Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 809 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 809 provides for consideration of H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule makes in order a substitute amendment to be offered by Representative McCrery of Louisiana or his designee. The amendment is debatable for 1 hour.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act. I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Charlie Rangel, for his usual great work on this bill.

And I want to say a special thank you to my good friend and colleague and neighbor from Massachusetts, Congressman Richie Neal, who has been a champion on the issue of the alternative minimum tax for a long, long time. Richie Neal has been the canary in the coal mine, talking about the AMT when nobody else was, and he deserves an enormous amount of credit for his work.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the alternative minimum tax was never designed to hit middle-class families, but that's exactly what will happen unless Congress acts.

In my district alone, the numbers are staggering. In 2005, 13,000 families were hit with the AMT. That number will jump to nearly 83,000 in 2007, a 517 percent increase, unless we do something about it.

These middle-class workers are struggling with enough problems, skyrocketing fuel costs, higher tuition, higher property taxes, higher child care costs. And for years, President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy, while doing very little or nothing to help hardworking middle-class families. That has to stop, and we're going to stop it today.

My Republican friends on the Rules Committee often like to talk about how strong the economy is, how GDP is growing at such a rate. Well, I agree to a certain point, Mr. Speaker. Somebody is getting pretty rich in this economy, but I would point out that it usually isn't the workers, and they're the ones that make this country great. Last year, the average CEO made 364 times what the average worker did. Just 25 years ago, CEOs made only 42 times more.

So yes, the people at the top are having a blast, but we need to do more for the people in the middle and for those struggling to get into the middle.

This bill before us today not only spares these hardworking families from the AMT, but it does so in a fiscally responsible way, and that is at the heart of the argument before us today.

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that we should patch the AMT without paying for it. They believe that we should simply add the cost on to our national debt, a debt, by the way, that has now reached $9 trillion. That's trillion with a ``T.''

Of course, this has been their approach for years. The Iraq War? Not paid for. The Bush tax cuts? Not paid for. The Medicare prescription drug benefit? Not paid for.

But, Mr. Speaker, someday, somebody, somewhere is going to have to pay for all of that debt. It's going to be our children and our grandchildren. It's wrong and it's got to stop.

It makes no sense to cut taxes for today's middle-class families just to raise taxes on future middle-class families, but that's exactly the kind of debt tax that my Republican friends would like to enact.

My friends believe that these tax cuts pay for themselves. They believe that the magic money fairy will drop revenue from the sky with rainbows and butterflies. But in the real world, actions have consequences. The Massachusetts families that I am honored to represent have to make tough choices, and Congress has to make some tough choices, too.

These PAYGO rules that Democrats have enacted are tough. This new fiscal discipline isn't easy, but it's the right thing to do. And rescuing tens of thousands of families in my district from the pain of the AMT is also the right thing to do.

I thank my colleagues for their hard work, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague from Washington State. He began by saying there is an easy way to do this; there is a way for Washington politicians to do this and that is to provide this relief without paying for it. That is what the Republicans have done while they were in charge here. They have borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent; and we have

a debt that is in the trillions and trillions of dollars.

The gentleman from Washington says that some people will have to pay more in order to offset this AMT relief package. Well, 50,000 tax returns will be affected, and that is by closing a loophole that, quite frankly, I think, every sensible person believes should be closed.

But here is the return: by impacting those 50,000 tax returns, we are going to protect 23 million middle-class families from being hit by the alternative minimum tax. We will provide 30 million homeowners with property tax relief. We will help 12 million children by expanding the child tax credit. We will benefit 11 million families through the State and local sales tax deduction. We will help 4.5 million families better afford college with a tuition deduction.

We will save 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for classroom expenses, and we will provide thousands of American troops in combat with tax relief under the earned income tax credit.

So what we are doing here is providing much-needed relief to middle- income families, and we are doing it in a responsible way, and we are not passing the bill onto our kids and our grandkids like they have done for years and years and years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon of the committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Blumenauer.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker began by saying he is so proud of this economy and it's doing so well. The thing that he may not know is that he thinks it's doing well,

but the majority of the American people do not think it's doing well. A recent poll showed that over 70 percent of people in this country think we are going in the wrong direction. Maybe he needs to get out of Washington a little bit more, outside the Beltway, talk to real people and understand the struggle people are going through.

The gentleman also knows that tax bills are traditionally considered under a closed or structured process. Under this rule, the minority has the opportunity to offer a substitute as long as it does not violate any House rules. The Rules Committee made this substitute in order sight unseen and this rule gives the minority an opportunity to amend this bill if they choose.

Again, one of the new rules that we are operating under here in the House is that you have to pay for whatever you do. You can't borrow anymore. You can't run up the natural credit card anymore. You can't burden our kids and grandkids anymore. You have to be responsible.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.

Mr. Speaker, I would just reply to the gentleman that if he has an amendment that is truly

compliant with PAYGO, he can offer it as a substitute. That is allowed under the rule.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just want to respond to something the gentleman said. He questioned whether we did anything of relevance this week. Let me remind him that we did the Defense appropriations bill, which supports our troops. We did the Labor-HHS, which funds, among other things, the National Institutes of Health. We did the Homeowners' Defense bill to deal with natural disasters. There was the Peru Free Trade Agreement. There was the ENDA bill, which ends discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. We overrode, thankfully, the President's unwarranted veto on WRDA so that we could actually support our infrastructure, which this President and the Republicans in Congress have denied funding for for so many years.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think we had a good week, and I'm proud of what this Democratic Congress is doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, in the litany of accomplishments this week, I neglected to say that we also voted on the Military Construction bill, and we will continue to vote on it until it becomes the law of the land.

And speaking of differences between the two parties, under a Democratic Congress, we are going to give our veterans the biggest single-year increase in health care benefits in the history of the Veterans Administration. That is under a Democratic Congress, not under a Republican Congress.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, I urge them to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I urge them to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Thousands of middle-class families in this country deserve relief from the AMT tax, and that's what this underlying bill is all about. In addition, as we provide relief to these middle-class families, we owe it to our kids not to saddle them with the bill, and that's also the purpose of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have two kids, a 9-year-old son and a 6-year-old daughter. I don't want to leave them with a future in which they have to pay for all of the mistakes and all of the mismanagement of my generation.

The Republicans want to have it in a way that they can do things and not pay for anything. We have a war in Iraq. It's not paid for. Doesn't bother them in the least. Their prescription for health care is take two tax breaks and call me in the morning. It doesn't bother them in the least that the bill is going to be paid for by our kids and our grandkids. Tax cuts for the rich. Again, put it on the backs of our kids and our grandkids. Mr. Speaker, that is irresponsible.

Our Nation is currently burdened with over $9 trillion of national debt. The average daily interest accruing on this debt exceeds $1 billion. Each American share of this debt is more than $30,000. We cannot afford to keep taking on this additional debt.

When the Democrats regained control of the Congress, we instituted PAYGO rules, pay as you go. Families in America have to live within their budgets. The United States Congress ought to be able to live within a budget. We need to be fiscally responsible.

So, if you want to give your rich friends a tax cut, then pay for it. If you want to have a war, then pay for it. We need to pay as you go.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 809 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

(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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, makes a number of points in support of the PAYGO rule, which forms the basis of the requirement in this bill to raise taxes on one set of taxpayers in order to prevent a tax increase on another set of taxpayers. I just want to talk about why this rule, I believe, has been treated in a way that nobody who ever came up with the idea of PAYGO meant for it to be treated.

If we were to go out on the street, Mr. Speaker, and pull aside an average person on the street and say, we're thinking about instituting in Congress a PAYGO rule. And what that means is, if we cut taxes somewhere, we have to pay for that by increasing taxes somewhere else or decreasing spending somewhere else.

Okay. That sounds reasonable.

Well, it also means that if we increase spending in some program, or if we create a new spending program, we either have to decrease spending somewhere else or raise taxes to pay for that increased spending.

Oh, well, yeah, that sounds reasonable.

But, then if you tell that person, and, oh, by the way, we're going to assume that we have more revenue next year, and that revenue is going to be produced by this set of taxpayers. They're not paying it now, but we're going to assume that next year they will pay it. And in order to relieve them of that assumption that they're going to pay for in taxes, we're going to increase taxes on this group of taxpayers over here. How's that sound?

The average person, Mr. Speaker, I would submit, would say that doesn't make much sense. And it doesn't make much sense. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it puts this House and this Congress in a fiscal straitjacket with respect to tax policy and fiscal policy.

Now, the chairman has said himself, this AMT thing is crazy. It was never meant to apply to middle-class taxpayers. It was a mistake. Well, why don't we just admit the mistake and get rid of it? If it was our mistake, let's correct the mistake by getting rid of it. We never meant to collect this level of revenues that are anticipated in the CBO baseline.

I don't want to talk about the CBO baseline because folks in America don't understand the CBO baseline. But that's the genesis of all this tax raising that the majority is about to undertake here. And we ought to stop it today. This is the first step.

I feel like the little boy in Holland sticking his thumb in the dike. If I'm not here today to stick my thumb in the dike and stop this bill from passing and expose the flaws of this PAYGO system, we're going to have a torrent, a flood of tax increases over the next 10 years.

In fact, the CBO, with the assistance of the Joint Tax Committee, has determined that if this PAYGO rule that governs this bill today stays in place, we're going to increase taxes on the American people over the next 10 years $3.5 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, that is the largest tax increase in either nominal terms or real terms in the history of this country. Now, is that what the Democratic majority wants for this country?

Do they want to take a chance on increasing taxes to that extent on the American people at a time when we have a housing crisis, when the dollar's value is dropping? I hope not.

Today is the day we expose this very flawed and dangerous PAYGO policy by defeating this bill today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, although I cannot support this bill, I strongly support extension of the AMT patch and most of the provisions of current law extended in this bill. Congress should protect the 19 million Americans who are at risk of paying the AMT this year. Congress should also extend individual and business tax incentives important to the Nation's economy.

Unfortunately, at its core, this bill is not about the AMT or extenders. It is about the elevation of form over substance and the decision of the Congress to bind itself to the mast of Paygo, wherever it may lead.

While there may be valid reasons to apply the principles of Paygo to spending changes, we think the calculus is far different in the case of tax policy.

As we amply documented during the Ways and Means mark-up of this bill, the majority's budget assumes that the Federal Government will generate revenue from allowing the AMT to continue to plague taxpayers and from allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to sunset. These budget assumptions will have the effect of raising taxes on the Americans people by $3.5 trillion over the next decade. Paygo forces Congress to decide whether to let those tax increases take place or replace them with other tax hikes.

It is true that under the current iteration of Paygo, tax cuts could be ``paid for'' by spending cuts, but we have seen no appetite of the current majority for such as sensible approach. For bills both small and large, the Ways and Means Committee has become an ATM for other committees, spitting out tax increases of whatever shape or size is deemed necessary to meet the new majority's appetite for additional spending. Indeed, this House

has already passed over $100 billion in tax increases this year alone.

What Paygo has become, as embodied in this bill, is far more breathtaking. Here, it is being invoked as a reason for Congress to raise taxes in order to prevent a tax increase.

Let me say that again, the majority has created a rule under which Congress must raise taxes in order to prevent a tax increase. Let me give an example utilizing the context of this bill.

If Congress does not enact this legislation, Americans will pay about $70 billion more in taxes next year. If we pass this bill, Americans will pay about $70 billion more in taxes next year. What's wrong with this picture? Either way it's a tax increase.

And let us keep in mind that this bill imposes mostly permanent tax increases to pay for temporary tax cuts. Even if this bill passes, we will be back here again next year struggling to find another $70-plus billion in tax increases to ``rent'' one more year of expiring provisions.

Unfortunately, this is just a baby step. Under the next President, we seem likely to face large tax increases in order to ``prevent'' a tax increase on families with children, tax increases on marriage, marginal tax rate increases, or tax increases on estates. And that's before we are asked to enact other tax increases to pay for new tax incentives or new spending programs.

Raising taxes to prevent a tax increase shows the danger of turning a bumper sticker into a budget rule.

According to estimates the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee, Federal revenues in fiscal year 2007 totaled about 18.6 percent of our economy, well above the historical average of 18.2 percent.

The Joint Tax Committee estimates that over the next decade if we continue to operate in this Paygo straitjacket, revenues will reach 20.1 percent of GDP in 2017, a level seen only once since 1962. Think about it--this bill is the first step in endorsing what will be, in both nominal and real terms, the largest tax increase in the history of the United States.

We may well pass this bill today, but what happens next is anyone's guess. The Senate has given us strong and repeated signals that they intend to reject offsets to pay for an AMT patch and the administration has issued a veto threat. This all suggests we will spend more days debating this issue, even as the continued delay threatens to make the coming tax filing season chaotic.

As the Secretary of the Treasury warned us last month, ``enactment of a patch in mid-to-late December could delay issuance of approximately $75 billion in refunds to some 50 million taxpayers who are likely to file their returns before March 31, 2008.'' That would be on top of the confusion it will cause taxpayers and the added costs the Federal Government will pay to print new forms and provide assistance to perplexed taxpayers.

Simply put, we should stop this charade and recognize that we need to promptly pass a patch and extenders package that the Senate can pass and that the President can sign. If we fail to do so today, the cost of delay and inaction on the AMT patch will continue to mount.

I urge defeat of the bill so that the Ways and Means Committee can promptly put together a package that has a chance of making it to the President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee (Mr. Sam Johnson).

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, in which some of this bill was developed, Mr. English.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's enthusiasm for his point of view doesn't make his point of view correct. In fact, Republicans time and time again protected taxpayers, middle-class taxpayers, from the application of the AMT. That is why there's a patch in place today; that is why last year those 21 million taxpayers didn't pay the AMT. In 1999, I would tell the Speaker to inform the gentleman, the Republican Congress repealed the AMT and, unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed that repeal. So I would take issue

with the gentleman's characterization of the Republican Congress's actions with respect to this issue.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

(Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

There has been a lot said here on the floor today and a lot of it is one person or one party's spin on the facts or on history. The distinguished majority leader put his spin on history. I would just like to point out to the House that for the last 6 years of the Clinton administration, which was bragged about so by the majority leader, there was a Republican-controlled Congress. Under the Constitution, the Congress controls the purse strings of the country and develops fiscal policy. And under our fiscal policy, we balanced the budget and created a surplus.

Then when President Bush came into office, he inherited a recession, a short-lived recession, admittedly, but still a recession. And then we had 9/11 which was a shock to the economy and then we had war. Every time in this Nation's history that we have had either a recession or a war, we have had a deficit. This time is no different. But, under our policies, we are producing this year 18.6 percent of GDP for Federal revenues and that is above the historic average. Why do we need more, Mr. Speaker? This bill would add to that. We don't need to.

Mr. Speaker, to close the debate for our side, I recognize for the remaining time the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30 p.m.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

On Tuesday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business and 9 a.m. on Friday.

We expect to consider H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; H.R. 3355, the Homeowners' Defense Act of 2007; and H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007; the conference report on the fiscal year 2008 Labor-HHS appropriations bill. If the President vetoes the WRDA bill, we will expect to take up that veto as well.

Also, Members should note on Wednesday, President Sarkozy of France will address a joint meeting of the House and Senate. I would like to say to all the Members who are listening, I would hope that they would make a special effort to be here for the address of President Sarkozy.

I would make the observation that the new President of France is someone who, I think, holds great promise for partnership with the United States. I think he has expressed that inclination. I think that is a very significant, positive step forward, and I hope that most of us that will be able to, within the framework of legislative business, be here to hear his address.

As I said in my announcement, it is my expectation that the Labor-HHS conference report will be on the floor next week. I don't know whether it will be Wednesday or Thursday of next week, but I expect it to be on the floor next week.

The conference, much of the work of the conference, as I indicated last week, the preconferencing was occurring, both parties were involved in that preconferencing, and hopefully that has led to what will be a relatively brief conference. I do not have information whether or not they were able to conclude today. I know they met this morning and into this afternoon. I don't know whether they have concluded.

My sense is those were the press reports.

I can neither confirm nor deny, as they say, that that is the case.

Will my friend yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

And I know that point has been made, but I want to tell you, very honestly, I hear you make the point, but not only did you package almost all, the majority of bills in 2005 and 2006, but you packaged them in the calendar year, that is to say, 3 months from today, before they were passed. And so that, although that is your desire, and it is my desire, we share that view, you're absolutely right. These bills ought to be considered individually, one at a time, on their merits, sent to the President, and he ought to have the opportunity to veto them or sign them individually.

But I would remind the gentleman that in fiscal year, I believe, I may be wrong on the fiscal year, fiscal year 2005, it was not until February 2005 that that bill was passed, with eight or nine of the bills incorporated in an omnibus. And in either the year before that, or the year after that, in January, eight bills were sent.

Now, I may be off one or two bills on the numbers, but my point is, the gentleman is correct. Unfortunately, that has not been the practice, either under your leadership or our leadership. And I think it's unfortunate, personally. But we're going to move these bills, as I said last week, hopefully as quickly

and effectively as possible; and, hopefully, the President will sign them. They've passed with an average of 285 votes, some closer, some different than that. Averages lie in that respect. But they have passed pretty handily both Houses of the Congress. In the Senate every one has passed with a veto-proof majority. That's not true in the House. But we're hopeful that we can get these bills to the President and signed by the President, whether they're individually or in packages.

Is there any doubt that that's what we're trying to do?

On that point, because I think it's important for our Members to understand and for the public to understand what's going on. The gentleman is correct. You took the Veterans bill out of the Housing bill. We think you liked the Veterans bill. We're not sure you liked the Housing bill, and so you took them apart so you could pass what you liked and leave what you didn't like alone.

As you know, the first 2 months that we came in, we dealt with the eight bills that you had not passed. They were all domestic bills. You passed the Defense bill, the MilCon bill, Homeland Security bill, all of that, broad bipartisan support on our side, your side. Education was left on the table. Health was left on the table. Environment, left on the table. Space, left on the table. Law enforcement, left on the table.

We understand the decoupling. Decoupling is to put us in a position where we don't have any options. You'll take what was passed with 409 votes in this House. It was $4 billion over what the President requested, billions of dollars under what the veterans said they needed.

And now the President says he is going to sign that bill. Why is he going to sign that bill? Because I think he believes it's politically feasible to do it. It's $4 billion over what the President asked for, and he said we shouldn't ask for more than he asked for. We asked for $4 billion more than he asked for for veterans, and he's going to sign it. Overwhelmingly supported here in the House, and we would override his veto. He knows that, so I don't think he's given us much, very frankly.

And we are trying to figure out how we can get Education signed by the President, funding No Child Left Behind signed by the President, NIH, cancer research, heart, lung and blood research, diabetes research signed by the President.

So very frankly, your decoupling was to make sure that you got the bill you liked signed. Our coupling may be to ensure that we get the bill that we like signed. So very frankly, the efforts, I think, are the same. The priorities just may be different.

I thank the gentleman.

I don't have the figure in front of me, but I will find it out. I believe, very frankly, very few substitutes have been brought to the Rules Committee by your side. But that aside, I will get that number so we will know it.

But I take your point. That aside, I take your point.

Let me say that what we intend to do is continue to try to facilitate the work of this House, facilitate passing legislation, and we will continue to try to do that.

Yes, I think I mentioned that.

No, I don't know whether it will be Wednesday, Thursday or

Friday; but it will be one of those three days is my expectation. I know Mr. Rangel wants to move the AMT patch. I'm for moving the AMT patch. I'm for paying for it. But I'm for moving it. The Temporary Tax Relief Act.

Yes, that's what we're referring to. So the answer is, yes, we intend to move that next week.

I don't have that dollar amount, but I know that it's in the $50 billion category to do a temporary patch, which we have done over the last few years. We borrowed the money each time we've done that, but it's about $50 billion. We intend to pay for it.

As you know, we have followed the PAYGO rules since we adopted them, and we intend to hew to that practice. And we think it's the appropriate practice, rather than borrow $50 billion today to give taxpayers relief so that our children can pay for that tax relief in the future. We feel strongly about that and we intend to do that.

We anticipate Friday of next week. And I'm not yet anticipating the 16th, which is Friday, because I'm not sure exactly. The continuing resolution ends on the 16th of November. It is my expectation that we will do another continuing resolution while we continue to try to pass the balance of the appropriation bills, and I expect to do that earlier than the 16th, but we can't give away the 16th at this point in time because we have no intention of shutting down the government and, therefore, we're going to make sure that we provide for making sure the government stays in operation. But if we can conclude our work by the 15th, I'm sure the Members will be happy. But the 16th is still on the schedule.

I thank the gentleman for yielding one more time.

I have not mentioned something, but I do want to mention, so the House knows and, frankly, the public knows as well. As you know, we have been working very hard on the Children's Health Insurance Program, trying to get as many children as possible covered by children's health. I want to thank the whip. I had the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Boehner. Their staffs have been engaged. Our staffs have been engaged. Senate Democratic and Republican staff and Members have been engaged. We're still working on that.

As you know, Senator Reid attempted to get a delay in the consideration of the bill on the Senate floor. That was objected to by Mr. McConnell, or actually Mr. Lott on behalf of Mr. McConnell, and they took it up today. Mr. Reid asked for another extension. That was objected to by Mr. McConnell this time. So they considered it today.

But I want the whip to know that we are intending to continue to pursue discussions. Obviously the Senate has to send the bill back here. But we want to continue to pursue these discussions to see whether or not we can come to agreement so that we can send a bill to the President that, hopefully, he would sign but, if he doesn't sign, that two-thirds of us on this side of the Capitol and two-thirds on the other side of the Capitol would be prepared to see it move forward.

Well, they have to send it back here as the House of origin, I believe. I'm not sure that it has to be sent back. I may be incorrect in that. But I am not sure how soon the Senate will send the bill down.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Frankly, we have a disagreement on whether you were denied time. We did pass the bill, but we have been pursuing, as the gentleman observed, and I appreciate the participation of those Republicans, one of whom is sitting on the floor, who have participated in numerous meetings, whether or not we can accommodate the interests of both sides in passing legislation to include the children, expanding it to 10 million. But notwithstanding the fact that we passed it, as I explained to the House, we wanted to get that bill to the Senate so that they could have it ready for consideration.

We were in agreement that it ought to be moved over until next week. Senator Reid asked for that so we could continue to work. As I advised Senator Reid, the leader, I advised him that I thought there were good- faith discussions going on. I thought there was an opportunity to move forward. I am still hopeful that that is the case. And as a result, I am hopeful that we will take the additional time, the next day, tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, to try to see if we can come to agreement.

As you know, you, Mr. Boehner and I met, and Mr. Boehner's observation was there may be significant numbers that could accrue as a result of the discussions and negotiations. We're hopeful that that is the case. If that's the case, then we would be successful in adding the 4 million children that we seek to add to the President's 6 million plus.

What I wanted to indicate before we close this colloquy is that I am hopeful we will still take that time, and I have indicated to a number of people that I want to pursue, we want to pursue, those discussions with the opportunity to perhaps take some additional action if agreement is possible.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking and time is running out. At the end of the year, many of the important tax provisions that have helped our economy grow will expire. Unless Congress acts and gets a bill to the President that he will sign into law, workers, families and small businesses will face a tax increase this year.

Congress can either accomplish this the easy way, by working together in a bipartisan manner, or it can be done the hard way, by dragging out the process, passing a bill in the House that the Senate won't even consider and the President has threatened to veto, only for the Democrats then to rush a bill to the floor at the last minute that no one has had time to read and that should have been considered in the first place.

I'm disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen the hard way on this and so many other pieces of legislation this year.

The parts of this bill that prevent tax increases are good, and I support most of them, Mr. Speaker. I support ensuring over 20 million Americans are not caught up in paying the AMT. Over the years, this tax burdens more and more middle-income Americans, clearly an unintended consequence of the original bill.

I support extending the State and local sales tax deduction so that taxpayers in my State of Washington and other States without a State income tax will continue to be able to deduct State sales tax from their Federal tax bill.

I support extending tax incentives to enhance the affordability of higher education, which will help more middle-income students access post-secondary education.

I support extending an important above-the-line deduction to help teachers contain the costs of out-of-pocket classroom expenses like books, supplies and computer equipment.

I support, Mr. Speaker, extending the research and experimentation tax credit in order to allow the United States to remain a global competitor.

And I support keeping taxes low for small businesses.

These are reasonable parts of the bill, and I have supported them in the past, I support them being extended this year, and I support seeing that they become made into permanent law.

However, I cannot support a bill that temporarily stops certain tax increases by permanently raising other taxes. Let me repeat that. I cannot support a bill that temporarily stops certain tax increases by permanently raising other taxes. It's not right and it's not fair. But the Democrat majority is using temporary tax relief as an excuse to permanently raise taxes.

Under this bill, you may get to keep one of your hard-earned dollars in your right-hand pocket, but the Federal Government is right there taking a dollar out of your left-hand pocket year after year. This is the wrong approach.

Unfortunately, if Democrats have their way, every American will face a tax increase sooner or later. If not this year, then next. If not next year, then certainly in 3 years when tax relief enacted by the Republican Congress will expire, tax relief that lowers rates for every single taxpayer in America. If these tax cuts expire, taxpayers will be forced to pay $3.5 trillion more to the Federal Government over 10 years, and the Democrats plan to spend every dime of it on more government spending.

But, Mr. Speaker, don't take just my word for it. Look at the budget the Democrats adopted earlier this year. When Democrats were faced with the choice of how best to balance the Federal budget, they flat out rejected the option of spending less and declared their allegiance to raising taxes. The Democrat budget would impose the largest tax increase in American history.

Their budget doesn't extend relief from the marriage tax penalty. It doesn't extend the $1,000 child tax credit, it doesn't end the death tax, it doesn't fix the AMT for middle-class families, it doesn't protect the lowest tax rate, and it will force lower-income Americans who today pay no income tax, thanks to the Republicans' tax relief, to start paying taxes again.

The Democrats will call this tax relief bill a tax relief bill. They will deny that they are raising taxes, but the plain hard facts are this bill that this rule would make in order would raise taxes by over $80 billion.

Congress doesn't need to be raising Americans' taxes to pay for Democrat plans to pay for more and higher government spending. Don't raise taxes; reduce spending.

Several of my Republican colleagues that serve on the Ways and Means Committee submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to make this a better bill, a bill that would pass the House on a strong bipartisan basis, pass the Senate and could be signed into law. Amendments to increase the teacher tax credit from $250 to $400, permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, and strike tax increases from the bill that were denied by the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee.

I am especially troubled that an amendment offered by my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) to strike language in the bill that gives special treatment to State legislatures was not made in order. It is difficult to understand why this Democrat bill would allow State legislators to earn tax-free income.

For example, in my State of Washington, the State legislators in Olympia have increased spending by 33 percent since 2005 and raised taxes by $500 million, not exactly behavior that deserves rewarding them with a special Federal tax break.

A Washington Post article on November 6 says: ``An official of the nonpartisan congressional Committee on Joint Taxation estimated that the yearly deduction could reach $55,000 for a State lawmaker whose legislature declared enough pro forma days.''

Of all the people in America, State legislators are not at the top of my list and probably not at the top of the list for most Americans. But apparently allowing State legislators tax-free income is a top priority of House Democrats.

This provision was slipped into the bill at the last minute, and it only seeks to benefit a few. It will cost American taxpayers an estimated $4 million. It should be removed from this bill.

This is a bad rule that brings a bill to the floor that is bad policy. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a fellow colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a classmate of mine, Mr. English.

Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks, my colleagues on the Rules Committee and I have highlighted the need to pass a stand-alone veterans funding bill. Today is our last opportunity to pass a veterans funding bill and get it to the President before Veterans Day.

The veterans funding bill passed this House this summer with over 400 votes and passed the Senate with over 90 votes. A final veterans funding bill is sitting, waiting to be acted on, but Democrat leaders have bent over backwards to prevent Congress from passing the final bill. They have been stalling since September and have ignored the fact that the new spending year began October 1 this year.

Every day the Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, our Nations's veterans lose $18.5 billion. Since the fiscal year began 40 days ago, our Nation's veterans are out $740 million. It has now been nearly 150 days since the Veterans funding bill was approved by the House. The Senate passed a similar bill and appointed its conferees 2 months ago. Sadly, the Democratic leadership in the House has refused to name conferees and instead has chosen to put partisanship and politics ahead of ensuring our veterans' needs are met.

Once Democrat leaders appoint conferees, the House can move forward and pass the stand-alone Veterans funding bill. Three weeks ago, Republican Leader Boehner took a positive step towards naming House Republican conferees. Now, the Speaker must follow suit.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the MilCon and Veterans Affairs funding bill, and appoint conferees.

By defeating the previous question, the House will send a strong message to our veterans that they will have our commitment to providing them the funding increase they need, deserve and were promised.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, for information about next week's schedule.

I appreciate my friend's comment there, and I agree totally that a leader of France who has been so open and receptive to America as an ally and a friend deserves that kind of welcome in the joint session of Congress next week. I hope we have the kind of presence here that would indicate our opportunity and our optimism about the Sarkozy government.

On appropriations, I wonder if you have any update on the Labor-HHS conference and the conference report, if you have any sense of that yet.

The press reports today were that that conference would not likely include the elements of the Defense appropriations but still would include the Veterans and the Military Construction appropriations bill.

Is that my friend's sense of where they are headed on that bill?

Well, of course the stated goal of the majority earlier this year to move these bills one at a time would be my preference, and if Defense is not part of that conference report, it seems to me it's only one bill away from being done the right way. I would have preferred to see it the other way.

I would.

I thank my friend.

Looking backwards at this, I think that my friend is right that there was a pattern that developed with the bill that included the Veterans bill that we didn't like. And so in the Congress that started in 2005, we tried to restructure that so that that would not happen in the future. We were trying to break that pattern, and, in fact, we did. And in 2005, that bill passed individually, as did every other bill.

In 2006, unfortunately, that was not the case, and there was a penalty to be paid for that, and I guess we paid it. But we were trying to break that pattern of coupling veterans benefits with something that was much more controversial than veterans benefits. It was part of at that time Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development, and so we took Veterans and put them with the Military Construction so that military families, military personnel, veterans and retirees would all be in a bill that we hoped would be the least controversial of all bills and not be the subject of that packaging to get those most controversial things done. Frankly, I think the 2005 experience showed that we were on the way to achieving that.

My concern on this would be exactly that, that the pattern of using the veterans benefit bill, to couple that with bills that are less popular, and not only appropriations bills, but I can certainly see, even in this Congress, that bill becoming the host for authorizing bills that are not popular, I think is a very unfortunate development and I regret it. I wish that we could have stayed with the pattern that we tried to create in the last Congress and successfully did create in the first year of the last Congress. Again, as we look back on history, this is the first time in 20 years that not a single bill has passed now.

Also, when we coupled bills together in the 10 years I was here, we coupled those bills together to try to get a signature rather than anticipating a veto, and we got those signatures.

I think there is. Well, we'll see. We'll see if that's what happened.

I have a couple more questions, but I would yield on that point.

Well, if we want to try to determine the motives of each other, which is, I suppose, what we do in this place, that's one thing. But you're the one that started that.

What we were trying to do, I'll advance again, was to take the Veterans bill out of the tug of war that always went on over the Housing bill, and that's what we did.

Now, your assertion that that's because we didn't like Housing, I don't agree with that. I do agree with the idea that we thought that the Veterans bill did not need to be needlessly held back by a bill that was assured to always be intensely debated. And that's why we did that. And that's why we passed the bill. And that's why if we would have passed this bill 60 days ago when it came over from the Senate, military families and veterans would have $18.5 million every day that they haven't had the last 32 days now.

On the other issue, I don't have any reason to believe that the President is not for all of those health care issues you talked about. That's not what this veto will be about. I know I'm for advancing all of those, partly because I've benefited from research in some of those.

But I think you said at the first of the year, and you were right when you said it, that the best way to advance these bills is one at a time. Now, I think I'm hearing a different argument than that today. But I agree with your first-of-the-year view of this; and I would hope, after this process, we can get back to that.

Another thing I wanted to ask about, I read in one of the Capitol Hill newspapers this week that the majority continues to look at the possibility of limiting the minority's right, and it has been a right of the minority since 1822, to have the opportunity to have a motion to recommit at the end of the bill.

I will point out, I believe yesterday, on the bill we dealt with yesterday, the first substitute that the minority had been allowed in this entire Congress, the last day of the 10th month of the Congress, we finally get a substitute.

No question, we've had to maximize our use of the motion to recommit because, while we appreciate the amendments we had on the bill today, we haven't had many amendments before today. And while we appreciate the substitute we had yesterday, we had had no substitutes before yesterday.

I'm wondering if the gentleman will want to talk a little bit about any discussions going on, the majority has going on, about limiting the 1822 right of the motion to recommit.

And I would yield.

Well, I would only say my concern on that would be when the majority says ``facilitate the work of the House,'' that may mean to further restrict the ability of the minority; and, of course, we would object strenuously to that.

Another topic that, I don't believe, it may or may not have been mentioned, was the AMT patch topic. Did you mention that as something you expect to come up next week?

I thought maybe you did. Does the gentleman have any more information about that than he has already given?

So that would be the AMT patch?

And the amount of money involved there?

And your intention is for that to be under the PAYGO rule to be paid for.

I think the view of that, if we were debating the bill, which we won't do, I assure you, would be that this kind of tax relief actually produces tax revenue. But in a static scoring model you don't see that revenue.

Do you have any more information about November's schedule? I know next week. You said you anticipated we would work Friday of next week.

I appreciate that information. I'm sure that we would be, at least I'm confident we would be more than happy to work with the majority so that we don't run into a needless last-minute crisis on the 16th in the almost unavoidable circumstance now that we don't have all of the appropriations bills done by then, and I would think the earlier that process starts, the better off we are.

And I would yield.

If I could ask a question in that regard, do you anticipate some changes in the Senate bill so that it comes back here? I was assuming, based on your other information, that if the Senate passed the same bill the House had passed, it would go directly to the President.

We will be glad to continue work on that. And in regard to the failure to provide time on the Senate side, it seems to me that's a very interesting contradiction to our desire to provide time over here to change the bill. I will assure my friend we are working in good faith to try to address the less than a handful of issues, though they are all important, that we think need to be addressed, from who benefits from this program to how you determine your eligibility and legal presence in the country to benefit, to how you work effectively to see that adults are moved off the program. We are more than willing to work on that. We have been trying to work on that all week.

And, of course, our request just a few days ago was the reverse of the problem that now we see is a problem in the Senate, which was give us some time to work this out. We were denied time on this side. Apparently the Senate has also been denied time to work this out. And, once again, I think we have headed toward a needless conclusion to this debate that could have been prevented if we would have all engaged more effectively before we sent the bill to the Senate.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that.

And, Mr. Speaker, I will just say we are continuing to be more than willing to be helpful, the minority is, I am individually, to try to solve these problems.

I want to repeat one more time, I think we would have been better off if we had taken these 2 days that we now would have liked to have had before we voted instead of now being at the mercy of the Senate to decide whether they are going to give us time to negotiate with each other or not. But we haven't, and, hopefully, we can continue to work for a good conclusion.