Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1046 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1046 is a same-day rule that allows the consideration today of certain legislation that may be reported from the Rules Committee.

Specifically, it allows for the consideration or disposition of a bill to authorize the trial by military commission for violations of the laws of war, a bill to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and the Homeland Security appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2007: Three very significant pieces of legislation that need to move through this body before we break for the October District Work Period.

It is imperative that we pass this same-day rule. This resolution lays the foundation so that the House can complete its business and send outstanding legislation to the Senate and to the President's desk. We are working to move this process along toward the adjournment of the 109th Congress.

The House Committee on Rules will meet later today to provide the rules for possible consideration of these items, such as the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the legislation to deal with these violations of the laws of war, modernizing our approach to dealing with terrorists and those who plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic, who fly planes into the symbols of our military power, the symbols of our economic power, those who would blow up our embassies, those who would target innocent civilians in a

way that is unprecedented in the history of modern warfare, as well as legislation to update and modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Obviously, you can tell by the title of the act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, that it is badly in need of reauthorization. Clearly, technology changes, the sophistication of communications, and the diversity of the threats that face this Nation all beg for us to act and modernize that legislation so that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to prevent future attacks on American soil and to protect our forces and our civilians abroad.

I am pleased this same-day rule will facilitate the timely deliberation, discussion, debate of these important issues. I urge my colleagues to support this. This is a procedural motion that allows us to move forward with the meat and potatoes that are important for the safety and security of this country, those legislative items that will be considered later in the day.

So this is an important procedural obstacle that we need to clear out of the way to allow for consideration of these items so that we can move forward to the remaining agenda items for this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments on the prescription drug debate, the energy debate, and the student loan debate. I would remind my friend that we are here to facilitate action on the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act modernization, and the military tribunals bill, and with her help we can move this procedure along and continue to act on behalf of the American people to make them safer.

Madam Speaker, we need to get the boots on the ground to secure our borders, the money for 1,200 new Border Patrol agents, new Customs officials, and the modernization and authorization for our intelligence and law enforcement officials to utilize the best technology and the best communications to prevent and disrupt any potential plans to attack our homeland. Those are the items that are embodied in this bill that we are considering at this time, and, as I said, with her assistance we can move forward and then be able to again address the other issues that she mentioned, on top of the work that we have already done in passing three major energy bills in the past 18 months that deal not only with fossil fuels and the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, that deal with the expansion of refining capacity in this country, which was largely blocked by the other side of the aisle, an energy policy that provides prizes in the form of monetary grants to those innovative individuals around America who find the next big thing, who can innovate on a hydrogen type of fuel cell or the hybrid and continuing to build on that, building on the tax incentives that we passed through this body that encourage people to purchase hybrid vehicles, looking at renewables, solar, and wind.

All of those things, Madam Speaker, are part of the energy bills that we have passed in this House, and now we need to pass these items of important national security. That is what this bill does.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman protests too much because he failed to acknowledge that he had an opportunity to vote on the minimum wage on this floor in this body. He had an opportunity to vote to extend tax credits for research and development, something that is certainly important to California, his home State, the birthplace of the silicone revolution and which allows us to keep on the cutting edge of the economy.

The research and development tax credits allow us to compete in the global marketplace so that companies can be global headhunters and bring in the best talent from around the world, create jobs and build businesses here in this country. Not only did he vote against the minimum wage for the lowest end of the workforce spectrum, but he voted against extending those same incentives to invest in laboratories, to invest in innovation, to invest in intellectual capital in this country at the high end of the workforce spectrum as well.

He also denied the opportunity for 10 States in this country to be able to extend the sales tax deductibility, the

same type of State and local deductibility that other states enjoy on a regular basis in this country. And he denied hundreds of thousands of small businesses around this country and family farms the opportunity to keep what they have built, to allow their business to pass from one generation to another.

He has had the opportunity to vote on a minimum wage, and he chose to vote against it. I think he protests too much about the success of the agenda that this House has put forward.

When it comes to education, we have increased student loan limits from $3,500 for first-year students to $3,500 and to $4,500 for second- year students. There are now 1 million more students today receiving Pell grants than there were 5 years ago. That is substantial progress in higher education, investing in the future, investing in the intellectual capital of this country. That is the real story.

And what is it that prevents him from talking about the actual issue at hand? Why can't we hear from the other side as much eloquence about the need to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Why don't we hear the same eloquence about the need to complete our work on the Homeland Security appropriations bill, which will continue the work of securing our border, add 1,200 new Border Patrol agents, add new Customs agents, continue to make our ports safer, continue to build on the good work that goes on throughout this country by hard-working men and women who are doing their best to prevent future terrorist attacks?

Why can't he talk with the same eloquence, the same emotion, the same passion, about the need to pass meaningful legislation on tribunals to deal with those terrorists who have already been captured trying to do great harm to this country? Those are the issues before this House, and that is the debate that is missing from the other side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman asked me a question. I'm happy to answer. I'll provide him a list of farms in Central Florida.

Would the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman has been on this floor a number of years longer than I have, and certainly he understands the rules. But he also understands it is normal procedure that when one Member asks a question of another Member, that surely it is appropriate for the other Member to rise and ask that that Member yield so they may be given the opportunity to answer.

I regret the personal tone that this debate has taken, because these are important issues, these are important challenges our Nation faces. And the simple fact is, the gentleman doesn't want me to answer those questions, because he knows that we have acted in each and every one of those cases.

Since the beginning of Medicare, the Democratic majority did not take advantage of the opportunity to modernize it so that it actually helped the people it was intended to serve by providing them a prescription drug benefit. It was this majority that provided that. Today, millions of Americans have access to prescription drugs who did not have that same access under the old regime.

Why is there such a bitterness that Wal-Mart and Target and other chain drugstores who will undoubtedly follow have used the marketplace to lower drug costs? Are you so angry that the government didn't force them to do it? Are you so angry that they responded to market conditions, and today millions of people will be able to get $4 pills without the government having to have intervened?

Does it require a fiat to make you feel fulfilled? The simple fact that they made a good business decision through competitive forces in the marketplace and they lowered prices and people will benefit and consumers will benefit, and they will be healthier and they will live longer lives, does it make you angry that that did not come out of this body, that it didn't come out of some law, some decree? Is that what the bitterness comes from, that the market worked?

There are good things coming out of this body, but, more importantly, Madam Speaker, good things come from functioning markets. $4 pills by the largest retailer in the world that didn't come out of legislation, that didn't come by fiat, that didn't come by decree. It came because market forces worked, and consumers benefit and patients are healthier and patients have access to pills at a lower cost than they would have before.

This is a same-day rule to deal with foreign intelligence surveillance, to

deal with Homeland Security appropriations and military tribunals. Let's move it forward.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was wondering whether the gentleman from Wisconsin might want to share some parliamentary lessons with the gentlewoman from Texas as he did with me.

I would be happy to yield.

The gentleman took great umbrage at me asking to yield to answer his question.

Reclaiming my time.

Reclaiming my time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am reclaiming my time. I offered you the time. I reclaimed it. That is my understanding of how the situation works. And we heed the gavel.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to a member of the Appropriations and Select Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Madam Speaker, I remind the gentleman again that the House had an opportunity to pass a minimum wage bill, and we passed it over the objections of the other side of the aisle. We passed it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I am glad he does not represent the collectivist view of some on the other side of the aisle in that he appreciates that market forces, not government decree or government fiat, are driving down prices. I am glad that he recognizes the role that free enterprise plays in delivering better, faster, cheaper health care to patients in need.

This bill before us, though, Mr. Speaker, is about updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, moving forward on homeland security appropriations, and moving forward on a tribunal issue so that we deal with the terrorists who have already waged war on American soil and those who have been collected in the battlefield in the subsequent conflicts. This is the issue before us.

While there has been a great deal of passion and bitterness thrown around this Chamber, this is a same-day rule to move forward on those three items.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, in my short 6 years here, I don't think I have ever seen nerves so raw on a same-day rule. It is, I think, a function of the calendar, a function of the end of the session where temperatures run high and passions are certainly in overdrive as we all are watching the clock wind down and wanting to make our points to the American people.

The points that are embodied in this legislation before us at this moment are keeping America secure. Most of the debate on this same-day rule has not been on the topic at hand.

We have successfully passed Medicare modernization, something that was not accomplished in the previous 40 years. It was this majority that accomplished that and gave seniors the modern access to prescription drugs that they did not have previously.

It was this Congress that delivered not one but three substantial energy independence bills.

Bills that would allow us to reduce our reliance on countries that often don't like us for the economic lifeblood that this Nation requires, by expanding our own capacity, expanding exploration, expanding refining capacity, expanding renewables, putting an emphasis on American agriculture so that we can grow our way to energy independence, investing in renewables like solar and wind and hydroelectric, investing in long-term technologies like hydrogen. That was this Congress that passed those items in three different vehicles, including a passage that would have fixed the Clinton administration's billion dollar giveaway to Big Oil in the Gulf. That was this Congress that passed that legislation, over the objections of the minority.

The issue at hand is homeland security appropriations, the funds that are necessary to put boots on the ground on the border; to hire 1,200 new Border Patrol agents; to expand the Customs capabilities; to use the technology and communications capacity that this great Nation brings to bear to break up, disrupt, and arrest terrorists who are plotting to do us harm. That is in this bill.

To update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Surely, surely, there must be agreement that this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 should be modernized to reflect things like the cell phone, multiple access to the Internet, all the tools the terrorists use to plot against innocent women and children and civilians and our military personnel at home and abroad. This is the vehicle to accomplish that. This is the vehicle that allows us to move those items that are so important to this agenda.

We have already moved the energy items they were talking about. Passed. We have already passed out of this body a minimum wage that they were so eloquent and so passionate about. Many voted against it, but it passed this body under this majority. We have passed the prescription drug plan. We have increased the number of students benefiting from Pell Grants.

But this piece of legislation that nobody wanted to talk about deals with national security, protecting our people, securing our borders, listening to the bad guys, locking them up and keeping them from doing future harm.

Let us move this same-day resolution. Let us move this agenda to keep America safe, secure, and prosperous. Let us continue to have a free society that creates free enterprise, that creates capitalism so that companies can choose to do things like lower drug prices on their own, not by government decree. Let us foster that type of environment. Let us foster the type of research and development and the investments that are required for research and development that were opposed by the other side when we moved the minimum wage bill. Let us continue to press on with that agenda, the secure America agenda, the economic prosperity agenda, and embrace the free enterprise and entrepreneurs. That is the agenda that we are moving forward in this same day.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1052 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. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to this floor House Resolution 1052. The resolution is a rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. H.R. 5825 relates to the manner in which the Federal Government collects oral, wire, and electronic communications for foreign intelligence purposes.

In order to safeguard fourth amendment protections, Congress has created procedures to allow limited law enforcement access to private communications and communication records. Specifically, Congress enacted title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 that outlines what is and what is not permissible with regard to wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping.

Title III of the Crime Control Act authorizes the use of electronic surveillance for specific crimes. While Congress did not cover national security cases in the Crime Control Act, it did include a disclaimer that the wiretap laws did not affect the President's constitutional duty to protect our national security.

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically invited Congress to establish similar standards for domestic intelligence that were established for criminal investigations.

Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, FISA, to prescribe procedures for foreign intelligence that is collected domestically. FISA authorized the Federal Government to collect intelligence within the United States on foreign powers and agents of foreign powers. It established a special court to review and authorize or deny wiretapping and other forms of electronic eavesdropping for purposes of foreign intelligence gathering in domestic surveillance cases. FISA was enacted by Congress to secure the integrity of the fourth amendment, while protecting the national security interests of the United States by providing a mechanism for the domestic collection of foreign intelligence information.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act is to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to strengthen oversight of the executive branch concerning electronic surveillance and intelligence and to provide clear electronic surveillance authority to the national intelligence agencies in the event of a terrorist attack, armed attack, or imminent threat against this Nation.

FISA was originally constructed in 1978, more than 25 years ago. Changes in technology have caused an unintentional shift in the focus and reach of FISA. The complexity, variety, and means of communications technology has since mushroomed exponentially, while the world has become more interconnected. Think of the revolution in communications technology that has occurred in the past 25 years. The cellular technology, wireless technology, the development and explosion of Internet access, all communications tools, all technologies that allow those who would plot terrorist acts against our people to use and access in a readily available form.

We now have terrorists in remote camps who can easily communicate globally with cells around the world and within this country through the use of wireless technology and satellites. Think of the images from Afghanistan of broadcasts through wireless laptop devices using satellite technology from a cave.

The structure of our surveillance laws has remained confined to the technology of a generation-old copper wire telephone, while the terrorists are utilizing every technology and communication device at their disposal.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence received testimony that the current provisions of FISA are ``dangerously obsolete.'' H.R. 5825 modernizes the law in a number of critical respects. It updates FISA to make it technology neutral and neutral as to the means of communication. Provisions now apply to a land line phone as well as cellular and wireless modes of communication.

This legislation streamlines the surveillance approval process to keep the focus on gaining knowledge of those who would do harm to the United States while protecting the civil liberties of average Americans. It gives our intelligence personnel the necessary tools to help detect and prevent acts of terrorism and to respond to terrorist attacks.

As reported, the bill also ensures that adequate authority exists to conduct necessary electronic surveillance when a threat of imminent attack exists. The Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act also enhances congressional and judicial oversight of U.S. Government electronic surveillance activities to ensure that activities conducted under both FISA and the authorities in this bill will be utilized by the President only, only, with the knowledge and coordination of the other branches of government.

More broadly than just FISA, the bill also addresses the fundamental separation of powers concerns expressed by Members through amendments to the National Security Act by providing express authority for the chairman of the congressional Intelligence Committees to broaden their reporting on sensitive issues to additional members of the committee at his or her discretion on a bipartisan basis in necessary circumstances.

H.R. 5825 enhances the overall authorities of our Nation to act as a whole to protect itself in times of war and heightened threat of attack, both terrorist and otherwise.

I am pleased with the efforts of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee. This bill is an excellent example of how Congress and the executive branch can work together to ensure our national security. I thank Chairman Hoekstra and Chairman Sensenbrenner and all the members of the committees for their work. I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my colleague on the Rules Committee, to talk about the issue at hand, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the sponsor of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to one of the architects of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just rise to point out to the Members that we are here to modernize the FISA bill of 1978, and I ask Members to think about all of the changes in sophistication and accessibility of communication devices today.

Think about your own e-mail, your own BlackBerry, your own cell phone, your own laptop, your own desktop, just the handful of things that are directly involved in this line of work, in any routine business in America. All of those things offer multiple avenues per device to communicate around the world in an instantaneous manner at almost no cost.

Tracking that type of communication device, when it is being used by people who would fly airliners into the World Trade Center; when it is being used by people who would fly an airliner full of innocent women and children and students on field trips, and bands who have spent all year having car washes to be able to go on that trip into the center of our defense might, the symbol of our Armed Services, into the Pentagon; the kind of people who would plot to blow up 10 more airliners as recently as 5 weeks ago.

Now, it seems odd to me that that is a difficult choice, that we would want not to give all the tools possible to our law enforcement and intelligence officials. The plot that was broken up in London several weeks ago reflected two things to me: one, that we are still in grave danger; that the enemy is still, to this day, 5 years after 9/11, getting up every morning, going to bed late every night thinking of ways to destroy not just the United States, not just our allies, but those who share our values, Western Civilization in general: Madrid, Spain; London, England; the Danish, because of their free speech; and the United States are just some of the most blatant examples. We are still very much in danger. That is the first lesson of the disruption of that plot.

The second lesson of the disruption of that plot is that legislation that has passed in this country and in the U.K. in the 5 years since 9/ 11 worked, tearing down walls that separate discussions between intelligence gatherers and law enforcement. That legislation worked. Tracking financial transactions to be

able to follow money from Hamburg to Pakistan, back to London to the ticket agent where people are about to board an airplane that they intend to blow up worked. Tracking communications among terrorists works.

If a laptop is discovered in a cave in Afghanistan, and you look on their contacts list; if a cell phone is picked up in a desk drawer in a hotel in Islamabad and you look at who their frequently called numbers are, don't you think that says a lot about that person and who they are talking to? Certainly if you look at your own it says an awful lot about you, who your friends are, who your stockbroker is, what your wife's cell phone number is. Look at your own device. And we use that same common sense, that same investigative approach to the terrorists.

So when we look at the laptop or when we look at the cell phone in Islamabad or London or Hamburg or New York and there are numbers on there from a known al Qaeda operative to someone in the United States, we ought to be on that number as quickly as possible.

Anything else is an assault on common sense. We must move as quickly, as efficiently as possible, using every technology at our disposal to prevent terrorist attacks, to disrupt terrorist attacks, and to bring to justice the people who are planning them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, it is my desire to bring this focus back to the issue at hand and bring something of a commonsense approach to this.

We are trying to modernize the FISA Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Since 1978, there has been a technology revolution in communications: the Internet, cell phones, laptops, desktops for under $500, immediate, rapid, global, affordable communications on demand, satellite phones, GPS for $99. The bottom line is the terrorists can communicate, conspire, organize, recruit and train on a global basis from any spider hole, cave or clubhouse anywhere in the world.

We have to modernize the legislation that allows our intelligence agencies and our law enforcement officials to track down those bad guys, not after they have blown up the World Trade Center or after they have flown a plane into the Pentagon, but before they do those things. In other words, a September 12th mentality, as opposed to a September 10th mentality, the idea that we have to recommit ourselves to the notion that we are very much at war and that we are very much in grave danger by these radicals who have at their disposal all the tools that modern technology can provide and we are arming our law enforcement officials with 25-year-old authority.

To change that, to bring us out of the copper wire telephone world into the wireless, cellular satellite world, we have to pass this legislation. By passing this legislation, we can be assured that we are giving them everything that they need to disrupt terror attacks on our soil.

It seems to me to be a no-brainer that we should give them the tools to listen to anyone who is in regular communication with a member of al Qaeda, to anyone who is in regular communication with someone whose laptop is seized in a cave in Afghanistan after a firefight with allied forces, whose records are found in the desk drawer of a hotel in Hamburg that has been traced to be money laundering through Pakistan, through the European Union, through London, to set up cells in the United States, to buy airplane tickets, to send people to flight school.

Those are the tools that we have to give our law enforcement officials and intelligence agencies, just like the tools that we gave them when we tore down the walls that separated them and prevented them from communicating, just like the tools we gave them to track the movement of money that the terrorists were handling and these nation states who fund the terrorists were handling. Those are the tools that we give to reflect the nature of this global war on terror and to reflect the realities of modern communication technologies.

It is vitally important that we pass this bill. To pass the bill, we have to pass this rule.

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

Previous Question for H. Res.--H.R. 5825--Electronic Surveillance

Modernization Act

At the end of the resolution add the following new

Sections:

Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provisions in this

resolution and without intervention of any point of order it

shall be in order immediately upon adoption of this

resolution for the House to consider the bill listed in Sec.

:

Sec. . The bills referred to in Sec. . are as follows:

1) a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11

Commission.

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 Republican 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 Republican

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 Republican

Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United

States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).

Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question

vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not

possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

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 Republican

majority's agenda 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, on rollcall No. 434 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Much has been made about the role of Florida in this debate because Florida has been offered a tremendous opportunity to participate in this debate as a result of the leadership of Mr. Pombo and Mr. Jindal.

There are things about this bill that give Florida protections she does not enjoy today. Currently, the entire east coast of Florida is unprotected. This bill protects it. Currently, the Keys are completely unprotected. This bill protects them.

There are those who say that 100 miles is too close, who also cosponsored a bill in 1997 that would have allowed it right at 100 miles. There are those who say that the legislature shouldn't have a say in what their State does or does not do, who proudly served in the legislature, many times in leadership positions.

This is not a perfect bill. No bill that ever leaves here and heads to conference is. But it gives Florida protections she does not now enjoy. It gives Floridians control over Florida's coasts, where the chances of Florida having Florida's future in Florida's hands are 100 percent as opposed to what they are in this Congress, where they make up 25 out of 435.

It gives Floridians concrete proof, written-in-stone protection from our Department of Defense and the military mission line, thanks to the leadership of Mr. Young and Mr. Miller working with the committee to insert into this bill, along with Mr. Boyd, the definition of that military mission line, which now further aligns this House bill with our two Florida Senators' proposal.

This is a huge step forward from where we are. And the bottom line in this debate is that if we do nothing, unlike most other issues that come before this House, if we do nothing, bad things do happen. Because the moratorium that Floridians have slept under the protection of for the last 25 years begins to expire as soon as 2007, and it continues on in the expiration into 2012 when drilling will be far closer to our coast than anyone wants in this Chamber.

So I commend the gentleman for his leadership. I urge people to support the bill, I urge them to give every consideration to the Bilirakis amendment, and let us move this thing forward.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 886 and ask for its immediate consideration

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 886 is the rule that provides for debate of H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006.

As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, the two committees of jurisdiction for the underlying legislation, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for our consideration.

The Legislative Line Item Veto Act is the product of years of work on both sides of the aisle in Congress and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. The original Line Item Veto Act was signed into law in April of 1996. It was later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its 1998 ruling on Clinton v. The City of New York. In each Congress since 1998, there have been multiple proposals from both parties to give the President constitutional line item veto authority.

In his State of the Union address this year, President Bush stated: ``I am pleased that Members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the Federal budget has too many special interest projects. And we can tackle this problem together if you pass the line item veto.''

This subtle, but powerful, statement gave momentum to the effort to consider a constitutional option to the original Line Item Veto Act. The statement was followed up by an official message from the President to Congress in which he specifically asked Congress to consider his proposed Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, which was subsequently introduced by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

This legislation is based on an expedited rescissions approach to controlling spending that has been historically supported by both Democrats and Republicans as a means of bringing greater transparency and accountability to the budget and spending process. In fact, during the early 1990s, and again in 2004, expedited rescissions proposals that would have provided the President with the ability to propose the cancellation of spending items and special interest tax breaks and have them considered by Congress on an expedited basis were widely supported by Members of both parties. The Expedited Rescissions Act of 1993 was introduced by the ranking member, the Democratic leader on the Budget Committee, and received 258 votes on the House floor, including 174 Democrats. The Expedited Rescissions Act of 1994, another bill sponsored by the ranking member on the Budget Committee, received 342 votes on the House floor, including 173 Democrats. In 2004, the Ryan- Stenholm bipartisan Expedited Rescissions amendment received 174 votes on the floor, including 45 Democrats, one of which was the ranking Budget Committee member.

The current version of H.R. 4890 is also the product of that bipartisan effort. Based on input from Members from both sides of the aisle, it is narrowly drafted to meet the intent of allowing the President to work with the Congress to reduce wasteful spending, while preserving the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. This legislative line item veto ensures that the power of the purse remains in the hands of Congress, where our Founding Fathers placed it and intended it to remain. Both the House and the Senate must affirm the President's vetoed spending. We will vote on any items the President selects. Congress maintains the final say on where and how and if the funding in question occurs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ryan, the Budget Committee, and the Rules Committee for creating legislation that will enable this Congress to maintain control of our spending priorities at both the beginning and the end of the budget process. This legislation is another example of the Republican-led Congress and our President pushing forward with fiscal discipline.

I urge members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Florida, a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committees, Mr. Crenshaw.

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my friend that on the three previous occasions there has been an opportunity to vote on this issue, 173 Democrats one time, 173 Democrats another time and 45 Democrats at another time all joined the cast members at his theater.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Tennessee I am sure he did not mean to impugn or personalize the debate against any given chairman in this Chamber.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

I thank my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a leader on our Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker, and I would inform my friend from Florida that I have no further speakers and we prepared to close as well.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an important debate. It has been a good debate about an issue that has been around for a long time, and it has been around under a variety of iterations, the first version having been found unconstitutional, as my friend from Florida pointed out, and read to us from the Constitution. But because of that, the sponsor of this bill has adjusted it so that it is written in a constitutional form, and it is written in a constitutional form because it leaves the power of the purse in the hands of Congress, as the gentleman pointed out in article I of the Constitution.

It says that we have yet another resource for the President and the Congress to work together to eliminate wasteful spending which we all know exists in this town, but it says that the final say-so rests with the Congress, so the final power of the purse remains in the legislative branch, a very important point.

My friend also overlooks the fact that in these different versions that have been around and most recently have been around in almost identical form to what we are hearing and debating today, there has been support for the Democratic-sponsored version of 174 Democrats when President Clinton was the one who would get the line item veto; in 1994, under the sponsorship of a Democrat, 173 Democrats supporting; in 2004, a bipartisan-sponsored bill, 45 Democrats supporting. Apparently there was a change of heart depending on who the President was in office, whether there was Democratic support for the line item veto; 174 votes for the line item veto when President Clinton was in office, only 45 when President Bush was in office.

But be that as it may, this remains a bipartisan issue. It is an institutional issue. And this effort is carefully crafted to protect this institution, this legislative branch, so that the power of the purse rests with us; but we have expanded the ability to root out wasteful spending.

This is an important issue. I urge the House to adopt the rule and adopt the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of American efforts to rid the world of terrorism and help democracy take root in a region long controlled by hostile dictators and murderous regimes.

All around the world we are working to eradicate terrorists and their organizations. Iraq has emerged as a central battlefield of this war, a battlefield where Saddam was captured in a hole and is now in jail, where Zarqawi met his demise, and where insurgents and jihadists are fighting and losing to the might and skill of coalition forces. Most importantly, it is a battlefield far, far from the shores, schools, neighborhoods, and cities of America.

I recently traveled to Iraq with our Speaker and was able to meet with the Prime Minister and other key government officials, as well as our U.S. commanders overseeing the operations. I was impressed by what I saw, but I was more impressed by what I heard from the servicemen and women themselves. Morale is high, and they are confident in the success of this mission.

Iraqi citizens have embraced freedom and have now voted in three national elections, each garnering wider and broader support. Iraq now has a constitution, a parliament, a president, a prime minister and a fully formed cabinet. What is more, this new government reflects a broad ethic and sectarian balance, a balance that will help ensure the needs and voices of all Iraqis are represented.

Ultimately, it is that freely elected government that is the most important success of this effort, elected leaders who are Iraqi first, and all other identities second, interested, invested in the future of their own country, of their own people. These Iraqi founding fathers face great challenges, no doubt. But what opportunity is more powerful than freedom from tyranny?

We must remain committed through patience and hard work to help this new government succeed.

I support this resolution. I support the rule that is allowing this resolution to come forward and the manner in which it was created. And I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this important affirmation of the hard work of America's servicemen and women.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow my good friend, Coach Osborne, to also address the malignment of our Speaker of this great House. No one cares more about the institution of this House than Denny Hastert. No one believes in the integrity of this House more than Denny Hastert. No Member is more aware of the need for us to be worthy of the respect and dignity that voters place in us when they elect us to serve in this House.

I want to reiterate that the Department of Justice for the second time has affirmed that there is no investigation into the Speaker of this House. And I quote from their release from Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, ``With regard to reports suggesting that the Speaker of House is under investigation or `in the mix' as stated by ABC News, I reconfirm, as stated by the Department earlier this evening, that these reports are untrue.''

Two separate statements now from the Department of Justice exonerating the Speaker, saying that he is not under investigation, and yet ABC news continues to malign his good name and his reputation. Stand behind the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 194 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to submit an amendment to assist States dealing with the increasing problem of alligator attacks.

As you may know, just in the past week there have been a number of attacks resulting in three human fatalities, just in the State of Florida. Florida is not the only State that has to deal with this problem. Citizens across Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas have all been victims of alligator attacks, often deadly, over the years.

The number of alligator complaints received by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission continues to grow. Last year there were over 18,000 complaints alone, which resulted in the removal of over 7,000 alligators.

Unfortunately, with three deaths in 1 week, current efforts are insufficient to prevent these attacks. I rise today to offer an amendment to add $500,000 to the monies available to the States to hire trappers and expand alligator trapping activities.

Our support for nuisance alligator programs helps provide the critical resources States need to respond and remove these alligators, as well as educate the public on the prevention of these attacks.

Across the gulf coast and throughout the South, these attacks are increasing in frequency and severity and this amendment will help the States obtain the resources they need to accelerate their trapping program as we continue to face this challenge of an urban interface with the wildlife that are listed as threatened only because of their resemblance to the American crocodile.

There is no population concern whatsoever with the alligator.

And I thank my colleagues for their support and urge adoption of the amendment.

I see that the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee has risen, and I would be happy to yield to him for any comments.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, certainly I recognize the difficult position that Mr. Dicks and Mr. Taylor are in in crafting an appropriate spending bill for this area. I appreciate the gentleman's expression of concern about this problem. Obviously being from the South, he understands the issues we are dealing with, and I hope that we will be able to work something out in conference toward that end.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from Washington.

We appreciate that. Obviously, the Wildlife Grant Fund is something that is a formula-driven process and was an imperfect vehicle, but we certainly wanted to take this opportunity to make the important case for doing everything we can to ameliorate what has become a deadly situation this alligator mating season.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage my good friend from Texas. This is an issue that the State of Florida and other coastal areas have been dealing with for the past 25 years in terms of the appropriateness of the moratorium. This particular issue is one that has obviously reached critical mass, with the shortages of natural gas that we are facing and the high price of gas that consumers are dealing with.

However, this is an important balancing act that this Congress must consider very carefully. Whatever we do as it relates to offshore drilling ought to be done in a comprehensive manner, it ought to have the input of the States, and it ought to recognize the sensitive areas.

My friend from Texas makes a very important point about the economic necessity and, frankly, the improvements in technology that allow for safer production and safer exploration capabilities. But it is my belief, and the belief of certainly the Florida delegation, that we must deal with this separate and apart from the spending bill.

We must also deal with it in a way that does not expose an area as close to the beaches as 3 miles to the prospect of oil and gas rigs, and one which allows a range of input from throughout the membership so that we can move forward with the goal of dealing with our national energy crisis, do it in a safe and comprehensive way, and do it in a way that respects the rights of States to opt in or opt out, as appropriate, dealing with their own individual environmental sensitivities.

We recognize our obligation as Floridians as major energy consumers, that we have an obligation to review our previous positions. We recognize the improvements in technology. But, frankly, 3 miles off of our coast is an unacceptable limit, and we believe that this issue is best served as a stand-alone comprehensive bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for her to control and yield.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer language to strip from this bill a grievous assault on Florida and on other States that are dramatically impacted by what will be a 3-mile drilling limit. It does not recognize the needs of our military; it jeopardizes world-class one-of-a-kind ecosystems and industries. It doesn't respect the rights of our States to manage our own resources. It is an ill-conceived plan tied to the back of the wrong legislative vehicle.

We come here this evening to debate a very important component of our national energy policy. This particular piece of our national energy policy needs to be comprehensive in nature; it needs to be dealt with in a forum other than the annual spending bill which controls everything from the National Park Service to wetlands mitigation and the national endowment for the arts and the humanities. It should be a stand-alone bill for this House to consider the merits and challenges of opening up the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration to assuage our national energy needs.

We are in the process of negotiating a comprehensive solution to this problem. The sponsor of the legislation that found its way into this spending bill has his own comprehensive solution at 20 miles, and yet this jeopardizes our coasts at 3 miles. It does not leave any room for error, it did not have any input from the affected States, and it is opposed almost across the board by the Governors of those States.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman who represents the pristine Florida Keys, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), who represents the cradle of naval aviation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman who represents Florida's gulf coast (Ms. Harris).

(Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of this, and now one of his supporters, have both said 3 miles is not their ultimate goal. That is what is in the language. If that is not your ultimate goal, let's withdraw this amendment and have a real debate on a separate basis about a comprehensive solution to this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Jacksonville, Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Chairman, I say to my friends again, we agree on the technology having been improved. We agree on the need for a comprehensive solution. But you all agree with us that 3 miles is too close. If that is the case, let's adopt this amendment and do this the right way.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

(Mrs. DRAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

(Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

We have begun an important debate here that even the author of the language that we are seeking to strip admits is Draconian, and allowing drilling 3 miles offshore, even the sponsor admits that is not his goal. If that is not his goal, adopt the Putnam-Capps amendment and let us move on to the appropriate way to discuss comprehensive energy policy in this Nation and how it impacts the Gulf of Mexico.

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

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

I thank my friend from Hawaii. That conversation is well underway. I appreciate the leadership of our friend from California, the chairman of the Resources Committee, Mr. Pombo, who has led that discussion and has led to a very bipartisan, thoughtful, and candid approach to the proper way to deal with this Nation's energy crisis, the proper way to deal with exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, the proper way to make sure that we are not impeding the military mission that would affect our Nation's defense.

This language that the amendment I have sponsored with Mrs. Capps and a number of others is an overreach. The amendment fixes what even the authors of that language admit is an overreach. Three miles is not supported by even the person who wrote the language. So if that is the case, let us pass the Putnam-Capps amendment and begin to move further down that road of the exploration question to solve our Nation's energy problems.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield the balance of my time to a champion for Florida, a stalwart in this debate, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend, Mr. Young.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 815 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman

from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 815 is a same-day rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee against certain resolutions reported from the Rules Committee. It applies the waiver to any resolution reported on the legislative day of May 17, 2006, providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 376, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we pass this same-day rule. This resolution will prepare the ground so that the House may complete its business and pass a budget resolution. We are working to moving this process along toward the goal of setting the spending priorities for the next fiscal year.

The House is prepared to begin consideration of several appropriations measures to fund our government's activities, but we must pass this budget first. We must set the priorities in funding levels before we proceed with the appropriations process. The budget is our congressional spending blueprint. We must complete its consideration to move on with the business of the House.

The Committee on Rules will meet later today to provide a rule for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 376, the budget for fiscal year 2007, and I am pleased that this same-day rule facilitates the timely deliberation of this important legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support the same-day rule so that we can move forward to a serious discussion about the budget legislation.

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

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

I agree with my friend from Massachusetts about the magnitude of this budget process and its importance and how we establish priorities in this government, how we lay out a spending blueprint.

My friend from Massachusetts has referred to this as the greatest deliberative body in the world on a couple of occasions, and I would just offer a slight correction that perhaps the Senate is the greatest deliberative body in the world, and we are the greatest legislative body in the world. They talk about it, and we act. We move forward on the agendas that are important to Americans, and we do it in a bold and decisive way, while perhaps the more deliberative body talks things to death and produces nothing.

The budget of the Federal Government works a bit differently than it does for those Members who came from a State legislative background or from local government background. It is a two-step process. The budget lays down the markers, the fence lines, if you will, around the big numbers: X amount for Defense, X amount for Transportation, X amount for Health and Human Services. And the second step of the process then is the appropriations process, which consists of 11 separate bills moving to fill in the blanks: How many tanks and jeeps and bullets and bombs do you buy within the budget framework for defense? How many post offices do you construct or repair within the Postal Subcommittee? How many bridges and roads do you get within the Transportation? They put the meat on the bones.

The skeletal framework is this budget, this blueprint, this spending priority for the Federal Government. And the rule that we are here to debate, and I suspect that this will become a proxy debate on the budget itself, which is not what we are considering before the Speaker today; what we are considering is the procedure that allows us to move forward with the budget that is a hugely important blueprint for this Nation. It is important that we get going on it. We have now been considering it for several weeks. The committee mark has been available for over a month. The substitute amendments that undoubtedly will be presented to the Rules Committee as alternatives have been available for weeks.

So there is no mystery here. There is no secret. We are attempting to facilitate the work of the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Vermont for raising the points that he did. They are very timely in that almost as we speak, the White House signing ceremony will be occurring, where the President, along with the congressional leadership, will be celebrating the fact that we have prevented taxes from automatically increasing, something that the other side would have advocated by virtue of opposing the tax plan.

Now, let's talk a little bit about this tax issue.

I gladly yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time to answer the gentleman's question, I would answer the question with a question, which is how does the gentleman feel about the fact that 40 percent of American taxpayers end up with no tax liability, and the fact that the top half of all taxpayers in this country contribute almost 97 percent of all income tax revenues to the government? So you have to have a situation where the people who pay taxes are getting tax relief, because we have created such an upside down system where 40 percent of Americans have no tax liability. How is that sharing in the burdens of democracy? How is that contributing to the needs of the Federal Government?

Let me go into this a bit. Up to 40 percent of Federal tax filers cannot receive further tax relief because they have no tax liability. Millions of families in the bottom 20 percent have either zero tax liability or get money back from the government after April 15 through the Earned Income Tax Credit or the child tax credit. In 2003, as I said, the top half of taxpayers, the top 50 percent of taxpayers, contributed 96.5 percent of all Federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent, the bottom half, contributed less than 3.5 percent. This reflects the early effects of the Republican tax reforms under the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act and the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act.

The top 1 percent, the top 1 percent of tax filers paid 34 percent of all Federal personal income taxes in 2003, while the top 10 percent accounted for 66 percent of those taxes.

So this is not just about going after athletes and rock stars and Hall of Fame pitchers. It is small businesses who pay at the individual rate that are receiving the benefits of these tax reforms. It is married couples who have benefited from seeing the marriage tax penalty eliminated. It is families with children. It is an extension of the 10 percent bracket. It is the increase in the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, the Rostenkowski tax that was put in place under the Democratic leadership of the Congress, that now, like the insidious effects of the Federal Government, has found its way into the pockets of millions of middle-class Americans.

The tax bill the President is signing today prevents those taxes from going up on middle-class Americans, it prevents the AMT from taking effect on millions of people who don't know what AMT even stands for but are going to get stuck with a tax bill for it and it encourages investment in this strong economy.

Frankly, the results have been staggering, where revenues to the government have gone up 14 percent because of the fact that we have had in place capital gains rates, dividend tax rates, AMT relief, sales tax deductions, that allow people to continue to invest and

take on new employees and take risks, which is the heart of a free enterprise economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina's diligent efforts on the Budget Committee as the ranking member. He, along with our chairman, have forged a very strong working relationship. I respect his efforts on these issues, and he has certainly been working on them for years.

Let me take a moment, though, to scrutinize the Democratic substitute, where, if our budget is the Land of Oz, theirs is worthy of a good Sherlock Holmes novel, a who-done-it and where-did-they-put-it, because they seem to rely on revenues that just do not exist.

For example, the key component of their revenue in the Democratic substitute is over $700 billion in what the IRS calls the tax gap. In other words, it is the difference between what people owe the IRS in taxes and the collections that actually come in.

They assume, my friends on the other side of the aisle, in their budget projections that all $727 billion of that so-called tax gap shows up. Now, if they know where it is now to project it in their budget, please share it with us so that we may meet these needs, these unmet needs that have been described with great elaboration.

You seem to know where it is, because you know for a fact such that you budget for it, that it will appear, poof, that it will show up in time to make your budget balance.

They allow the important tax reforms that we have worked so hard to implement over the past several years to expire. They allow taxes to go back up. Their budget, their budget, provides for only $150 billion in tax relief, which I am glad to see that they are coming around to the concept that tax relief can be an important economic stimulant, as we were just hearing the opposite view in congratulating the President for signing $70 billion in tax relief, and yet they account for $150 billion, but say that our $70 billion was reckless and irresponsible. They would allow the child tax credit to expire, or the 10 percent bracket to expire, or the death tax to expire, or the marriage penalty to expire to make their numbers work.

And so when we get tied up in all of the rhetoric about this issue, it is important to remember that the budget debate that we will be moving forward with today is about choices. It is about a different set of priorities as represented by the two political parties for the future of this country. Our budget deals with both sides of the ledger. Our budget recognizes that over half of the Federal spending today is on the mandatory side of the ledger. It is on automatic pilot.

That is unsustainable. Both parties know that Social Security needs help. Both parties know that Medicare needs help. Both parties know that Medicaid needs help or it will sink the entire Federal budget. It makes up 55 percent of spending today. Within the decade it will make up two-thirds of Federal spending. Their budget does not address 55 percent of the Federal budget, a $2.17 trillion budget; just ignores it. That is not responsible. That is not dealing with the problems that we know exist and will only grow in magnitude and scale as time moves on.

These are the challenges that our budget attempts to deal with and deal with in a very responsible and balanced way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, the gentlemen from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Well, I thank the gentleman for his generosity.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, in his use of the term martial law, the fact that we are here in a democratic process arguing about it for an hour and then going to have a vote on it, under which chapter and verse of Webster's is that martial law where there is debate, discussion, transparency, and a vote?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. He does have a way with words and continues to refer to a process whereby, in order to waive the rules of the House, you must come to the floor, introduce a resolution, it must be given an hour of debate, which we have been engaged in very vigorously, and be voted on. I mean, Pinochet and Castro would laugh at the notion that that has anything to do with martial law. This is a process under our rules that requires a vote. It requires debate. It requires transparency.

The simple fact of the matter is we have to move a budget. This Nation needs the spending blueprint, it needs the discipline, it needs the restraint

that a budget provides. Then the appropriators, as my friend from Georgia has discussed, the appropriators take over. And they can pass within that box that we have put Federal spending in, in the Federal budget, 11 different bills that deal with each component of government: defense, veterans, transportation, energy and the environment, military quality of life, the whole range of issues that then are debated again in committee, in subcommittee, on this floor, in the conference with the Senate.

This is a transparent process, a patently transparent process where people are free to watch their Members actively, aggressively, work to take language out of bills, to put language in the bills, to shift formulas around to benefit high-growth States or to protect low-growth States from having those monies shifted around; to put more money into veterans and less for the arts, or more into the arts and less for the Corps of Engineers, or more for the Corps of Engineers because of Katrina; to set aside emergency funds because we know that every year there will be a drought or a wildfire or a hurricane or an earthquake. All of those huge issues that are embodied in over $2 trillion in Federal spending are here today in the form of the Federal budget.

This bill, this resolution, allows us to move forward with that process that began months ago, that began on a bipartisan basis in the Budget Committee, that was debated extensively in the Budget Committee, that was marked up in the Budget Committee, and will end up on the floor of this House today.

This is an open process, it is a transparent process. Anyone who has observed this debate can see that it involves a great deal of viewpoints about a great deal of very important issues. And that is the position we find ourselves in here today. It is a healthy process because it is a fundamental decision about the direction that Americans' hard-earned tax dollars will be taken.

Will those tax dollars find their way into bloated bureaucratic programs? Will they find their way into duplicative programs? Will they find their way back into a surging economy? Will they find their way into investments in the cure for cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease and a whole host of other ailments? Will they fund our troops in the theater of war?

That is the decision we are positioned to move forward on here today.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 817 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 817 is the rule that provides for debate on House Concurrent Resolution 376, which is the Federal budget, the bill that establishes the Federal spending priorities for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for the outyears in 2008 through 2011.

As a member of both the Rules Committee and someone who serves on the Budget Committee, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for the House's consideration. This rule makes in order three substitute amendments, three different viewpoints on the direction that Federal spending should take for the coming fiscal year.

Each of those will be debatable for 40 minutes. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution.

I come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, with a resolution that allows us to complete the debate and passage for the House budget resolution for fiscal year 2007. It is a work product over many, many weeks, beginning with Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt in the Budget Committee, along with all of the Members of this House to bring it to fruition here today.

The resolution continues policies that have helped to continue a strong U.S. economy. We have included savings for working Americans with $228 billion in further tax reforms. We account for the tax cut, the tax reforms, that this House passed last week by a vote of 244-185 to extend 2001 and 2003 tax relief and preventing automatic tax increases from taking place.

That bill was signed into law today by the President, again preventing tax increases from coming on the backs of the American people. Those provisions included alternative minimum tax relief, that insidious tax that was proffered under Chairman Rostenkowski's reign at the Ways and Means Committee under Democratic rule, that is now taking into its arms, grasping within its reach millions of middle-class Americans who unknowingly are being swept into a net of higher taxation; House-passed pension bill; and other tax relief.

The continuation of these successful economic policies is generating record revenue levels for the Federal Government without increasing taxes. In other words, a strong and growing economy is bringing additional revenue into the Federal Government as a result of enhanced economic activity brought about by lower tax barriers.

While working to give Americans back some of their hard-earned dollars, we also enact a responsible spending plan that exercises control and restraint. I am proud that once again this House has delivered a budget that practices conscientious spending. Our goal is to stem the ever-expanding outflow of Federal dollars.

We hold nonsecurity discretionary spending to a near freeze and create mandatory savings, mandatory being that portion of the budget which now makes up over 55 percent of Federal spending. It is essentially on automatic pilot, and if it is not brought under control, it will consume two-thirds of Federal spending within the decade.

We bring about mandatory savings of nearly $7 billion over 5 years. Together these policies, the policies of economic stimulation and fiscal restraint, will reduce the deficit by more than half, from the $521 billion projected in 2004 to under $200 billion in 2009.

House Concurrent Resolution 376 has an overall discretionary spending level that is equal to the President's budget at $873 billion.

As is the case with our bifurcated budgeting and appropriations process, the discretion lies with the House Appropriations Committee to determine the final allocation of these funds.

This budget essentially freezes nonsecurity discretionary spending with only a .1 percent increase over last year's level, and as an additional savings method, this budget caps the advance appropriations.

In the area of mandatory spending, we provide a total of $1.5 trillion in entitlement spending. In an effort to control this automatic outflow of Federal dollars, the budget resolution calls for mandatory spending reforms from a number of different committees, allowing regular order to reign, along the authorizing committees, to find the proper waste, fraud, duplication and inefficiencies using their own expertise in the various subject matters. These savings total $6.75 billion over 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this year the Budget Committee included an emergency reserve fund to help Congress plan for unforeseen costs that arise in the future. Every year somewhere in America there is an earthquake or a flood, or a hurricane, or a wildfire, or a drought, or a massive snowstorm that requires Federal spending that was unforeseen.

But the fact that it happens every year means that we ought to be able to foresee that something bad is going to happen. We may not know exactly what it will be, it may not rise to the level of Katrina in scale and scope, and, heaven help us, we hope that it does not, but we know that emergencies will arise.

This budget plans for those emergencies, and we set aside in addition $50 billion toward what we anticipate will be a wartime supplemental request, and again set aside nearly $6.5 billion for other emergencies stemming from natural disasters.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work of this Budget Committee, Chairman Nussle, Ranking Member Spratt, for pushing forward a budget that has fiscal discipline, restraint. It incorporates real reforms on the mandatory side as well as providing for the tools that allow this economy to continue to grow and strengthen.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously this is one of the most important debates of the year as it lays out the blueprint, the outline for Federal priorities. Where we place our priorities is generally where we allocate funding, and the Republican budget divides those priorities between creating incentives for people to continue to grow their businesses, to create an atmosphere of record low unemployment which we enjoy in this country today of 4.8 percent, creating incentives for people to purchase a new piece of equipment, add a new assembly line, add a new store, take on a new employee, fiscal restraint to go along with that economic growth.

Fiscal restraint on the discretionary side where there is a near freeze in discretionary spending, and on the mandatory side which is gobbling up the budget at a record rate, where we for the second year in a row, something that is unprecedented in modern budgeting history, for the second year in a row are looking for savings on that mandatory side of the ledger that so many previous Congresses have been afraid to touch, and bringing about important reforms so that people have confidence in where their hard-earned tax dollars are going.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my friend from Massachusetts has a number of speakers, and I will reserve the balance of my time and look forward to a thorough vetting of this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raised the issue of education funding. I would point out that the facts are a bit counter to her assertion. Take special education, something that has long been a priority of both sides of the aisle. Special education funding goes up for the sixth consecutive year, an increase of $100 million this year, which is an estimated $1,500 per student, reaching almost 7 million students who have special needs.

On Pell Grants, the budget provides $12.7 billion in available Pell Grant aid, for an average grant of nearly $2,500. More than 5.2 million students would be eligible for these grants, an increase of 60,000 students over the previous year.

Title I, those schools that serve the most in need, the resolution provides nearly $13 billion for title I grants to help schools in the high poverty communities move ahead with No Child Left Behind; $1 billion for the Reading First program, and increased funding for charter schools, magnet schools, voluntary public school choice, all substantial funding for these very important programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

The gentleman from Massachusetts has had some very harsh words for some Members of this body. I would query the gentleman from Massachusetts, if he would agree, how much is enough spending for the gentleman from Massachusetts?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this negotiation, this process that yields this budget, recognizes that we have a number of challenges at this point in time, and all points of view recognize that we have to create an environment, a climate for economic growth and strength, and we have to have fiscal restraint.

There is not a blank checkbook, as some, perhaps some from Massachusetts or other parts, might suggest where it is just an ongoing, empty, bottomless pit of spending. You have to be responsible about the taxpayers' money. You have to draw lines around it and prioritize, and we have done that in this budget.

In the minority, you have the luxury of not having to rally behind any one particular proposal. In fact, that is why there are two different substitutes offered that offer at least two very different viewpoints from your own caucus.

We have the obligation, we have the responsibility to actually move a product that changes lives. We have the responsibility to actually pass a budget that implements spending controls on an over $2 trillion Federal budget and put us on a path to cutting the deficit while still securing a climate that allows economic growth and prosperity to continue.

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

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

It is becoming more and more clear that there is never enough spending, although we will undoubtedly hear from speakers later in the evening who will talk about how they would have fiscal restraint over here, more spending over here, more spending over here and more fiscal restraint over here. They have that luxury being in the minority.

But the bottom line is education funding has gone up year after year after year. Special education funding is at record levels, far higher than it was when the other team was in charge.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), my good friend from the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentlewoman, who has apparently not had an opportunity to review the budget, that there is an additional $3.1 billion reserve fund for domestic priorities; $3.1 billion additional for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. And in addition to that, we budget for emergencies. We draw lines around the restraint that is necessary to keep the deficit on a path to be cut in half in 5 years. We keep the economy growing.

They rail against the $70 billion that were involved in tax reconciliation that prevents taxes from going up today, yet their own budget has $150 billion. Which is it? They talk about not having enough money in our side of the budget, and yet they rail about the deficit.

You can't have it both ways. Well, I guess you can if you are on the floor of the House arguing against a responsible budget plan.

This bill lays out a responsible roadmap towards shrinking the deficit, keeping the economy strong and growing, and being able to look constituents in the eye about the levels of spending. It does not open up a bottomless pit of spending, as some would prefer on the other side of the aisle, where enough is never enough. We recognize that trade- offs have to be made in businesses, in families, and in the Federal Government, and it is important that we look at both sides of the ledger, discretionary and mandatory.

The only thing that my friends on the other side of the aisle could find to clap about in the State of the Union Address was our President and our leadership's noble attempt to rein in mandatory spending, something that both parties' think tanks on each side of the ideological spectrum and administrations of each political party have agreed is in desperate need of help. Yet they can only take glee in the fact that they shut down the first real attempt to reform mandatory spending in a generation.

This budget lays out a framework for reform, restraint, and economic growth, and they are trying to have it not just both ways, but three or four or five different ways.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California and the speaker before him from Tennessee made reference to the Blue Dog budget, and, in fact, there was even reference to how difficult it is to produce a budget. Well, apparently it is so difficult they couldn't do it because there is no Blue Dog substitute.

I tip my hat to the Progressive Caucus. They managed to produce a budget that we will debate on this floor. It is an alternative view of where this Nation ought to be headed. I don't agree

with it, but they made the tough decisions to put it together, embody it in an amendment, and put it to debate on this floor. I tip my hat to Mr. Spratt, the distinguished ranking member of the committee. They have a substitute amendment.

The Blue Dogs are all bark and no bite. No budget substitute was offered. Apparently putting together a budget that met their own internal divisions proved too difficult in the end.

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

I would ask the gentleman where the Blue Dog budget is? Where is the Blue Dog substitute amendment? We are looking for it. We can't find it. There is no Blue Dog substitute amendment. It is back on the porch. It is in the pound. It is in the kennel. I don't know where it is.

There is a progressive substitute. There is a Spratt substitute. There is no Blue Dog substitute.

There is not a Blue Dog substitute.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.

There have been three references to a Blue Dog substitute that is mythical. It is as mythical as the $727 billion tax gap, Wizard of Oz smoke and mirrors that is in one of the other substitutes. It is as mythical as the numbers that they use to pay for their increased spending.

There is no such thing. There is not a substitute amendment.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear we made our point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Wisconsin with whom we have worked on the budget. The challenges I see with the Democratic substitute are ones that we have pointed out earlier. They depend upon money that doesn't exist to make their numbers work, a tax gap of $727 billion that the IRS can't find.

Well, if the IRS can't find it, does the other side know where it is? If we have been looking for it for all this time, but they know where it is to the point that they have budgeted it, $727 billion to make their numbers work, then they must have some better insight as to where that gap is.

It is smoke and mirrors. The CBO won't even score it. The CBO scores it as a zero revenue raiser. And yet they are depending on it for $727 billion.

They only allocate $150 billion in their substitute for tax relief. And yet we have had opportunities on this House floor for half that amount that they have rejected. We had opportunities to prevent the AMT from impacting millions of middle-class Americans. Rejected. Preventing capital gains rates from going up which have allowed revenues to the government to increase, 11, 12 percent. Dividend taxes, preventing those from going up. They have rejected that. But they put $150 billion in their own substitute, which doesn't even cover the child tax credit, the marriage penalty, the death tax, the whole host of other issues. The numbers don't add up.

Ours is the responsible, comprehensive blueprint. We deal with a freeze, a near freeze on discretionary spending,

non-defense discretionary spending. We deal with the mandatory side of the ledger which is now over half of Federal spending, something that the Blue Dogs claim that they are concerned about, something that fiscal hawks on the other side claim that they are concerned about; and it is nowhere to be found in their substitute.

Ours is the only budget that is comprehensive, responsible, and honest about the challenges that are facing this great land.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make two clarifications. One, to my friend from Massachusetts, I would clarify that the rule he seeks to repeal is commonly known as the Gephardt rule. Secondarily, I would clarify the clarification made by my friend Mr. Spratt that on page 51, lines 13 through 19 of the legislation known as the Spratt amendment, there is tax relief that is provided; the additional revenue loss is offset such as through the recovery of a portion of unpaid revenue, commonly known as the tax gap, which we referred to. So that is a portion of their amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

We like to give credit where credit is due, and being big fans of intellectual property rights, since we protect intellectual property, the real creative genius in that belongs to Mr. Gephardt.

To my friend from Massachusetts, we have had a speaker come in since I said to you that I had no further speakers, and I would inquire as to whether you objected to allowing him to speak for 2 minutes.

Very well.

I would yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Offered By: Mr. Putnam

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 114 I was unavoidably detained at the White House. Had I been present, I would have noted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work on this issue. This is another situation where the Democrats were for it before they were against it, before they were for it, before they were against it again.

It has been interesting to watch this debate unfold as fingers have been pointed now since the end of last year about a culture that they have described as being corrupt, and yet here they come today to oppose a bill that addresses many of the same issues that they have been screaming about for the past 4 months.

The Policy Committee did exhaustive work, Mr. Speaker, in bringing together groups of Members to talk about these issues. Reforming the institution is among the most important and also among the most difficult issues to do, because everyone involved has an innate understanding of the issues that we are dealing with and the needs of the House from the perspective of their particular district.

There was widespread agreement that disclosure, sunshine, accountability should be the three pillars upon which we build this reform effort. And we did that. When it comes to issues like travel, as Mr. Cole has described, who has been a leader in a bipartisan effort to reform those practices, it has been a very difficult path, but one which has yielded bipartisan results in the form of the amendment that we will be considering later.

When it comes to making sure that there is an opportunity for the public to know what goes on in this institution and what interest groups that are attempting to lobby the Congress are doing, we increased the reporting requirements. We increased the penalties for those people who would take advantage of the public trust that they are given by the voters and by the electorate.

When it comes to the issues of making sure that we have a functioning ethics committee, that is the most important piece of this process, increasing the leverage to make sure that that committee is one that is functioning appropriately.

So in sum, Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to me that people would say that in this case, after 4 months of decrying the status of things, that nothing is better than disclosure requirements, that nothing is better than transparency, that nothing is better than greater accountability.

The foundation upon which this bill is crafted is something that every Member can go home and talk to their constituents about. It is something that will improve the work of this institution and begin the process of restoring the public trust in the people's Chamber.