[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10213-10218]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. CON. RES. 70, 
        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 1214 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1214

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 70) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2009 and

[[Page 10214]]

     including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
     2008 and 2010 through 2013. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read. The 
     conference report shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Budget.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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, and I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1214.
  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 1214 provides for 
consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, 
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009.
  House resolution 1214 is a traditional conference report rule. It 
waives all points of order against the conference report and against 
its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents. They are more than just an 
accounting of expenditures and revenue. They are statements of our 
national values and priorities. For too long Congress passed budgets 
with the wrong priorities. For too long the budget put the interests of 
the powerful before the needs of working families and those going 
through hard times. And for too long the budgets of the past pretended 
that people who were struggling didn't even exist, let alone matter.
  That has changed now. This Congress, the New Direction Congress, is 
saying that we value our families and their economic future. This 
Congress will fight to make sure that their hard work is rewarded and 
that the American Dream is renewed.
  This 5-year budget conference agreement charts a new way forward for 
the country. It makes investments in energy, education, and 
infrastructure. It provides tax relief for the middle class. It returns 
the budget to surplus in 2012 and 2013. And it remembers those whose 
service and sacrifice here at home and abroad provide the rest of us 
with security and peace of mind. Mr. Speaker, this is a budget with a 
conscience.
  Today, as we move to pass this conference agreement on the budget, 
our country faces major challenges: an economic 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 most basic needs.
  Faced with these challenges, President Bush and his Republican 
colleagues proposed the same tired, failed economic and fiscal 
policies. After 7 years the Bush legacy is the highest deficits in our 
Nation's history. The Bush legacy is the greatest national debt in our 
Nation's history. Future generations, our children and our 
grandchildren, will be forced to pay the price for this unprecedented 
rise in debt, a legacy of President George Bush and the Republicans' 
reckless and irresponsible policies.
  With this budget resolution, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are ready to 
take the necessary steps, as difficult as they may be, to regain our 
economic health and reclaim our children's future. It is a balanced 
budget with balanced priorities.
  It returns the budget to balance with projected surpluses in 2012 and 
2013 by adhering to fiscally responsible policies. It strengthens the 
U.S. economy over the long term while calling for funds to help 
Americans struggling in the current economic downturn. It rejects, and 
I repeat, it rejects the Republicans' harmful cuts to Medicare and 
Medicaid, the Community Development Block Grant program, and LIHEAP. 
And it protects priorities like SCHIP, infrastructure needs, homeland 
security, innovation, energy, education, health care, veterans, and the 
environment.
  This budget agreement does not include any tax increases, despite the 
overheated claims of the other side. Quite the contrary, it supports 
significant tax relief, including extension of marriage penalty relief, 
the child tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, and allowing for estate 
tax reform. It includes an additional year of relief for the 
alternative minimum tax that is fully paid for, Mr. Speaker. And it 
provides for property tax relief, energy and education tax relief, and 
extenders.
  Finally, this 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 their families. It provides more 
funding for homeland security programs, including first responders, 
more than the President would. It provides for the care and treatment 
of all of our veterans but most especially our newest generation of 
veterans, those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom are 
grievously wounded and thousands who will require treatment for 
posttraumatic stress and serious depression. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it 
rejects President Bush's cynical new fees for veterans health care.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this budget charts a new direction for a 
stronger, safer, more compassionate America.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two significant differences between the House- 
and Senate-passed budgets which this conference report resolves. First 
were the reconciliation revisions to the alternative minimum tax. And 
the second is the level of nondefense discretionary funding.
  On reconciliation, the conference agreement drops the House-passed 
reconciliation instructions. Instead, it provides for 1 year of AMT 
relief that is fully paid for. The House will continue to work with the 
Senate to identify how to pay for permanent relief of the AMT. In the 
House such a solution is subject to our PAYGO rules of order and must 
be fully offset. With the passage of this conference report, any AMT 
fix offered in the Senate that increases the deficit by $10 billion in 
a year will also be subject to a Senate point of order.
  On nondefense discretionary spending, the difference between the 
House and Senate budgets was $3.6 billion, and the conference agreement 
splits the difference. By holding most nonsecurity spending to a modest 
1 percent above inflation, we are able to move the budget out of 
deficit and into surplus by the year 2012 while still providing 
substantially greater investment in education, income security, 
veterans, and natural resources.
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to adopt this rule and to approve 
the conference agreement on the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution.
  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 the budget: You can 
either spend less or you can increase the amount of money coming in.
  The majority, as reflected in their budget, have rejected the first 
option and instead have chosen higher spending, higher taxes, and a 
bigger Federal Government.
  Republicans have chosen 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 workers and families 
to decide how best to use their paychecks,

[[Page 10215]]

the majority budget reflects the majority's belief that the Federal 
Government can make better choices at spending money than individual 
Americans.

                              {time}  1230

  That is a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. 
In order for the majority to fund their government spending, their 
budget raises taxes by two-thirds of a trillion dollars over the next 5 
years. That is almost $700 billion. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. 
Two-thirds of a trillion dollars.
  At a time of an economic slowdown and increased cost of living, 
American families everywhere are tightening their belts and carefully 
budgeting their hard-earned money. This is not the time for the 
majority to be forcing American families to send more of their hard-
earned money to Washington. Instead, we should be passing pro-growth 
policies to help create jobs and economic prosperity. Mr. Speaker, tax 
increases are not a pro-growth policy. They are anti-growth, anti-small 
business, anti-job creation, and we should reject them.
  Now you can call this a tax increase or you can call it letting tax 
cuts expire, but the reality is that under the majority's budget, every 
American will pay more of their paycheck to the Federal Government. 
That includes many middle class families, small business owners, and 
entrepreneurs.
  Although Democrats try to claim otherwise, the numbers in their own 
budget document show that taxes will increase nearly three times more 
than when the largest enacted tax hike to date was passed, making this 
the largest tax increase in American history. While the majority claims 
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 his or her 
annual bill increase by over $3,000. The majority's budget lets the 
current tax cuts expire, and some of those tax cuts are very important 
to Americans, to our economy.
  For example, seniors could see taxes on their investments and savings 
income double. Forty-eight million married couples could once again 
face a marriage tax penalty, costing them $3,000 per year. Young 
families could see a reduction in the child tax credit. States such as 
Florida may not get an extension of the State sales tax deduction.
  The majority's budget may even manage to resurrect the death tax. 
This will particularly hurt the small businesses in the district that 
I'm honored to represent, which provide the majority of the community's 
jobs. It may even hit 26 million additional middle class taxpayers with 
the alternative minimum tax. Their budget also assumes that 6 million 
Americans who currently do not pay any taxes, will once again have to 
pay taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to boost our economy, increase investment in 
the United States, create jobs, Congress should not be raising taxes by 
the largest amount in history.
  At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record a 
statement by Robert Greenstein, the Executive Director of the Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities. The statement calls the claims by my 
friends on the Republican side that somehow this is a tax increase in 
this bill, he exposes it as being inaccurate.

                                                  Center on Budget


                                        and Policy Priorities,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2008.

   Statement By Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, on Misleading 
Claims That Congressional Budget Plan Calls for ``Largest Tax Increase 
                              in History''

       Some claim that the budget plan of the conferees--which the 
     House and Senate are scheduled to consider this 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 that Congress adopted 
     last year. This year's budget plan does not include a tax 
     increase. It actually calls for a $340 billion reduction in 
     revenues, reflecting its assumption that Congress will extend 
     some parts of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts without offsetting 
     the costs.
       The charge that the conferees' plan includes a large tax 
     increase arises not from any policy changes that the plan 
     proposes, but instead from policies enacted in 2001 and 2003. 
     Those policies put in place tax cuts that President Bush 
     proposed, but also provided for those tax cuts to expire at 
     the end of 2010. The budget plan assumes that Congress will 
     amend current law to extend some of the expiring tax cuts 
     (especially those affecting middle-class families) and make 
     other changes in tax policy, but it also assumes Congress 
     will partly offset the cost of such changes. The plan does 
     not assume that Congress will increase total revenues above 
     what the federal government expects to collect under current 
     policies--to the contrary, it assumes Congress will reduce 
     total revenues below what is expected under current policies.
       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 
     budget resolutions that Congress 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 to avoid recognizing the cost of permanent tax 
     cuts. Now, a few years from the tax cuts' expiration, some of 
     these same supporters are acting as though the tax cuts are 
     already permanent and that any proposal to offset any portion 
     of 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 Congress at 
     least partially pay for any extension of the tax cuts--
     further heightens the irresponsible fiscal nature of the 
     original actions.

  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that George Bush and the 
previous Republican Congresses have created a mess. We are faced with 
the largest deficits and debt in the history of our country, thanks to 
their fiscally irresponsible policies. We have more people in this 
country who are in poverty because of their policies of neglect. We 
have more people in this country who are hungry because of their 
policies of neglect. Our veterans are finally, at long last, because of 
Democratic policies, getting the benefits and the funding that they 
have earned. But for years, because of Republican policies and because 
of the misplaced priorities of this White House, they have been short-
changed.
  We have more people without jobs today because of their neglectful 
policies. Our infrastructure is falling apart. I come from 
Massachusetts. We have an aging infrastructure. We have bridges in my 
State that are older than some of the other States in this country, and 
the Federal response has been to provide less and less and less 
funding. The infrastructure is crumbling. It's a danger to people. But 
those burdens, the cost burden has fallen on the States and our local 
communities.
  So I can go on and on about their policies, which have literally 
created a mess, including these high gas and oil prices that we are 
paying right now because they didn't think it was important to invest 
in alternative renewable clean energy sources. So here we are, and 
thankfully, Mr. Speaker, thankfully, the American people get it, as we 
have seen in the recent elections where, in traditional hard-core 
Republican areas of this country, voters have said, Enough. We have had 
enough. And they have voted for Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this budget that we are talking 
about here today is that it rejects the President's harmful cuts in a 
number of programs that people in this country think are valuable. This 
conference agreement on the budget rejects the President's deep cuts 
affecting a wide range of services and constituencies, including $479 
billion of Medicare cuts and $94 billion to cuts in Medicaid over 10 
years. That was the Presidents' priorities. That was the Republican's 
priorities. This budget, the Democratic budget, rejects those cuts.
  It also rejects more than $18 billion over 5 years in new fees for 
veterans and military retirees. How in good conscience could anybody 
propose that, given the fact that our men and women are serving with 
such great distinction in Afghanistan and Iraq. They deserve better 
than more fees.
  This budget also rejects cuts to services that help our communities, 
including the community development block grant and the low-income home 
energy

[[Page 10216]]

assistance program, which is so important in the Northeast and in other 
parts of this country.
  This budget, the Democratic budget, rejects the President's call for 
the elimination of several State and local law enforcement programs, 
including the State criminal alien assistance program, Byrne Grants, 
and the COPS program. This Democratic budget also says no to the 
President's cuts to EPA grants that help protect public health and 
maintain environmental quality.
  So we have different priorities as Democrats than the Republicans 
have put forward over the years. The budget that we are proposing 
strengthens our economy. It provides crucial funding for the Democratic 
Innovation Agenda and the America Competes Act to enhance our 
competitive edge. It increases funding for math and science education 
and research.
  We understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to invest in our 
educational institutions. It is important to invest in math, science, 
and engineering now so that we can be competitive in this global 
economy, so that we can be the place where the jobs of tomorrow locate.
  This budget that we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, increases funding for 
efficient and renewable energy programs. It rejects the President's 
cuts to research, as well as his proposed cuts to weatherization 
assistance for lower income families, and it invests in renewable clean 
energy alternatives. This budget invests in education, as I mentioned. 
It provides significantly more than the President proposed. And it 
invests in infrastructure, in our highways, water, and other 
infrastructure by providing sufficient funding in a reserve fund to 
facilitate new initiatives in a deficit-neutral manner.
  On a whole range of issues, Democrats have decided to chart a very 
different course than what the Republicans have proposed for the 
previous years. I am proud of the fact that we are moving this country 
in a different direction, and the sad part is that we have to dig 
ourselves out of this mess that they created.
  This is a budget that I think we can be proud of, and I would urge 
all my colleagues to support it.
  I reserve my time at this point.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in strong, strong opposition to this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget conference report calls for record tax 
increases and it increases discretionary spending by $241 billion above 
the President's budget over the next 5 years. It does nothing to reform 
entitlement or earmarks. Even worse, the Democrats have already 
signaled their intent to put off the appropriations until next January, 
at the earliest, making this budget an exercise in futility.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted also to say something about the energy crisis 
that we are in today. On April 24, 2006, Mr. Speaker, that is almost 2 
years ago, then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi stated in a press 
conference that, and I quote, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to 
help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Not only have House 
Democrats failed to offer any meaningful solutions to address gas 
prices, they have actually put forward policies that will have exactly 
the opposite effect. She made this statement April 24, 2006, 6 months 
before the November elections, when the Democrats did gain the 
majority.
  Since taking control of Congress, Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices have 
skyrocketed by more than $1.60 a gallon in my home State of Georgia. In 
fact, in Georgia's 11th District, my congressional district, northwest 
Georgia, working families are now paying as much as $3.78 for a gallon 
of regular gasoline.
  Every dollar counts, Mr. Speaker, and families should not have to 
spend them on this ``Pelosi premium.'' They need to buy school 
equipment, they need to put shoes on their children's feet, they need 
to buy clothes this fall. Every dollar indeed counts, Mr. Speaker. 
Working families and their budgets need relief. They do not need more 
broken promises. Energy prices are rising, cost of living expenses are 
up, and the Democrats do-nothing leadership has proven that it's 
content to just sit on the sidelines and do little, other than raise 
taxes and increase spending.
  With gasoline prices skyrocketing, our dependence on foreign oil 
increasing, and the American peoples' anxiety growing, it is long past 
time to increase the supply of American-made energy to help lower these 
prices here at home.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not holding my breath for a commonsense plan. Maybe 
there was a plan, but it sure wasn't common sense, and it definitely 
didn't lower gas prices. That is what Speaker Pelosi promised the 
American people 2 years ago. I hope the Democrats will begin working 
with the Republicans and let's do lower energy prices. Let's have a 
meaningful energy bill that makes sense.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I oppose this rule on the budget 
resolution, and I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
let's do something meaningful about gas prices.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply respond to the 
gentleman by saying we have proposed many meaningful measures to try to 
deal with not only the current energy prices but also to come up with a 
long-term plan so that we are not so reliant on foreign oil. 
Unfortunately, it's difficult to get things done with Republican 
obstructionism and a President who vetoes everything. Any good idea to 
invest more in renewable clean alternative energy sources, to further 
develop second or third generation biofuels, this President objects to. 
The only thing he likes is if we give more to the oil companies.
  We had the Dick Cheney ``secret energy task force,'' which we don't 
know all the details because the public was denied access to this 
information. But we do know this, that the outcome of that was more of 
the same. More drilling, more drilling, more reliance on oil, more 
reliance on oil. The same old, same old. We are done with that. We are 
done with that.
  I should remind everybody that when George Bush became President, a 
gallon of gasoline was $1.47. Now it's in excess of $3.79. In some 
places, over $4. So that is what has resulted from their policies and 
their obstructionism. As I said before, and I will say it again, the 
good news is the American people get it. They are tired of it. That is 
why we are seeing in hard-core Republican congressional districts 
Democratic victories. Things are changing.
  I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis of California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank my colleague from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I have only one good thing to say about the Democrat 
majority's budget resolution. Unlike the only other budget-related 
legislation considered by the House this year, at least this 
resolution, the budget resolution, follows regular order, not like the 
Appropriations Committee process this year.

                              {time}  1245

  Having looked at this budget in some detail, my advice to working 
families is simple: Hold on to your wallet. For the first time in 
history, the proposed discretionary budget will exceed $1 trillion. 
Think about that. $1 trillion. This bloated budget blueprint is a clear 
demonstration that the Democrat majority in Congress is keenly focused 
on dipping into your pockets to take more and more of your hard-earned 
money.
  This budget shows that the Democrat majority will raise taxes without 
hesitation to support its addiction to spending. And it shows that 
Democrats in Congress are not interested in making difficult choices, 
setting priorities or rooting out waste in government spending. While 
our constituents struggle to keep up with their budgets, to fill their 
automobiles with gasoline, to buy groceries, for example, Democrats 
want to spend and tax to continue their dance in the majority.

[[Page 10217]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I 
would just respond by saying to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, you have had your chance. You were in control of this 
institution for many years and you had a Republican President, and what 
you did was create a situation, the one we are in right now, where we 
have the largest debt in the history of the United States of America.
  The American people have rejected very clearly your policies and they 
are looking for a new direction, and that is what Democrats are going 
to offer.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania, a member of the Budget Committee, Ms. Schwartz.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I 
believe that Congress has an obligation to move our country forward 
with sound fiscal policy and smart, forward-thinking investments to 
make America stronger, safer and more secure. I want to thank Chairman 
Spratt and the Democratic leadership for their steadfast commitment to 
a spending blueprint that is fiscally sound and reflects Americans' 
priorities.
  This budget reflects the priorities of Americans while balancing the 
budget by 2012 without adding to our national debt. It ensures tax 
relief for middle class American families by committing to an immediate 
and long-term fix to the alternative minimum tax. And it reflects our 
commitment to quality health care for all Americans by sustaining and 
strengthening health benefits for our veterans, our seniors, our 
children, the disabled, promoting innovation and medical research, and 
responsibly addressing growing costs, inefficiencies and abuses in the 
system.
  This budget is a first step towards making our economy stronger, our 
country safer, and guiding us towards a new direction, the right 
direction for building success for American businesses and for American 
families, building this country's future.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this sound and fiscally 
responsible budget for America.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  It has been an interesting debate. Basically I have heard two 
contradictory arguments. One is that when the Republicans were in the 
majority, we didn't spend enough on social programs. I remember every 
year of our majority, for example, increasing veterans spending. As a 
matter of fact, there has been significant criticism of Republicans 
when we were in the majority for too much spending globally and in 
general. I have heard basically two different theories. So I wish that 
our friends on the other side the aisle would kind of choose which of 
the two scripts to read. Either we spent too much, or we spent too 
little.
  The reality is that in the Democrats' budget, basically it is a 
blindfold budget, Mr. Speaker, because the minefields that are laying 
before the future of this Nation, the needs that we do have to look at 
and see how we are going to address, the major problems facing this 
Nation, for example, entitlement reform, all the objective, nonpartisan 
economists and other experts will tell us that we need to look at such 
matters in the future of this Nation. But they are not even touched 
upon, not even mentioned, by the majority in its budget.
  Obviously they have a tremendous amount of increased spending. It is 
evident. They don't call them tax increases, they call them the end of 
tax cuts. But there are massive tax increases that will be required to 
fund the Democrats' budget, and then the great problems facing this 
Nation are simply in blindfold fashion ignored. So it is a very 
shortsighted budget, it is fiscally irresponsible, and certainly we 
hope that all Members will oppose it.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides obviously for consideration of the 
budget conference report. Budgets inevitably are a very important 
issue, and especially to many Americans who are taking nowadays a 
deeper, more careful look into their own budgets, because every day the 
rising cost of gasoline is taking more and more of their hard-earned 
income. Part of the reason that we are seeing increasing gas prices is 
because we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil while 
avoiding development of domestic energy sources.
  I learned the other day how more than 80 percent of the electricity 
generated in France, for example, is from nuclear power. There is a 
very strong environmental movement in France, and yet in consensus 
fashion there they have moved forward with nuclear energy.
  Imagine if we had built nuclear power plants. We haven't in about 30 
years, nor any refineries. Imagine the amount of oil that we would be 
saving, how consumption would be reduced, if we also had had the vision 
and the determination to build nuclear power plants, safe, new nuclear 
plants in this country to substitute for oil. Well, we haven't. So part 
of the reason that we are seeing increasing gas prices is because we 
have become more and more dependent on foreign oil, while avoiding 
developing domestic energy sources.
  Now, one important source of domestic energy is the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. However, efforts to develop just a tiny 
portion of ANWR have been fought and blocked to the detriment of 
America's energy independence, even though the people of Alaska, Mr. 
Speaker, are overwhelmingly in favor of searching for energy there. 
With the price of gasoline reaching records every day, we should be 
looking to do all we can to lower the price of gasoline, and that 
includes domestic exploration, when the people of a State wish to 
search for energy.
  Today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I 
will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider an 
amendment that would have the effect of lowering the national average 
price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by 
increasing the domestic supply of oil, by permitting the extraction of 
oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as the people of that great 
State and their Senators and Representative here in Congress wish to 
do.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately 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. By voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and our 
reliance on foreign energy sources.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and to support the budget. It is amusing to hear my 
friends on the Republican side try to offer solutions on how to deal 
with the energy crisis, when they created it. This is their 
responsibility. This is a direct result of their failed policies; not 
investing in clean, renewable alternative energy sources; not building 
the necessary infrastructure to cultivate these new forms of energy; 
not investing in second and third generation biofuels. Instead, their 
policies have been the same old, same old.
  My friend from Florida talks about ANWR. Boy, what a creative idea. 
Let's rely on the oil companies, the same companies that are gouging 
American taxpayers each and every day, making record profits. Let's do 
what they want us to do. Maybe the time has come to set a new 
direction.
  With regard to this budget, our budget I think represents responsible 
governing. Their budgets, when they could ever actually pass budgets--
and, by the way, when they were in charge they very rarely did; they 
especially couldn't muster votes during an election year--represent 
what I believe is irresponsible governing. They spent a ton of money. 
They spent too much money, by the way, on oil company subsidies and tax 
breaks, more and more to the oil companies. They spent too much on the 
wealthiest Americans,

[[Page 10218]]

who didn't need any help, who weren't struggling. They spent too much 
on a misguided war in Iraq that we should never have fought to begin 
with. And they paid for all of this by passing the costs on to future 
generations by borrowing from other countries. We are more in debt 
because of their leadership to China and to India and to other 
countries.
  Enough is enough. Again, that is why you are seeing in these hard-
core Republican congressional districts Democrats winning, because the 
American people, Democrats and Republicans and independents, have had 
it with the Republican priorities.
  Let me just close by reminding my colleagues that within this budget 
there are important investments, smart energy investments. This 
conference agreement on the budget provides $7.7 billion in funding for 
renewable energy, energy efficiency and other energy programs, which 
is, by the way, $2.8 billion more than the 2008 level. This budget, 
this Democratic budget, rejects President Bush's budget cuts to energy 
efficiency and renewable energy programs, including his proposed cuts 
to the solar energy program, and we reject his suggestion that we 
terminate the weatherization assistance program. Boy, talk about going 
in the wrong direction.
  This budget, Mr. Speaker, invests $2 billion to create ``green 
collar'' jobs in our Nation's communities, because Democrats understand 
that not only do we need to be better stewards of our environment and 
become energy independent, but we also realize that there is the 
potential to create countless jobs in the area of environmental 
technologies. And this budget, Mr. Speaker, also includes a deficit 
neutral reserve fund to accommodate legislation that provides tax 
incentives for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
  This is a good budget. If you want to deal not only with the short-
term issues involving energy, but the long-term issues, then this is 
the budget you should vote for.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1214 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
     shall, 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 bill (H.R. 5984) 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
     limited continuation of clean energy production incentives 
     and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to 
     prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a 
     lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall he 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After 
     general debate the bill shall he considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill 
     shall be in order except any amendment which the proponent 
     asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the 
     national average price per gallon of regular unleaded 
     gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of 
     oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge. Such amendments shall be considered 
     as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion or consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
                                  ____

       (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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________