be paid 
     for without increasing the budget deficit.
       The founding strategy paper of The Hamilton Project states 
     that one of the greatest economic risks our nation faces 
     today is our country's large fiscal imbalance. The papers 
     notes that ``the decisions necessary to restore fiscal 
     balance might be easier to enact and to enforce if 
     policymakers reinstated credible budget rules governing both 
     spending and taxes.'' The pay-as-you-go proposal in the 
     budget resolution will hopefully help policymakers make the 
     tough choices required to put America on a path to a balanced 
     budget.

[[Page 3868]]

       I hope this analysis is helpful and please do not hesitate 
     if you have any follow-up questions.
           Thank you,
     Jason Furman.
                                  ____

                                              Center on Budget and


                                            Policy Priorities,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2008.

 Claim That Congressional Budget Plans Call for ``Largest Tax Increase 
                       in History'' Is Inaccurate

       Some are claiming that the budget plans adopted this week 
     by the House and Senate Budget Committees--the full House and 
     Senate are scheduled to consider their respective committee's 
     plan next week--would constitute ``the largest tax increase 
     in history.'' This claim is inaccurate, just as the same 
     claim was inaccurate with regard to the budget resolution the 
     Congress adopted last year. Neither of the plans recommended 
     this week by the budget committees include a tax increase. 
     The House plan simply assumes the same level of revenues over 
     the 2008-2013 period as projected by the Congressional Budget 
     Office under its current policy baseline, which essentially 
     assumes no change in current laws governing taxes. The Senate 
     plan actually calls for a small reduction in revenues, 
     reflecting its assumption that Alternative Minimum Tax relief 
     will be extended for one year without any offset of the 
     revenues that will be lost as a result of that extension and 
     that a second stimulus bill this year may include a small tax 
     cut.
       The charge that the budget plans proposed by the House and 
     Senate Budget Committees include a large tax increase arises 
     not from any policy changes proposed in those plans, but 
     instead from policies enacted in 2001 and 2003. Legislation 
     enacted in those years put in place tax cuts proposed by 
     President Bush but provided for those tax cuts to expire at 
     the end of 2010, unless current law is changed. Both the 
     House and Senate Budget Committee plans assume that current 
     law will be amended to extend some of the expiring tax cuts 
     (especially those affecting middle-class families) and make 
     other changes in tax policy, but they assume (except in the 
     case of temporary AMT relief and stimulus legislation in the 
     Senate plan) that the cost of such changes will he offset by 
     other changes in policy. They do not assume that total 
     revenues will be increased above what is expected to be 
     collected under current policies.
       It should be recalled that the President's tax cuts expire 
     in 2010 because their supporters deliberately designed them 
     that way, in order to fit the tax cuts within the cost 
     constraints imposed by the Congressional budget resolutions 
     adopted in 2001 and 2003. While acknowledging that their real 
     goal was to make the tax cuts permanent, supporters of those 
     measures opted to ``sunset'' the tax cuts before the end of 
     the ten-year budget window, partly in order to avoid 
     recognizing the cost of permanent tax cuts. Now, a few years 
     from the tax cuts' expiration, some of these same supporters 
     are trying to act as though the tax cuts are already 
     permanent and any proposal to offset the cost of extending 
     them is a ``tax increase.''
       To extend the tax cuts without paying for them--and to 
     attack those who simply seek to require that any extension of 
     the tax cuts be paid for--further heightens the irresponsible 
     fiscal nature of the original actions.

  Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to point out to the gentleman that in the 
budget resolution it is specifically mentioned that we endorse the 
extension of the middle class tax cuts, including things like the 
marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, and the 10 percent tax 
bracket. Our budget also provides paid-for relief from the alternative 
minimum tax.
  I think the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is we 
believe in paying for these tax cuts so that we don't add to the debt 
and further burden our kids and our grandkids.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, a member of the Budget Committee, (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, some folks think that President Bush's term ends on 
January 20, 2009. Many Americans have a big red circle or a happy face 
on their calendar already on that date, or perhaps on their key chains, 
and their watches that tick down ever so slowly, backwards toward that 
happy time.
  But while President Bush may be gone from the White House in 314 
days, this administration and its congressional enablers have done so 
much damage that generations of American families will be footing the 
bill for their fiscal recklessness, with compounded interest, long, 
long after President Bush retires to Texas. This administration has 
consistently chosen to sacrifice long-term fiscal stability on the 
altar of political expediency. They have offered the ``free lunch'' 
plan, the ``pain-free'' solution to almost every challenge that our 
country has encountered. And the greatest sacrifice that they have 
demanded at a time of national peril for most Americans is to tell them 
to ``go shopping''.
  Well, this administration has now created a record $3 trillion of 
additional national debt on its own during the Bush years. What would 
even just one of those trillions of dollars of debt have accomplished 
had it been expended in a more appropriate manner?
  One trillion, that's millions of public school teachers; that's 
health care for hundreds of million children; that's university 
scholarships for millions of students. And in Iraq, this administration 
this week, every week, week after week, month after month, year after 
year, $3 billion. With the cost of the war in Iraq in 2 weeks, we could 
pay for the entire cancer budget of the National Institutes of Health 
for a year. Showering tax breaks on the richest, the most privileged 
few, while hemorrhaging $12 billion every month in Iraq, this 
administration has created more than a Federal deficit; it has created 
deficits, opportunity deficits, for millions of American families.
  The administration's failure to address our educational needs means 
that there's an opportunity deficit, that millions of young people are 
not able to achieve their full God-given potential because of the lack 
of support at both the public education level and for student financial 
assistance.
  The failure of the Bush administration to address our health care 
problems means a health care deficit for millions of American families, 
the largest single cause of personal bankruptcy in America today, the 
health care crisis.
  And the failure of the Bush administration to address our energy 
deficit, that is a deficit that every American feels at the pump when 
they get all their money taken out of their pocket and shifted over to 
some tyrant in an oil-producing area. The cost of the Bush 
administration's budget approach, their fiscal failure, is felt the 
most by those, who are least able to bear it: our students, our 
uninsured, our minimum wage workers, the elderly, and small business 
owners.
  This Democratic budget attempts to bail out, to bail us all out. But 
it's mighty hard to keep this country afloat and keep our families 
afloat when the administration is still so busy drilling holes in the 
bottom of the boat.
  I urge support for the rule and support for the Democratic budget as 
the best hope we have to do that in this difficult time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, in my view, the premier 
economic mind in the Congress of the United States (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to decide which path we want to take in 
America. We are about to decide what budget is right for Americans. 
Well, let's think about what Americans are facing today as we consider 
their budget for the next 5 years. What's happening in America today?
  Well, joblessness is up. The economy is in a downturn. It may be 
going into a recession. Prices are up. People are having a hard time to 
afford the cost of living. Gas prices are at an all-time high. Health 
care costs are at an all-time high and growing very fast. Home heating 
costs are very high. And it's a lot more expensive just to pay for food 
today because food prices are up. So the question is, as we debate the 
values that are underneath this budget, can the American people afford 
this Democratic budget?
  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to try to 
say all day today they're not raising taxes. We really aren't, believe 
us, trust us.
  Well, my friends, numbers don't lie. And this budget is a series of 
numbers. And the numbers they're bringing before this House in their 
budget resolution requires, assumes, banks, plans on

[[Page 3869]]

the largest tax increase in American history.
  When we looked at the 1993 budget that passed last decade, even then 
Senator Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, a very, very wise man, a 
statesman, adored by both sides, said at that time that that was the 
largest tax increase in history. That tax increase was $241 billion. 
Under the same logic, under the same math, under the same process that 
we have here today, the tax increase in this budget is $683 billion.
  But let's look at what kinds of taxes we're talking about. And this 
begs the question, can the American people afford this budget? This 
increases the marriage penalty in 2\1/2\ years. Can the American people 
afford that? It cuts the $1,000 child tax credit in half. It eliminates 
the marriage penalty tax relief and increases marginal tax rates. It 
eliminates capital gains and dividends relief, and it brings back the 
death tax.
  Let's take a look at what the numbers are. Income tax rates go up 
across the board to the top rate of almost 40 percent. Capital gains 
and dividends, which are the taxes on our pensions and our savings and 
our 401(k)s, go up across the board as high as 40 percent. The death 
tax comes back in to 55 percent. The marriage penalty comes and hits an 
average of $1,400 per couple. The child tax credit goes from $1,000 
down to $500. And the lowest tax bracket goes from 10 percent up to 15 
percent.
  Let me just give you some numbers of what this will mean to average 
Americans. Roughly 116 million taxpayers will see their taxes increase, 
on average, by $1,833. An estimated 84 million women would sustain, on 
average, a tax increase of $2,121. Approximately 48 million married 
couples would incur an average tax increase of over $3,000. Taxes would 
increase by an average of $2,323 for 43 million families with children. 
Some 12 million single women with children would see their taxes 
increase, on average, by $1,091. For 18 million elderly individuals, 
taxes would increase, on average, $2,181. And the tax bills for 27 
million small business owners would rise, on average, by more than 
$4,000. More than 6 million taxpayers who previously owed no taxes at 
all would become subject to the individual income tax as a consequence 
of the tax increase in this budget.
  These aren't rich people. These are ordinary Americans working 
paycheck to paycheck trying to get by. The problem we have today is our 
paychecks aren't going as far as they did before because we have rising 
gas prices, high home heating costs, high health care costs.
  So the question is, can the American people afford this budget?
  I ask people watching this to send us your e-mail. Give us a call. 
Call your Member of Congress and tell us, is that what you want us to 
do?
  And the more important question is, should we balance the budget? 
Yes. Both Republicans and Democrats say we ought to balance the budget. 
Here's the difference: We believe we ought to balance the budget by 
controlling spending, not by raising taxes. And, unfortunately, what 
the Democrats choose to do is increase spending and taxes.
  So their budget will show, by the Congressional Budget Office in 
their numbers, they will achieve balance. The way they achieve balance 
is they spend an extra $280 billion over 5 years, but they increase 
taxes a whole lot more than that to get to a balanced budget.
  What's more important about this budget for our children and 
grandchildren is not the economic damage that would be done by this 
budget with these huge tax increases for every income taxpayer, for 
married people, for people with children, for small businesses, for 
farmers, for investors. What really is troubling about this budget is 
not as much as what is in this budget, the largest tax increase in 
history. What's really almost the most troubling about this budget is 
doing nothing, doing nothing to save money, doing nothing to reform our 
entitlement programs. We just heard my friend from Texas. I'm on two 
committees with the gentleman. He said a $3 trillion increase in debt 
over the last 5 years. This budget proposes, in just two programs, to 
increase the debt by $14 trillion.
  Let me go through that again. By doing nothing to rescue and save 
Social Security and Medicare, this budget proposes, by its own virtue, 
to increase the debt to those two programs by $14 trillion.
  We have an obligation to the next generation to be good stewards of 
taxpayer dollars. We have an obligation to the next generation to leave 
them with a better fiscal state.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle have chosen to walk away 
from that responsibility. They have chosen to have more money to spend 
today, to raise taxes, and to make matters worse for the next 
generation.
  We think that's the wrong way to go. We don't think the American 
people at this time of economic downturn, at this time of high prices, 
we can afford a tax increase of all times. We don't think there ever 
should be a time where we increase taxes, because you know what, Mr. 
Speaker? Washington doesn't have a tax revenue problem; Washington has 
a spending problem. And our friends on the other side of the aisle are 
making it worse by not only increasing spending but even increasing 
taxes.
  That's the wrong recipe for this Congress. That's the wrong message 
to send our children and grandchildren. And that's the dead wrong thing 
to do at a time of high prices and economic downturn.
  I think we should vote this budget down and do so on behalf of our 
children and our grandchildren and the American taxpayer so we can give 
a chance to our economy to actually grow. You're not going to grow an 
economy by giving us the largest tax increase in American history. 
That's for certain.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). Members are reminded to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman asked the right question: What are American families 
facing? What are American families facing after 7 years of Bush budgets 
and Republican budgets? What they're facing are challenges like never 
before.
  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the real income of a typical 
family has fallen by almost $1,000 since George Bush became President. 
The Democratic budget provides funds to keep up with rising food, 
housing, and heating and transportation costs.
  In the area of education, the Democratic budget provides $7.1 billion 
more for education and job training than the Bush budget. It increases 
funding for Head Start, special education, No Child Left Behind, and 
title I. Under George Bush, only four out of 10 children eligible for 
Head Start received services. The Democratic budget increases funding 
for Head Start so that more children will enter school ready to learn.
  And, again, let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. The Hamilton Project of the 
Brookings Institution, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and 
the Concord Coalition have all sent Members of Congress letters stating 
emphatically that the Democratic budget does not increase taxes.
  Let me say one thing the Democratic budget does do, and that is it 
relieves the burden of debt that has been thrust upon our kids and our 
grandkids. The Republicans, during these last several years, have 
increased the debt to historic highs, and in doing so, they have 
created a debt tax on our kids and our grandkids. We want to remove 
that tax burden from future generations.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia, a member of the Budget Committee (Mr. Scott).

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule 
because it makes in order the Congressional Black Caucus alternative. 
The Congressional Black Caucus budget offers this Congress and the 
American people the choice between fiscal and moral responsibility and 
tax cuts for the

[[Page 3870]]

wealthy. Under the stewardship of the Congressional Black Caucus 
alternative, the Federal budget returns to balance, as this chart show, 
in the fourth year and the fifth year. The President's budget is in 
red, in deficit, all the way through. It even returns to deficit in the 
fifth year.
  If compared to the President's budget, we save $564 billion better on 
the bottom line. In fact, we save so much that we save $48 billion in 
interest compared to the President's budget. At the same time, we 
provide significant funding for essential priorities, for example, 
education, health care, veterans, justice programs, all much better 
funded under the Congressional Black Caucus budget than the President's 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard that we do this by canceling the tax cuts 
that got us in the fiscal mess that we are in today, except for those 
tax cuts that primarily affect that portion of your income under 
$200,000. Now, canceling those tax cuts has been called the greatest 
tax increase or whatever they want to call it. Mr. Speaker, all we are 
doing is canceling the tax cuts that got us in the ditch. When these 
tax cuts first passed, we had a projected surplus of $5.5 trillion for 
a 10-year budget. Those 10 years look like they are going to come in at 
a $3 trillion deficit.
  We haven't created jobs at the same time. We have a choice. We can 
have fiscal responsibility and address our important needs, or we can 
fund those tax cuts for the wealthy. The Congressional Black Caucus 
chooses fiscal responsibility and a morally supportable budget 
addressing our priorities. And therefore, I support the rule that makes 
the Congressional Black Caucus budget in order.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr. 
McGovern if he has any additional speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am the last speaker.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  On February 14, the majority decided to leave Washington to take a 
Presidents Day recess and allowed the Protect America Act to expire 2 
days later, rendering U.S. intelligence officials unable to begin new 
terrorist surveillance without cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles. At the 
end of this week, the House and Senate plan to adjourn for a 2-week 
district work period. Therefore, we only have a few days left to 
address one very important issue, and that is taking action on 
permanently modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  This didn't have to happen, Mr. Speaker. In February, the Senate 
passed, by a bipartisan vote of 68-29, legislation updating the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, a bill that the chairman of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee said ``is the right way to go, in terms 
of the security of the Nation.''
  We could have easily considered that legislation. But the majority, 
instead, decided to head home. And they may just do that again this 
week. The House should vote on the Senate measure, and we should do it 
now. We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish harm on 
Americans. Now is not the time to, in any way, tie the hands of our 
intelligence community. The modernization of foreign intelligence 
surveillance into the 21st century is a critical national security 
priority.
  I am pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle agree. On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a 
letter to the Speaker in support of the Senate FISA legislation. The 
letter states, ``The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains 
satisfactory language addressing all these issues and we would fully 
support that measure should it reach the House floor without 
substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong 
national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism around the globe 
and save American lives here in our country.''
  Today, I will give all Members of the House an opportunity to vote on 
the bipartisan, long-term modernization of FISA. I call on all my 
colleagues, including members of the Blue Dog Coalition that signed the 
letter to the Speaker, to join with me in defeating the previous 
question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate 
amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law.
  I will remind my colleagues that defeating the previous question will 
not prohibit consideration of the budget, but would merely require that 
we first take a vote on FISA.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent 
solution that helps protect American lives from international 
terrorism.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that security 
also means the economic well-being of our citizens. And because of 
Republican priorities over the last 7 years, record numbers of our 
citizens are struggling like never before. The very rich have done very 
well. And the rest have not. Those are the facts.
  The Democratic budget that has been put forward restores fiscal 
responsibility. It rejects the President's harmful cuts in programs 
like Medicare and Medicaid. It rejects the President's proposal to 
impose new fees for our veterans and our military retirees. It 
strengthens our economy. It invests more in innovation. It invests more 
in energy, renewable and clean energy. It invests more in education and 
in our infrastructure. It also provides tax relief to help struggling 
families. It accommodates the tax relief from the alternative minimum 
tax for more than 20 million households, as well as middle income tax 
cuts and other tax relief so long as they comply with the pay-as-you-go 
rule.
  It invests more in children's health. It provides more funding for 
safety net programs. Record numbers of our citizens are literally 
falling through the cracks in our country. It invests in defense, in 
veterans, and in homeland security.
  The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that for years we have been forced to 
accept the priorities of George Bush and his Republican colleagues who 
have controlled the Congress. That is now changing. For nearly 7 years, 
we have watched as they have accumulated huge debt, historical debt. We 
have watched as they have chipped away at some of the most important 
programs that help some of the most desperate people in our country. 
The American people have had enough. That is what the last election was 
about. They have had their chance. They have shown us their priorities. 
And the American people have rejected them. It is now time to create a 
budget that has a conscience that responds to the needs of the 
struggling middle class in this country. The Democratic budget that 
will be offered today will do that and change the course of this 
country.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. 
Res. 1036, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2009, 
introduced by my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Chairman 
Spratt.
  This Rule will allow this body to debate the economic goals and 
policies of this great Nation. At a time, when this country is on the 
verge of a recession and the housing market is at one of its worst 
points in history, there is little else that is as important as our 
Nation's fiscal security.
  A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and 
economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the 
maintenance of historically Black Colleges and Universities. This 
budget provides greater funding to our Nation's schools and colleges.
  We must not only be economically healthy, but assist in the physical 
health of our citizens. This budget will properly fund SCHIP, to help 
one of our most vulnerable populations--children. Our President 
proclaims his support for

[[Page 3871]]

securing our Nation's current and future economic success. However, it 
is our children that will bring forth a successful future. We need to 
invest in tomorrow by investing in them today. This starts with their 
physical well-being. Children, who cannot see the doctor when they are 
sick, will not be in anyone's classroom.
  For African Americans, health and education concerns spill beyond 
budgetary issues into the criminal justice consequences. In Texas, over 
87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately 
48,000 African-Americans attending college or university.
  The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus 
the number of young people in college, particularly in the African-
American community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education 
continues to be one of the main pathways to social and economic 
mobility, particularly in the African-American and Hispanic 
communities.
  Under the Republican Budget the national debt continues to explode. 
The gross federal debt reached $9.0 trillion at the end of 2007. The 
CBO projects that the debt will rise by a total of $3.9 trillion at the 
end of 2008. This unprecedented rise in debt puts our President in the 
history books. During the seven years of the current Administration, 
the government has posted the highest deficits in this Nation's 
history.The President's 2009 Budget continues the failed policies that 
brought us to this point.
  The amount of foreign debt has doubled since 2001, with most of this 
increased debt purchased by foreign lenders. Since 2001, the increases 
in foreign holdings of Treasury securities account for over 80 percent 
of the newly accumulated public debt--a trend that has more than 
doubled foreign holding of Treasury securities.
  This high level of indebtedness to foreign investors heightens the 
economy's exposure to potential instability with additional burdens on 
our children and grandchildren.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to claim that 
the budget resolution being considered on the floor this week raises 
taxes, when in fact, the budget resolution does not raise taxes by one 
penny. The budget resolution accommodates tax cuts and indeed 
prioritizes tax cuts that would benefit middle-income families, while 
ensuring that the burden of paying for the tax cuts will not fall 
undeservedly on our future generations.
  Section 501 of the budget resolution specifically calls for 
additional middle-income tax relief subject to the pay-as-you-go rule, 
including but not limited to:
  AMT relief (both immediate/temporary, and more permanent reform 
measures);
  Extension of ``middle-class'' elements of 2001 tax cuts: child tax 
credit, marriage penalty relief, and 10 percent bracket;
  Eliminating the estate tax on all but a minute fraction of estates;
  Extension of the research and experimentation tax credit;
  Extension of the deduction for state and local taxes;
  Extension of small business expensing;
  Enactment of a tax credit for school construction bonds; and
  Tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy which are 
accommodated in a separate deficit-neutral reserve fund.
  The budget resolution honors PAYGO and the new House rules on using 
reconciliation in a fiscally responsible way. By abiding by the pay-as-
you-go principle, we immediately begin digging our way out of the 
mountains of debt that have accumulated as a result of the Bush 
Administration's fiscal policies.
  The President's budget and the Republican alternatives violate PAYGO 
and the fiscal responsibility that reconciliation is intended to 
achieve, by proposing tax cuts that are not offset.
  The sunsets for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were part of the tax 
legislation which Republicans voted for and passed. The expiration of 
the tax cuts is their policy. The Democratic budget actually calls for 
the extension of many of these tax cuts, but responsibly requires that 
tax cut extensions, like other policies, must be fiscally sound, and 
not make the deficit worse.
  This important piece of legislation gives us a budget that is 
balanced fiscally and morally. It does not sacrifice the many programs 
and services that this Nation needs for a war that the President seems 
never to end.
  Defense of our Nation is important; however, we must not support only 
one portion of the budget to the detriment of everything else. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1036 and the Democratic 
Budget for FY2009.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1036 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before 
     consideration of any order of business other than one motion 
     that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a 
     procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign 
     intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment 
     thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the 
     Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without 
     intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and 
     the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''
       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adoption, if ordered; and the motion to suspend the 
rules on H.R. 5563.

[[Page 3872]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 196, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 129]

                               YEAS--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cannon
     Gutierrez
     Hooley
     Oberstar
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Rush
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1448

  Mr. PICKERING changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. ESHOO, and Messrs. HILL, JOHNSON of 
Georgia and DELAHUNT changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 195, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 130]

                               YEAS--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin

[[Page 3873]]


     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hooley
     Linder
     Oberstar
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Rush
     Tancredo
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1458

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________