GIVE Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1036 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1036.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1036 provides for consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 312, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2009, under a structured rule.

The rule provides a total of 4 hours of general debate, 3 hours to be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies to be controlled by Representative Maloney of New York and Representative Saxton of New Jersey.

The rule makes in order the three substitute amendments: one by Representative Kilpatrick of Michigan; one by Representative Lee of California; and a final substitute by Representative Ryan of Wisconsin. Each amendment is debatable for 60 minutes. The rule also permits the chairman of the Budget Committee to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency. Finally, the rule provides that the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, this is the traditional rule for consideration of the budget resolution, and I welcome today's debate on the alternative budgets that will be presented by the Republican leadership, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my thanks and appreciation to Budget Committee Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan for their leadership and hard work on the House Budget Committee. Although they hold very different points of view, the committee always operates in a cordial and collegial manner. I have served on the Budget Committee for 2 years, and it has been a privilege to learn from two such distinguished Members how to work in a bipartisan way despite sharp philosophical differences. And all of us are supported, Mr. Speaker, by a superb and dedicated committee staff.

Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents. They reflect our priorities. And for too long, this Congress passed budgets with the wrong priorities. For too long, our budgets put the desires of the powerful before the needs of the poor. For too long, our budgets pretended that people who were struggling didn't even exist, let alone matter. That has begun to change. The Democratic budget before us today is a budget with a conscience.

Today, we continue the new direction set last year to bring the Federal budget back to fiscal health and responsibility. As we begin this debate, our country faces major challenges: a looming recession, a crisis in the credit markets, a plunging housing market, rising unemployment, declining family income, skyrocketing costs in health care, aging infrastructure, and a safety net struggling to keep up with the growing number of Americans unable to meet their basic needs.

Faced with these challenges, President Bush proposed the same tired, worn-out, failed fiscal and economic policies. After 7 years, the Bush legacy is the highest deficits in our Nation's history. Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office, when the Republicans had total control over the White House, the Senate and this House, they were welcomed with a $5.6 trillion projected 10-year budget surplus, the financial gift of the last Democrat to sit in the White House. That has been completely squandered, resulting in the largest fiscal deterioration in American history. And the President's FY 2009 budget proposed only more of the same.

The national debt exploded under President Bush and his Republican rubber-stamp Congress. At the end of 2008, CBO projects a $9.6 trillion debt, an increase of nearly $4 trillion, brought to you courtesy of George Bush. Future generations, our children and our grandchildren, will be forced to pay the price for this unprecedented rise in debt thanks to the Republicans' fiscally reckless and irresponsible policies.

And to top it off, the President's budget continues the Bush legacy of deep cuts in many of the most important programs and services for the American people:

$500 billion in cuts to Medicare.

$100 billion in cuts to Medicaid, which serves the poorest Americans, including families with children.

The elimination of the Community Services Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant, and deep cuts in the Community Development Block Grant, which provides nearly every city and town in America with Federal support for basic services.

Elimination of the Community Oriented Policing grants, the COPS grants, and deep cuts for State and local law enforcement at a time when States and local communities are finding it hard to meet the needs of their first responders.

And deep cuts in many other vital programs that provide health care, infrastructure, environmental protection, and other services to our States and to our neighborhoods.

Let me give but one example, Mr. Speaker, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Last week, the worst snow storm in a century hit the people of Ohio and the Midwest. Two weeks ago, the people of central Massachusetts were facing over three feet of snow. Across the country, people are suffering in the cold. Home heating costs have gone up by 80 percent under George Bush. A barrel of oil now costs $108. But President Bush decided to cut $570 million out of the LIHEAP program. The President decided to turn off the heat for 1.2 million households, forcing families to choose either to heat or to eat. And why? So we could continue tax cuts for the wealthiest, most fortunate billionaires in America.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic budget rejects the President's priorities. It rejects the callous view of the Republican Party that tens of millions of American families are expendable, that our communities can manage without basic services, that our roads, bridges and water systems should be allowed to crumble and fail, and that we can run up America's credit card without costs or consequences.

Instead, the Democratic budget restores fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget, returning it to balance in the year 2012. It rejects the President's harmful cuts to basic services, and invests in proven programs that boost economic growth, create jobs, and make America safer.

The Democratic budget helps families struggling to make ends meet in this economic downturn, and provides fiscally responsible tax relief to millions and millions of households.

Finally, the Democratic budget remembers those who serve at home and abroad. It provides strong and substantial funding for national defense, including quality of life for our troops and our families.

It provides more funding for homeland security programs, including first responders, than the President would. And finally, it takes care of our veterans and rejects President Bush's cynical new fees for veterans health care.

Instead, the Democratic budget increases health care funding for our veterans well above current services, enough to allow the VA to treat 5.8 million patients in 2009, including over 333,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, House Concurrent Resolution 312, the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, is a budget all Americans who believe in fiscal responsibility and the common good can support.

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

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

I will insert into the Record letters from The Hamilton Project and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which state clearly and unequivocally that the Democratic budget resolution does not raise taxes.

The Hamilton Project,

Washington, DC, March 7, 2008.

Congressman John Spratt,

Longworth Bldg.,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Spratt: Per your request, I have analyzed

the House Budget Committee's budget resolution. The budget

would not raise taxes. The revenue levels in the budget are,

in net total, the same as the baseline revenue levels

projected by the Congressional Budget Office. These revenue

levels are consistent with continuing current law, not with

changes to the law that would raise or lower taxes.

The purpose of a budget baseline is to establish a neutral

starting point to debate and evaluate alternative priorities

for spending, taxes, and the debt. The budget resolution

adopts the baseline recommended by several respected, non-

partisan groups including the Concord Coalition, the

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Center on

Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Committee for Economic

Development.

But the choice of a baseline does not commit policymakers

to any specific tax or spending policy. Instead a baseline,

in conjunction with the restoration of the pay-as-you-go

rules, would provide a framework for making tradeoffs between

different priorities. Indeed, your budget indicates that one

of your priorities is making up-front cuts in taxes for

alternative minimum tax relief that would ultimately be paid

for without increasing the budget deficit.

The founding strategy paper of The Hamilton Project states

that one of the greatest economic risks our nation faces

today is our country's large fiscal imbalance. The papers

notes that ``the decisions necessary to restore fiscal

balance might be easier to enact and to enforce if

policymakers reinstated credible budget rules governing both

spending and taxes.'' The pay-as-you-go proposal in the

budget resolution will hopefully help policymakers make the

tough choices required to put America on a path to a balanced

budget.

I hope this analysis is helpful and please do not hesitate

if you have any follow-up questions.

Thank you,

Jason Furman.

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

The gentleman asked the right question: What are American families facing? What are American families facing after 7 years of Bush budgets and Republican budgets? What they're facing are challenges like never before.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the real income of a typical family has fallen by almost $1,000 since George Bush became President. The Democratic budget provides funds to keep up with rising food, housing, and heating and transportation costs.

In the area of education, the Democratic budget provides $7.1 billion more for education and job training than the Bush budget. It increases funding for Head Start, special education, No Child Left Behind, and title I. Under George Bush, only four out of 10 children eligible for Head Start received services. The Democratic budget increases funding for Head Start so that more children will enter school ready to learn.

And, again, let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. The Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Concord Coalition have all sent Members of Congress letters stating emphatically that the Democratic budget does not increase taxes.

Let me say one thing the Democratic budget does do, and that is it relieves the burden of debt that has been thrust upon our kids and our grandkids. The Republicans, during these last several years, have increased the debt to historic highs, and in doing so, they have created a debt tax on our kids and our grandkids. We want to remove that tax burden from future generations.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Budget Committee (Mr. Scott).

I am the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that security also means the economic well-being of our citizens. And because of Republican priorities over the last 7 years, record numbers of our citizens are struggling like never before. The very rich have done very well. And the rest have not. Those are the facts.

The Democratic budget that has been put forward restores fiscal responsibility. It rejects the President's harmful cuts in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. It rejects the President's proposal to impose new fees for our veterans and our military retirees. It strengthens our economy. It invests more in innovation. It invests more in energy, renewable and clean energy. It invests more in education and in our infrastructure. It also provides tax relief to help struggling families. It accommodates the tax relief from the alternative minimum tax for more than 20 million households, as well as middle income tax cuts and other tax relief so long as they comply with the pay-as-you-go rule.

It invests more in children's health. It provides more funding for safety net programs. Record numbers of our citizens are literally falling through the cracks in our country. It invests in defense, in veterans, and in homeland security.

The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that for years we have been forced to accept the priorities of George Bush and his Republican colleagues who have controlled the Congress. That is now changing. For nearly 7 years, we have watched as they have accumulated huge debt, historical debt. We have watched as they have chipped away at some of the most important programs that help some of the most desperate people in our country. The American people have had enough. That is what the last election was about. They have had their chance. They have shown us their priorities. And the American people have rejected them. It is now time to create a budget that has a conscience that responds to the needs of the struggling middle class in this country. The Democratic budget that will be offered today will do that and change the course of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5563) to reauthorize and reform the national service laws.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5563, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, the first reauthorization of the national and community service laws and program since 1993.

The legislation we are considering today includes all of the amendments approved last week by voice vote. It also includes the provision on background checks from the Republican motion to recommit. This bill is a bipartisan product.

Through volunteer and community service programs, tens of millions of Americans of different generations have become inspired to build stronger, more vibrant communities to help children succeed in school and rebuild cities in times of disaster.

In 2006, more than 61 million Americans gave back to their communities through service. The GIVE Act recognizes this growing service movement that is taking place across the Nation. It builds upon the successful work being done by members of AmeriCorps, of Vista, of Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America.

The GIVE Act would put us on a path to increasing the number of AmeriCorps members from 75,000 to 100,000 by 2012, with a focus on engaging low-income, disadvantaged, and at-risk young people.

The GIVE Act would also help AmeriCorps members pay for college by increasing the scholarship they earn in exchange for their service from $4,725 to $5,255 by 2012.

This bill would introduce young people to community service by creating a new Summer of Service initiative that will offer middle school and high school students the opportunity to spend a summer working to improve the communities while earning $500 toward college or college preparation.

Alumni of service programs remain a valuable resource to our communities. After Hurricane Katrina devastated the gulf coast communities, AmeriCorps alumni played a key role in relief, recovery, and rebuilding efforts on the gulf coast.

To help tap into these resources in times of emergency, this bill would create an Alumni Reserve Corps to service alumni with previous disaster relief experience.

Each year, nearly a half a million older Americans participate in the Senior Corps programs, mentoring children of prisoners, providing independent living services to seniors, assisting victims of natural disaster, and mobilizing other volunteers.

The GIVE Act would expand the purpose of the Senior Corps programs by adding an emphasis on recruiting retired science, technology, health care, law enforcement, and military professionals to help with education, after-school, public safety, and technology needs.

I want to thank the many Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked on this bill, in particular, Representative McCarthy on our side of the aisle, Representative McKeon and Mr. Platts on the other side, who is handling the bill today for their leadership, as well as the Service Caucus for its support.

Let me also thank the Voices of Service and its member organizations which have been invaluable in helping us develop this legislation.

Service and volunteerism have played an important role in our Nation's history and will continue to help us meet the challenges and the needs of our communities. This legislation reflects the important role and builds upon it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a major champion of this legislation.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say in the two programs the gentleman from Arizona raised, it's exactly why we have the reauthorization so we can go back through those programs and, in fact, as a result of those reviews, the administration has insisted upon substantial changes in those programs which have been carried out and that is why the administration now supports this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the

gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard to sit here and be lectured to by somebody from the other party that ran up an $8 trillion deficit in a matter of 8 years, about $1 trillion a year they succeeded in running up the deficit. But more importantly, I don't know if the gentleman from Illinois was absent last week or he doesn't remember, I don't know which, but we were here last Thursday considering this bill under the rules of the House, under essentially an open rule where every Republican amendment and every Democratic amendment that was requested, I believe, was offered.

The new programs were subjected to a vote of the House because we thought that was fair. They prevailed. We finished the business of this bill last week, and then people decided they wanted to play some games on the motions to recommit, and so that forced us to bring the bill up again this week.

We cannot go back to committee; that would be even more expensive, more time-consuming, and bring back the bill, so we have chosen to do it under suspension. But that's after all of the amendments have been given full consideration. That's why the administration supported the legislation. That's why it has bipartisan support, because it was bipartisan in the committee. I think it was 44-0 that it came out of the committee. It was bipartisan in the Rules Committee. It was bipartisan on the floor until the gentleman's party decided at the last minute that they wanted to try to somehow incorporate the FISA discussion into national service. That was out of order. That was not allowed.

And then Mr. Kuhl decided to offer an amendment, which we asked unanimous consent to accept at that time and we were not allowed to accept it. So, we're back here today. And we're trying to do it in the most expeditious fashion because it costs something to run the House. We shouldn't be back here today. But that's the history, in case the gentleman was absent last week.

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

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

I just want to, before we close debate, thank Mr. Platts and Mrs. McCarthy for all of their hard work. They were really the engines behind this legislation and getting it through the subcommittees and the committees for our consideration here on the floor. I want to thank them very much for that effort.

A couple of speakers suggested that somehow Americans volunteer, so we don't need this act. The fact of the matter is this act builds much more than just volunteers. I volunteer for the Habitat for Humanity. I volunteer in the schools in my district. I volunteer in Coastal Cleanup. I volunteer in community Weed and Seed programs. I volunteer in a lot of efforts. This is also about taking people who would never think of volunteering, young people who come from neighborhoods where that's not an opportunity that they may have necessarily. And it not only gets them into volunteering, but also builds skills. What people really like to have volunteer are people with skills come and volunteer.

It also builds leadership skills, so that those young people can either incorporate their skills in additional volunteering or organize other people to volunteer as they leave these programs. Many of these young people graduate and go into public service. In California, we will find people who will go from one of these programs to the California Conservation Corps to maybe the national parks program, where they end up working and rebuilding the infrastructure of our national parks or public lands or coastal areas of these States.

And when you ask the young people, when you run across them, where did they get their start, they got their start in AmeriCorps or the VISTA program or something like that. They end up maybe later, after they go to school, they come back and they work in the community. That's why one of the things that this legislation does is try to reach out to the alumni of this program, because we now realize how valuable they are to our communities and we want them to continue to participate and continue to organize people who have been the beneficiaries of this program and those who have participated in it as leaders and as participants so that we can build that core.

It's very interesting now, there's a number of people discussing the national defense level of this country, that one of the things we failed to do after 9/11 was build in a resiliency of this country in the event of other another attack. Tragically, after 9/11 the President told the country they didn't have to do anything, if they would just go shopping.

But now what we see is we still don't have the basic infrastructure in our communities to deal with natural disasters, to deal with possible terrorist attacks, to deal with regional-wide problems, whether they be fires, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, or any of that. In fact, what we need is we need volunteers and people with volunteer experience, people with organizing volunteers to start to come together to think about how a community would respond, whether it's a chemical spill, whether it's a chemical plant explosion, whether it's an earthquake or a fire, to respond to help those people, to help those first responders. We've never organized that. But we would like to start thinking about organizing that, and I'm sure when we do, we will be calling upon the professionals that were in VISTA, that were in AmeriCorps, that were in the Senior Corps, that have connections through their business connections, through their community involvement.

So, this program pays many dividends way beyond the idea that this is just about volunteering on a Saturday morning or a Sunday morning with your church. We all do that. But there has to be more. And there has to be avenues for people who aren't encouraged to volunteer, that we can provide that encouragement and we can encourage people to participate with populations that need that kind of assistance. That's the importance of this legislation.

It's unfortunate it has taken so long for us to reauthorize this bill. But what we know is Americans all across this country in every region of this country want to see a greater sense of people giving back to their communities, people volunteering in their communities, organizing people to volunteer, to provide services to their communities. That's what this legislation responds to.

It's been incredibly successful, when you meet the graduates of these programs, when you meet the alumni of these programs. They don't stop there. It becomes part of the ethic of their life. And they continue it in their business, in their professions. They continue that kind of activity because they see the value of it, they've participated in it. And I would hope that my colleagues would give this legislation overwhelming bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1036, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2009, introduced by my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Chairman Spratt.

This Rule will allow this body to debate the economic goals and policies of this great Nation. At a time, when this country is on the verge of a recession and the housing market is at one of its worst points in history, there is little else that is as important as our Nation's fiscal security.

A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the maintenance of historically Black Colleges and Universities. This budget provides greater funding to our Nation's schools and colleges.

We must not only be economically healthy, but assist in the physical health of our citizens. This budget will properly fund SCHIP, to help one of our most vulnerable populations--children. Our President proclaims his support for securing our Nation's current and future economic success. However, it is our children that will bring forth a successful future. We need to invest in tomorrow by investing in them today. This starts with their physical well-being. Children, who cannot see the doctor when they are sick, will not be in anyone's classroom.

For African Americans, health and education concerns spill beyond budgetary issues into the criminal justice consequences. In Texas, over 87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately 48,000 African-Americans attending college or university.

The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus the number of young people in college, particularly in the African- American community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education continues to be one of the main pathways to social and economic mobility, particularly in the African-American and Hispanic communities.

Under the Republican Budget the national debt continues to explode. The gross federal debt reached $9.0 trillion at the end of 2007. The CBO projects that the debt will rise by a total of $3.9 trillion at the end of 2008. This unprecedented rise in debt puts our President in the history books. During the seven years of the current Administration, the government has posted the highest deficits in this Nation's history.The President's 2009 Budget continues the failed policies that brought us to this point.

The amount of foreign debt has doubled since 2001, with most of this increased debt purchased by foreign lenders. Since 2001, the increases in foreign holdings of Treasury securities account for over 80 percent of the newly accumulated public debt--a trend that has more than doubled foreign holding of Treasury securities.

This high level of indebtedness to foreign investors heightens the economy's exposure to potential instability with additional burdens on our children and grandchildren.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to claim that the budget resolution being considered on the floor this week raises taxes, when in fact, the budget resolution does not raise taxes by one penny. The budget resolution accommodates tax cuts and indeed prioritizes tax cuts that would benefit middle-income families, while ensuring that the burden of paying for the tax cuts will not fall undeservedly on our future generations.

Section 501 of the budget resolution specifically calls for additional middle-income tax relief subject to the pay-as-you-go rule, including but not limited to:

AMT relief (both immediate/temporary, and more permanent reform measures);

Extension of ``middle-class'' elements of 2001 tax cuts: child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and 10 percent bracket;

Eliminating the estate tax on all but a minute fraction of estates;

Extension of the research and experimentation tax credit;

Extension of the deduction for state and local taxes;

Extension of small business expensing;

Enactment of a tax credit for school construction bonds; and

Tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy which are accommodated in a separate deficit-neutral reserve fund.

The budget resolution honors PAYGO and the new House rules on using reconciliation in a fiscally responsible way. By abiding by the pay-as- you-go principle, we immediately begin digging our way out of the mountains of debt that have accumulated as a result of the Bush Administration's fiscal policies.

The President's budget and the Republican alternatives violate PAYGO and the fiscal responsibility that reconciliation is intended to achieve, by proposing tax cuts that are not offset.

The sunsets for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were part of the tax legislation which Republicans voted for and passed. The expiration of the tax cuts is their policy. The Democratic budget actually calls for the extension of many of these tax cuts, but responsibly requires that tax cut extensions, like other policies, must be fiscally sound, and not make the deficit worse.

This important piece of legislation gives us a budget that is balanced fiscally and morally.

It does not sacrifice the many programs and services that this Nation needs for a war that the President seems never to end.

Defense of our Nation is important; however, we must not support only one portion of the budget to the detriment of everything else. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1036 and the Democratic Budget for FY2009.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

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

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before

consideration of any order of business other than one motion

that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a

procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign

intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment

thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the

Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate

amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without

intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and

the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are about to decide which path we want to take in America. We are about to decide what budget is right for Americans. Well, let's think about what Americans are facing today as we consider their budget for the next 5 years. What's happening in America today?

Well, joblessness is up. The economy is in a downturn. It may be going into a recession. Prices are up. People are having a hard time to afford the cost of living. Gas prices are at an all-time high. Health care costs are at an all-time high and growing very fast. Home heating costs are very high. And it's a lot more expensive just to pay for food today because food prices are up. So the question is, as we debate the values that are underneath this budget, can the American people afford this Democratic budget?

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to try to say all day today they're not raising taxes. We really aren't, believe us, trust us.

Well, my friends, numbers don't lie. And this budget is a series of numbers. And the numbers they're bringing before this House in their budget resolution requires, assumes, banks, plans on the largest tax increase in American history.

When we looked at the 1993 budget that passed last decade, even then Senator Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, a very, very wise man, a statesman, adored by both sides, said at that time that that was the largest tax increase in history. That tax increase was $241 billion. Under the same logic, under the same math, under the same process that we have here today, the tax increase in this budget is $683 billion.

But let's look at what kinds of taxes we're talking about. And this begs the question, can the American people afford this budget? This increases the marriage penalty in 2\1/2\ years. Can the American people afford that? It cuts the $1,000 child tax credit in half. It eliminates the marriage penalty tax relief and increases marginal tax rates. It eliminates capital gains and dividends relief, and it brings back the death tax.

Let's take a look at what the numbers are. Income tax rates go up across the board to the top rate of almost 40 percent. Capital gains and dividends, which are the taxes on our pensions and our savings and our 401(k)s, go up across the board as high as 40 percent. The death tax comes back in to 55 percent. The marriage penalty comes and hits an average of $1,400 per couple. The child tax credit goes from $1,000 down to $500. And the lowest tax bracket goes from 10 percent up to 15 percent.

Let me just give you some numbers of what this will mean to average Americans. Roughly 116 million taxpayers will see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,833. An estimated 84 million women would sustain, on average, a tax increase of $2,121. Approximately 48 million married couples would incur an average tax increase of over $3,000. Taxes would increase by an average of $2,323 for 43 million families with children. Some 12 million single women with children would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,091. For 18 million elderly individuals, taxes would increase, on average, $2,181. And the tax bills for 27 million small business owners would rise, on average, by more than $4,000. More than 6 million taxpayers who previously owed no taxes at all would become subject to the individual income tax as a consequence of the tax increase in this budget.

These aren't rich people. These are ordinary Americans working paycheck to paycheck trying to get by. The problem we have today is our paychecks aren't going as far as they did before because we have rising gas prices, high home heating costs, high health care costs.

So the question is, can the American people afford this budget?

I ask people watching this to send us your e-mail. Give us a call. Call your Member of Congress and tell us, is that what you want us to do?

And the more important question is, should we balance the budget? Yes.

Both Republicans and Democrats say we ought to balance the budget. Here's the difference: We believe we ought to balance the budget by controlling spending, not by raising taxes. And, unfortunately, what the Democrats choose to do is increase spending and taxes.

So their budget will show, by the Congressional Budget Office in their numbers, they will achieve balance. The way they achieve balance is they spend an extra $280 billion over 5 years, but they increase taxes a whole lot more than that to get to a balanced budget.

What's more important about this budget for our children and grandchildren is not the economic damage that would be done by this budget with these huge tax increases for every income taxpayer, for married people, for people with children, for small businesses, for farmers, for investors. What really is troubling about this budget is not as much as what is in this budget, the largest tax increase in history. What's really almost the most troubling about this budget is doing nothing, doing nothing to save money, doing nothing to reform our entitlement programs. We just heard my friend from Texas. I'm on two committees with the gentleman. He said a $3 trillion increase in debt over the last 5 years. This budget proposes, in just two programs, to increase the debt by $14 trillion.

Let me go through that again. By doing nothing to rescue and save Social Security and Medicare, this budget proposes, by its own virtue, to increase the debt to those two programs by $14 trillion.

We have an obligation to the next generation to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. We have an obligation to the next generation to leave them with a better fiscal state.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle have chosen to walk away from that responsibility. They have chosen to have more money to spend today, to raise taxes, and to make matters worse for the next generation.

We think that's the wrong way to go. We don't think the American people at this time of economic downturn, at this time of high prices, we can afford a tax increase of all times. We don't think there ever should be a time where we increase taxes, because you know what, Mr. Speaker? Washington doesn't have a tax revenue problem; Washington has a spending problem. And our friends on the other side of the aisle are making it worse by not only increasing spending but even increasing taxes.

That's the wrong recipe for this Congress. That's the wrong message to send our children and grandchildren. And that's the dead wrong thing to do at a time of high prices and economic downturn.

I think we should vote this budget down and do so on behalf of our children and our grandchildren and the American taxpayer so we can give a chance to our economy to actually grow. You're not going to grow an economy by giving us the largest tax increase in American history. That's for certain.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, there are only two ways to balance a budget, whether it's your family budget or the Federal budget. You can either spend less, or you can increase the amount of money coming in. The majority, as reflected in their budget, have flat out rejected option one and have chosen higher spending, higher taxes, and an ever-growing Federal Government.

The Republicans have chosen what I believe is a more responsible approach by committing to spending less and letting workers, families and small businesses keep more of their hard-earned income to save, invest, and spend as they see fit.

While Republicans have faith in the ability of families and workers to decide how best to use their paychecks, the majority budget reflects their belief that the Federal Government can make better choices at spending money than individual Americans. And that's really a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

In order for the majority to fund their government spending, their budget raises taxes, Mr. Speaker, by two-thirds of a trillion dollars over the next 5 years. Let me repeat that, two-thirds of a trillion dollars.

Now, you can call this a tax increase or you can call it letting tax cuts expire, but the bottom line is that under the Democrats' budget every American will pay more of their paycheck to the Federal Government.

Although the majority will try to claim otherwise, the numbers in their own budget document show that taxes will increase nearly three times more under their budget than the largest enacted tax increase to date in history, making this the largest tax increase in American history.

While the majority claims that their budget will protect middle-class families, their budget numbers tell a different story. Under the massive tax increases in the majority's budget, the average taxpayer in the State of Florida, for example, will see their annual tax bill rise over $3,000.

The majority's budget does not extend tax relief from the marriage tax penalty. This means approximately 48 million married couples will face an average tax increase of $3,000 a year. It does not extend the $1,000 tax credit that many young families use. The majority's budget would cut that credit in half. It doesn't extend the State sales tax deductibility fairness. The majority's budget, Mr. Speaker, even manages to resurrect the death tax. It doesn't fix the alternative minimum tax for middle-class families. It does not protect those who pay the lowest tax rate either. It would again impose taxes on six million lower income Americans who now pay no taxes thanks to the 2001 tax relief law passed by Congress.

Mr. Speaker, in order to boost our economy to incentivize growth, increase investment in the United States and create jobs, Congress should not be raising taxes by the largest amount in history. This critically important tax relief should not be repealed or allowed to expire to pay for the majority's spending plan. It should be made permanent.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, ranking member of the Budget Committee, in my view, the premier economic mind in the Congress of the United States (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr. McGovern if he has any additional speakers.

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

On February 14, the majority decided to leave Washington to take a Presidents Day recess and allowed the Protect America Act to expire 2 days later, rendering U.S. intelligence officials unable to begin new terrorist surveillance without cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles. At the end of this week, the House and Senate plan to adjourn for a 2-week district work period. Therefore, we only have a few days left to address one very important issue, and that is taking action on permanently modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

This didn't have to happen, Mr. Speaker. In February, the Senate passed, by a bipartisan vote of 68-29, legislation updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, a bill that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said ``is the right way to go, in terms of the security of the Nation.''

We could have easily considered that legislation. But the majority, instead, decided to head home. And they may just do that again this week. The House should vote on the Senate measure, and we should do it now. We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish harm on Americans. Now is not the time to, in any way, tie the

hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critical national security priority.

I am pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree. On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to the Speaker in support of the Senate FISA legislation. The letter states, ``The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism around the globe and save American lives here in our country.''

Today, I will give all Members of the House an opportunity to vote on the bipartisan, long-term modernization of FISA. I call on all my colleagues, including members of the Blue Dog Coalition that signed the letter to the Speaker, to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law.

I will remind my colleagues that defeating the previous question will not prohibit consideration of the budget, but would merely require that we first take a vote on FISA.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that helps protect American lives from international terrorism.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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