[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 28, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3237-H3265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 275 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent
resolution, H. Con. Res. 99.
{time} 1714
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 99) revising the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007,
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2008, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2009 through 2012, with Mr. Altmire in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is
considered read the first time.
General debate shall not exceed 4 hours, with 3 hours confined to the
congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on the
subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and controlled
by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) each will control 90 minutes on the congressional
budget.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
{time} 1715
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, H. Con. Res. 99 is not the full and final solution, but
it is a good solution. It moves us in the right direction towards a
balanced budget. It moves us to balance in 5 years, as a matter of
fact, by 2012. It posts a smaller deficit than the President's budget
over 5 years. It adheres to PAYGO, and it contains no new mandatory
spending that is not fully offset.
It also includes program integrity initiatives to root out waste,
fraud and abuse in the Department of Health and Human Services and in
the reporting of taxes in the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this resolution described both in
our markup in committee and today during the debate on the rule. I
think you have to bear in mind what our critics have said, in terms of
where the criticism is coming from, because the party that is opposing
this resolution and criticizing this resolution is the same party that
took a surplus of $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011 and turned it
into a deficit of $2.8 trillion during this same period of time.
As a consequence, we have heard a lot of talk out here today, but the
truth of the matter is, with respect to taxes, their bill imposes on
future generations, our children and grandchildren, an unerasable tax
called a debt tax, because they will be servicing the debt of the
United States for years to come.
Let me show you just a few charts to illustrate what I mean.
First of all, the chart showing the debt of the United States that
has increased since 2001 when Mr. Bush took office. This is a simple
chart, but it contains an enormous amount of truth.
When Mr. Bush took office in 2001, he came to office with an
advantage that few American presidents have ever enjoyed, a budget in
balance, in surplus by $236 billion the year before. Within 4 years, he
had driven that surplus of $236 billion into a deficit of $418 billion;
and, as a consequence, the debt when he took office, which was $5.7
trillion, today is $8.8 trillion, having increased $3.1 trillion over
the last 6 years.
We have never seen a debt accumulation like this, certainly during
any normal period of time. Except for the Depression or Second World
War, we have never seen, except for those periods, any kind of
accumulation of debt that approaches this. And if we continue on this
path, if we continue on this path, then we will see the debt, by the
time Mr. Bush leaves his presidency, at $9.6 trillion, as opposed to
$5.7 trillion when he came to office.
Net interest on the national debt is today $170 billion. That is the
debt tax I am talking about. This is the debt service that our children
and their children will have to pay for years to come. It is a debt tax
that is indelible, almost permanent, unless we can do something to turn
this budget around and start reducing our debt, instead of accumulating
mountainous debt year in and year out.
The budget that we bring to the floor today fully funds the
President's defense request, and we husband what little is left over
for some centerpiece initiatives which we strongly support as
Democrats.
First of all, we created in 1997 a Children's Health Insurance
Program. The authorization for it runs out this year. We would propose
in our budget resolution to reauthorize the CHIP program, Children's
Health Insurance, and add $50 billion to the program so we cover most
of the children who are eligible for coverage in the United States.
The second point: With respect to education, we think the education
of our children, of today's workforce, is critically important as never
before in American history; and we think it would be shameful to cut
back for education. But for 3 straight years President Bush has sent us
a budget that would cut the Department of Education, this year by $1.5
billion.
If you take Function 500, which includes elementary and secondary
education and student loans and workforce investment and Trade
Adjustment Assistance Training, the Bush administration requests $3.6
billion next year
[[Page H3238]]
less than this year; and in 2012 the request is $8.6 billion below
current services. That is for training our workforce. That is what this
administration is willing to invest in the education of our children.
We feel differently, and strongly differently, and we provide $8
billion to $9 billion more than the President and, over 5 years, $46
billion more than the President provides for education and job training
and related activities.
We also call for a long-term fix in the Alternative Minimum Tax. The
President has told us twice that they can take the Alternative Minimum
Tax and, within the context of the Tax Code in a revenue-neutral
manner, change the Alternative Minimum Tax so that it will not extend
to middle-income families for whom it was never intended. They have
told us that, but they are yet to do that.
We are saying in this budget resolution to the Ways and Means
Committee, given its jurisdiction over taxes, and to the
administration, we need to fix the AMT.
You will hear, as you have heard earlier today, a lot of talk about
this being the biggest tax increase in American history, which is
absolutely absurd. The Democratic budget resolution which I am
presenting right now, introducing, which we will discuss tonight, does
not raise taxes, period. The budget resolution that we bring to the
floor tonight in no way affects the tax cuts that were passed in 2001
and in 2003. It leaves those tax cuts in place for 2007, 2008, 2009 and
2010.
What we do assume is the same revenues that CBO projects in its
current baseline. If you look at the CBO baseline and the OMB
baselines, you will find they virtually converge. There is about a 1.2
percent difference between the two of them, as this chart right here
will easily show you.
All this palaver about taxes and the biggest tax increase in history,
this is the difference between our revenue projections, the green bar,
and theirs, which is blue, 1.2 percent over a 5-year period of time.
Looking at this budget in its whole context, three outside groups
which are vigilant overseers and advocates for good, sound fiscal
policy, the Concord Coalition has said, ``Thus, to be clear,'' this is
how they sum up their letter, ``this budget resolution does not call
for or require a tax increase.'' As plain as you can put it, from a
group that is truly disinterested and independent politically.
Then we have got the Brookings Institution, the Hamilton Project.
``This budget would not raise taxes.'' ``This budget would not raise
taxes.''
Finally, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, they took a look
at our budget and they said, ``This claim is just flat incorrect. The
House plan does not include a tax increase.''
What the House plan does do is allow the tax cuts that were passed in
2001 and 2003 to follow their course. They will expire on December 31,
2010. Not because of this budget resolution. It doesn't have a thing to
do with the expiration or extension of those tax cuts. But, in 2010,
those tax cuts expire of their own volition, because they were so
drawn, designed, intended by those on this side of the aisle, the
Republicans. They were designed to expire on December 31, 2010.
What we are simply assuming in this budget resolution is that that
decision will be taken when we reach it. When we have to cross that
bridge, we will cross that bridge. We will know then what our deficit
is in 2010. We hope we will have a surplus by that point in time; and
if we have a surplus, we will know whether or not we can offset it
against the extension of some of these tax cuts.
I will say this and will say it repeatedly: Read this budget
resolution. Give us a fair shake. And you will find in two different
places prominently inserted, this resolution says we endorse, we
support, and we will seek the renewal of the middle-income tax cuts
that have been passed since 2001 and 2003, the marital tax penalty, the
child tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, State tax reform. All of
these things we embrace and we pledge ourselves to the extension to see
when they expire, as they will, they will be duly renewed.
We will have this debate continually throughout the night. It will be
brought up again and again and again. But I want to say one final
thing: This budget resolution does not raise taxes, and it does not
cause the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. They expire of
their own volition.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, first off, I would like to start off this debate by
paying a compliment to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The gentleman from South Carolina is just that. He is a gentleman. He
is a good man, he is a man who has a tough job, and he is a man who I
enjoy working with.
The key to this year's budget debate is not whether Congress should
balance the Federal budget. Republicans and Democrats this year are
agreeing that we need to balance the Federal budget. The key is about
how we are going to get there.
Today, as this House debates both the Democrats' and the Republicans'
budget proposals for fiscal year 2008, it will become clear that this
is much more than a simple discussion about numbers and how they add up
over the next few years. Instead, this is going to be a bigger debate
about our different governing philosophies, about what kind of society
we envision, about what kind of country we want to leave to future
generations.
The budget that the Democrats have proposed is true to their
philosophy. I give them credit for that. They believe that more
government is better government and that the best way to solve the
myriad problems we face in this country is to spend more and more and
to tax our people more and more to pay for that spending.
The Democrats' budget reflects this philosophy by calling for the
largest tax increase in American history. I will make this irrefutably
clear throughout the course of this debate: They call for immense new
spending and postponement of critical entitlement reforms for another 5
years.
If Congress passes this budget tomorrow, this will enshrine the
raising of taxes to the tune of $400 billion on the American family,
worker and business. And we are not just talking about raising taxes on
the rich, as they would like to have us believe. We are talking about
raising taxes on every single American income tax payer. This means
raising marginal income tax rates on all taxpayers; eliminating the 10
percent bracket that has benefited numerous low-income individuals;
raising the tax on capital gains and dividends and discouraging
investment in our economy and saving for our seniors; slashing the
child tax credit in half; reinstating the marriage tax penalty;
reimposing the death tax; and eliminating the State and sales tax
deduction for States like Texas and Florida.
Let me just show you where the lie is. It is not in the numbers. The
lie is in the so-called reserve funds. They can give you all the words
they want. They can say they put all these fancy words in this budget
that says we don't want to raise taxes, we want this new spending. But
what a budget resolution is is a bunch of numbers, and numbers don't
lie, Mr. Chairman.
This budget requires, banks on, plans for, assumes, insists upon the
largest tax increase in American history. Otherwise, they don't balance
the budget.
So my friends on the other side of the aisle can have it one way or
the other, but not both. They can say they are balancing the budget.
But, according to their budget, they therefore have to raise taxes. Or
they can say they are not raising taxes, at which hand they then are
not balancing the budget. They can't have it both ways.
{time} 1730
The line, the red line, which is the revenue baseline, does not lie.
Now, their revenue numbers show it. And they can bring in all the
left-leaning think tanks that have been in favor of tax increases in
the past and in the present to say that this isn't a tax increase, but
come December 10, January 31, that is the last day people have a $1,000
tax credit. It is the last day married couples won't be taxed for being
married. It is the last day the death tax isn't at zero. It is the last
day income tax rates don't go up across the board. That is what
happens.
They have also made more than $100 billion worth of additional
spending
[[Page H3239]]
promises in this budget, if they are offset. That's what all these
reserve funds are about; more money for this program, more for that
program, more money for this program, maybe some tax relief for the
middle class. We have a reserve fund for it. My friends, a reserve fund
is worth less than the paper it's printed on because all it says is we
have these priorities, these ideas, these things we would like to do,
we have no money for it; middle-class tax relief, more money for SCHIP,
farm programs.
But if we did come up with the money to pay for these programs, we
would like to do it; but we don't have the money, so we're not doing
it. That is basically what a reserve fund is.
What we really have here, Mr. Chairman, is a huge tax increase, a tax
increase that will have the effect of significantly increasing the
burden on individual taxpayers and small businesses and will completely
ignore the positive growth impacts that these tax cuts encouraged since
2003.
Let's review some of the effects that low tax burdens have had on
economic growth, on jobs. Before we provided tax relief in 2003, we
were losing an average of 100,000 jobs a month. Since then, we have
added 7.6 million new jobs; about 170,000 new jobs have been created
per month since the tax relief.
The economy. Before tax relief occurred in 2003, the economy grew at
an average rate of 1.1 percent. Now it has been 3.5 percent since then,
faster than it has grown in the last three decades, on average.
Unemployment. When we passed tax relief, the unemployment rate was at
6.1 percent, now it's all the way down to 4.5 percent.
Business investment. When we passed tax relief, business investment
had been down for nine straight quarters. Since then, business
investment has been up for 15 straight quarters. That is where the 7.6
million new jobs got created. Unfortunately, the Democrat budget would
ignore all of this, with immense tax increases that threatened to put
us right back where we were in the recession of 2001.
And now on revenues. What they will tell you is that the revenues are
the reason why we are in deficit. What they will tell you is that the
tax cuts drove us deeply into deficits. That is completely untrue. On
the contrary. If you take a look at this chart, the tax relief actually
had the effect of increasing job creation and revenues coming into the
Federal Government.
We had 3 straight years of revenue decline during the recession. The
tax cuts kicked in. What happened? Revenues went up exponentially, to
the point where we have had double digit revenue gains for the last 3
years, and as a consequence, the deficit has been going down. These
surging revenues have been a key factor in reducing this deficit.
Mr. Chairman, the wrong way to balance the budget is to raise taxes.
The right way to balance the budget is to control spending. We do not
have a revenue problem in Washington. Money is coming in very quickly
from taxpayers. What we have here is a spending problem. And the
Democrats are making it worse because they are calling for all this new
spending.
For all of their talk about reducing the deficit, all they have done
since they came into the majority is to spend more and more money, and
we are only into the end of March. First they passed the omnibus bill
that added $6 billion in new spending. Next came the supplemental for
the warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan; they added $21 billion in
unrelated and unrequested spending. And now their budget resolution
adds another $24 billion in new spending next year alone.
For all the additional spending and gimmicks, the worst thing about
this budget is not just the tax increases and the new spending, it's
about what it does not include. This budget does nothing, absolutely
nothing, to address our entitlement problem. This is what needs to be
fixed, Mr. Chairman.
We had all these eyewitnesses, all these experts come from the left
and the right that the majority called, from the GAO to CBO to other
groups, all talking about the fact that our Nation is facing a fiscal
crisis, that entitlements are growing out of control, that our primary
responsibility in crafting our budget should be to address entitlement
spending. Let me read some quotes from the Democrats' own witnesses.
The Comptroller General of the GAO has called the rising costs of
government entitlements a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic
consequences for our country and could bankrupt America. The Chairman
of the Federal Reserve came to testify. He said, ``Without early and
meaningful action to address the rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S.
economy could be weakened, with future generations bearing much of the
cost.'' Even the Democrats' own witnesses from the Concord Coalition
testified to the same.
They've heard all of these witnesses, they've heard all these
warnings, and they have chosen in this budget to do nothing. There is
not a single reform, a single dollar of savings from entitlements.
Obviously, they seem to be unconcerned with the $4.6 trillion in
liability that Social Security has, which grows every year by $600
billion; or the $32 trillion in liability that my children are facing
that gets larger and larger every single year.
With this budget, they have simply accepted that we are going to
continue to pile up massive amounts of debt to our children, and we are
going to force them to pay double what we pay in taxes today to sustain
these programs.
This brings me to my final chart, a chart by the General Accounting
Office. We know that if we fail to reform entitlements, the Federal
Government will double in size by the year 2040. When my kids reach my
age, this budget would leave them with the choice of either paying
double our current tax rate, or accepting the fact that we just don't
have enough money to spend on health care, defense, national security
or education.
I believe this is an enormous missed opportunity by the Democrats.
Yes, the Democrats balance the budget in 2012, and they should be
commended for reaching that goal. But at what price are they balancing
the budget? They hit balance only because they are imposing the largest
tax increase in American history. We still will have all of the same
problems though.
They are not reforming anything in government. They are not reforming
any program. They are just calling for the American taxpayer to send
more money in Congress so we can continue to spend too much money. And
because of the path of big government and the tax-and-spend policies
that the Democrats have chosen, this is going to be a very short-lived
success. As soon as we get back to this balanced budget on paper in
2012, the year where their budget gets balanced on the backs of
taxpayers, it won't be long before entitlement spending drives the
Federal Government right back into deficits as far as the eye can see.
This is not a Republican and Democrat issue. The fact is every
independent expert in America that watches fiscal issues knows that
government is growing out of control. We have really important programs
that need our attention, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the three
most important programs, in my particular opinion, in the Federal
Government. Important programs, and programs people depend on, organize
their lives around. We have to reform these programs in order to save
these programs, yet they are doing nothing to do that. And because
their budget does nothing to save these programs, they are hastening
the day at which they go bankrupt. That is an abdication of
responsibility.
No matter how you put it, Mr. Chairman, this is a tax increase. No
matter how you put it, Mr. Chairman, a reserve fund, no matter what
flowery language you can attach to it, no matter what left-leaning
think tank you can have to say whatever you want, a tax is a tax.
In our budget, we make sure that these tax increases don't hit
American families. We make sure the marriage penalty stays away. We
make sure the child tax credit stays up. We make sure tax rates are
down. We make sure the death tax goes away. What do they do? They
insist upon, they require, they depend up all these tax increases. If
they don't, their budget doesn't balance. They can't have it both ways.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from
Texas, I yield myself 1 minute to reply.
[[Page H3240]]
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will acknowledge that they have requested
in their budget resolution $278 billion in reconciled tax cuts in
Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and a number of different areas. He
is faulting us for not joining in this endeavor. That is partly
because, number one, we don't agree with his specific cuts. But number
two, having so-called saved $278 billion, there is then enacted by
reconciliation directive to the Ways and Means Committee $447 billion
in tax cuts.
So the net effect is not to use entitlement cuts for reform, but to
actually add to the deficit $168.5 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this
resolution.
You know, listening to these Republican complaints about this budget
resolution, it kind of takes you into some sort of strange magic
kingdom. They live by the first law of Disney, that wishing will make
it so. They thought they could wish away the results of their tax
policy changes, but we all suffer in national debt as a result of them.
And no matter how long they wish and how hard they wish, they will not
find the phantom taxes that they claim are increased in this budget
resolution. We write our tax policy right in the black and white.
This year, additional revenues, zero. Next year, zero. The following
year, zero. The following year, zero. The following year, zero. 2012,
zero, but that year we still achieve a $154 billion surplus, the first
time we will have a surplus in our budget since President Clinton left
office.
You know, like Mickey Mouse and Tinker Bell, the Republicans are
living in a land of fairy tales. But instead of imaginary friends,
they've got imaginary demons, tax demons that come out. We cannot
follow them on a path that is paved with fools gold deeper and deeper
into national debt.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and I
appreciate his calling the attention, if not to our Republican friends,
but to the American public, that they can look at page four in the
resolution that is before us and find what has been said is simply not
true.
Additionally, they can keep thumbing to page 46, which deals with
what our policy is, in fact. Because we do want to minimize the impact
on middle America. We make it clear that we are very interested in
terms of being able to support extensions, the extension of the child
tax credit, the extension of the marriage penalty relief and the
extension of the 10 percent individual income tax. What we are not
interested in doing is buying into the grab bag of special interest tax
benefits, most of which flow to the Americans who are most well off.
I want, if I could, to just make one point in terms of talk of the
largest tax increase in American history. Well, it's coming. There is a
tax tsunami that is bearing down not just on the rich, not just on the
upper middle class, but on middle America, and it is called the
``alternative minimum tax.''
For 6 years, Republicans in charge have had an opportunity to
rebalance tax priorities in this country. My colleagues and I have
called upon them to deal with permanent adjustment to the alternative
minimum tax. They have refused. So now we have inherited a serious
problem that is going to mean that middle America is facing the
alternative minimum tax. Twenty-six million American families, 89
percent of people who earn between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay the
AMT by 2010. Stopping this increase is our priority, that is what we
are going to focus on, that is what we have committed to, that is what
we are going to do, something that the Republican majority have failed
to do in 2001, 2003, 2004.
Mr. DOGGETT. Indeed, those are the true missed opportunities, 6 years
of missed opportunities under this administration.
As the gentleman points out so well, our objective here is to respond
to the legitimate tax concerns of middle-class families, but to do it
in a fiscally responsible way. No more will we borrow from our children
and our grandchildren to finance tax cuts for the wealthy few now.
Mr. Chairman, I know, the gentleman from California, serving on the
Ways and Means Committee, is very familiar with what we have gone
through in this last 6 years of Republican borrow and spend policies.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I agree with my
colleagues.
As we discuss here what we are going to do in this Democratic budget
resolution, I think the first thing we have to remember is we are going
to pass a Democratic budget resolution. Guess what? Last year, the
Republican majority did not pass a budget resolution so we had no
guidepost, no blueprint to tell us how the Congress would spend its
money. And does it surprise anyone to know that we went further into
debt?
Unfortunately, as we continue to hear our colleagues, our friends on
the Republican side say they want to see further tax cuts, what they
don't mention is all those tax cuts that they passed in the last
several years, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that the President proposed,
they paid this way.
{time} 1745
This is what they did. They took out this credit card. Because every
single one of those years we have been in deficit. And after using up
the Social Security trust fund dollars, because they had to use the
entire amount that was preserved for Social Security to help pay for
the tax cuts, they still were in debt. So, guess what? They had to pull
out the credit card, and we have been deficit spending for the last 7
years to pay for these tax cuts that have principally gone not to the
middle class but to the folks who are on the highest level of our
income scale.
This chart shows what happens, and it goes to the point of the
gentleman from Oregon. What happens here is if you continue to extend
the Republican tax cuts, you are going to help those that make over $1
million. The AMT, which the gentleman from Oregon pointed out, is going
to hit folks that are making less than $200,000 or so most, the folks
that were not helped by the Bush tax cuts. That is where we want to
concentrate our tax cuts, right here, to help middle America.
Mr. DOGGETT. So this balanced budget resolution is a pledge for
relief for legitimate middle-class working folks who are out there that
have concerns without borrowing to finance more breaks for those over
$1 million.
Mr. BECERRA. Precisely. We are going to provide middle-class
Americans with these targeted tax cuts, targeted tax relief; and, as
you mentioned before, Mr. Doggett, we are also going to be able to
balance the budget in 5 years and have a surplus by 2012.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I just think it is important that the American public
can listen to politicians debate on the floor of the House, but they
also have an opportunity to deal with independent groups.
Mr. DOGGETT. Let me say, I believe this is one of the most
impressive, it can't be discounted as a Democratic group, because the
gentleman is aware that the Concord Coalition is a bipartisan,
nonpartisan group that has a Republican and Democratic co-Chairs. And
they have said, again, in black and white, ``Thus, to be clear, the
budget resolution does not call for or require a tax increase.'' It
just demonstrates this imaginary demon that they have over here, which
is about all they can unite around.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. And I appreciate the gentleman's pointing the Concord
Coalition that makes it clear that it does not call for or require a
tax increase and the type of mindset we are getting from our friends on
the other side that they would dismiss former Senator Warren Rudman,
Republican from New Hampshire, establishing a left-wing think tank.
Mr. BECERRA. If the gentleman would yield for a moment.
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BECERRA. The real distinction comes here. Our tax cuts will be
targeted towards the middle class, not towards the wealthiest. And, at
the same time, we have priorities. We are going
[[Page H3241]]
to balance this budget. We have committed to our PAYGO policies that we
will pay for whatever we propose. But, at the same time, we are going
to try to make sure that interest payments on the national debt don't
consume everything, because today this is what happens when you do
deficit spending.
Mr. DOGGETT. It is really a debt tax.
Mr. BECERRA. This is a debt tax, what happens when you do deficit
spending. Deficits do matter. Under the last 7 years of Republican
leadership with these tax cuts that have gone principally to very
wealthy people, this is what happens. You have interest payments of
over one quarter trillion dollars, yet veterans and education programs
are suffering. This is what happens when you do deficit spending. You
end up spending over a quarter of a trillion dollars to pay interest on
the debt. That does nothing to help anyone.
Meanwhile, we have said we are going to focus money on veterans and
education. We are not going to do it on interest payments. If you are
fiscally responsible, you can do that.
Mr. DOGGETT. That debt tax is a tax that gets imposed on all
Americans, and that is a tax that we are eliminating by moving back to
a budget surplus.
Mr. BECERRA. It is $29,000 per person. A child born today is born
with a birth tax of $29,000 he or she will owe.
Mr. DOGGETT. Of course, as the gentleman knows, that also jeopardizes
our ability to preserve Social Security when you let that much debt and
that much debt tax build up; and that is something else that we address
in this resolution. We don't think when you talk about entitlements
that just cutting grandma's Social Security check or reducing Medicare
is the way to do it. We do need to come together on a bipartisan basis
on entitlements. We could well have done that had President Bush not
been so intent on privatizing Social Security.
But this resolution is well-rounded. That is why groups like the
Concord Coalition have spoken out about it. And it is time now for the
Republicans, like every child, to give up their imaginary demons and
recognize they have done tremendous damage to our country in recent
years. But if we work together on a bipartisan basis, it is possible
for us to meet legitimate tax concerns, not increase taxes, and still
meet the needs of our veterans and protect Social Security.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of rebuttal, I
yield myself 1 minute.
I think we may set a record today on the floor on charts.
But, first, let me say, if you really don't want to raise taxes, if
you are telling us that you have these words in your budget that says
you don't want to raise taxes, you want middle-class tax relief, then
why didn't you put it in your budget?
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, we gave the Democrats ample opportunity to
put it in their budget to make sure that these taxes wouldn't increase.
We had amendments in the Budget Committee to prevent the increase on
the marginal tax rates, to prevent the elimination of the $1,000 per
child tax credit, to prevent the elimination of marriage penalty, cap
gains, dividends, State and local tax, bring back the death tax. We had
all these votes to say, let's make it clear in the numbers: Don't raise
taxes.
What happened? Party line vote after party line vote after party line
votes, Democrats voted on every one of these amendments which put in
the numbers the prevention of these tax increases.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California, a member of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I must disappoint you. I have no charts. I was in this
body a number of years before and then left and came back; and,
frankly, I have never seen such a war of charts as we have on the
Budget Committee. They are instructive. But facts really matter.
Dandy Don Meredith, the famous philosopher on Monday Night Football,
once said, ``If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then every day would
be Christmas day.'' And that really describes the Democrats' commitment
towards not raising taxes. They say it as a matter of policy, but in
terms of actually doing it, they not only wouldn't put it in but they
resisted every amendment we brought forward.
And they like to talk about, well, let's go back to the last few
years; let's see what happened back here and what has happened with the
Republicans.
I came to this House in 1979, one of the last times the Democrats had
control of the White House, control of the House, control of the
Senate, and they were talking about budgets then and they were coming
forward with their proposals. And what did we have then? We had
something called stagflation. We had inflation raging at 13.5 percent,
the prime lending rate was 15.3 percent, the unemployment rate was 7.1
percent. Of course, the top marginal rate was 70 percent. They were
resisting tax cuts.
We came in and said it might make sense, when President Reagan came
in, to reduce marginal rates, to reduce the impact of taxes on the
American people, not only because it was fair to them but because the
real genius of our economy is the production of jobs in the private
sector.
And I would like to ask them, what do they think would happen if we
go back to their same old days, one of the last times we had, for an
extended period of time, the Democrats controlling the Senate, the
Democrats controlling the House, and what they want to do in 2 years is
control the White House as well.
If we move in that direction, we may very well get back to the times
of Jimmy Carter when you did all those things, and the worst impact was
not on tax rates, was not on inflation, it was on jobs. Jobs.
Economists were telling us at that time, following your prescription,
that we couldn't have a sustainable rate of unemployment below 6.5
percent. We now have it at 4.5 percent, 4.6 percent. That is the
greatest social welfare program we have ever had in this country, jobs
to American citizens.
And I understand how you have greater faith in the Federal
Government, have greater faith in government at all levels to create
jobs than do we, but the facts speak for themselves.
Looking at your particular proposal with the tax increases it has, it
would not only affect the wealthy, it would affect in my home State of
California 12,839,000 people at an average increase of $3,331.
Now, you may not want to admit to it, but your increases in spending,
your refusal to do anything about the increases in mandatory
discretionary spending that are taking place during the lifetime of
this budget that you present, and your claim that somehow you don't
raise taxes but you magically come up with a balanced budget, it just
doesn't add up. It is like that movie, The Illusionist. It may sound
good, it may look good, but, you know, you go behind the curtain, and
there is nothing there.
Now, if you can explain to us how economics would allow you to raise
spending, refuse any cuts, refuse to even bring down the rate of
spending, and you don't increase taxes but you have a balanced budget,
God bless you. Bring your charts out. We would love to see it.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 1 minute.
While the gentleman was on his extended sabbatical back in
California, he missed the heyday of our experience here under the
Clinton administration and seems not to know that during those years
the average job creation was 237,000 jobs per month. By comparison or
by contrast, for the Bush administration comparable figures are 68,000
jobs per month.
Now, you can fudge that number by starting to count in August of
2004, claiming that it doesn't apply until then. But if you go back to
January of 2001, the average per monthly increase for the Bush
administration is 68,000 versus the Clinton administration which was
237,000.
Furthermore, the Clinton administration every year had a better
bottom line in the budget. Every year, the deficit got smaller and
smaller, to the point where, in 1997, we had a surplus for the first
time in 1998 in 30 years; and in 2000 we had a surplus of $236 billion.
I now yield 1 minute to Mr. Davis of Alabama.
[[Page H3242]]
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my good friend from
California, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, that facts do matter. And these are
the interesting facts, Mr. Spratt:
While Mr. Daniel E. Lungren was on his sabbatical in California, the
two political sides shifted. The old progressive party decided that it
believes in fiscal discipline. That is why we have the PAYGO rules. And
the previously conservative party is advocating an AMT tax continuation
that would bring 26 million families into its purview. Let me put this
in perspective.
There is one budget on the floor that, for the period 2008 to 2012,
would raise taxes as much as $2,300 per person on 26 million families.
It is not the CBC budget, it is not the Spratt budget, it happens to be
the budget of the President of the United States.
So we have switched. The progressives have become the people who want
to restrain spending, and our friends on the conservative side no
longer care about raising taxes on the middle class.
Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, a number of things have indeed changed.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen on the other side
are right, we have charts. Because you can see what is going on with a
chart.
We have been lectured by those who have created these red lines. The
Democratic plan is the blue line, and this is what has happened in the
last 6 years: the red line.
We are being lectured by people who have put us in the ditch. In
fact, the Republican policies turned a $5.5 trillion surplus into
approximately a $3 trillion deficit, deterioration of the budget of
about $8.5 trillion.
Now, the $500 billion we have spent on the war is about 0.5; $8.5
trillion deterioration, 0.5 on the war.
Now, they say we have stimulated the economy. This is the change in
the Dow Jones Industrial Average: Reagan's first term; Reagan's second
term; Bush I's term; Clinton; Clinton, 4 years. In 6 years, the Dow has
not increased as much as it had in each of the previous 4 years back
through the Reagan administration. So there has been no economic
growth.
They brag about job growth. Add them up: Tied for last place since
Herbert Hoover.
Now, they keep talking about this 2003 tax cut. You ought to talk
about the 2001 tax cut, add up all the jobs through the tax policy:
worst since Herbert Hoover.
We can do better than that. We don't want to be lectured by those who
put us in the ditch. We need to make sure that we have good economic
growth, good tax policy, balance the budget, and go forward.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time I yield myself 20 seconds to say,
the gentleman from Virginia who just spoke, Mr. Chairman, according to
the numbers in this budget, that State will have an average household
tax increase of $3,119; and this will hit another 2,958,000 taxpayers
in the State of Virginia.
{time} 1800
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the
committee for yielding.
This budget resolution we are talking about tonight is a target-rich
environment for things that we can disagree about that are in there. I
have been tasked to talk about the things that aren't in the budget
that we wish we would have been able to get in the budget, such as
process reform.
Every year that we have this opportunity to do a budget, we have an
opportunity to reform our processes and do this budgeting process in a
better way. We spent all day last week in the Budget Committee during
the hearing to try to get some of that done; and, quite frankly, we
failed miserably on our side to convince our colleagues of the value of
some these reforms.
Reforms like strengthening PAYGO to make it really mean PAYGO in the
way our folks back home would understand it, to have PAYGO apply to the
very first year of this budget. We were unable to get that done.
I offered an amendment that said if you are going to start a new
program, a new, great idea in this vast array of programs that we have
in our Federal Government, you would have to kill an existing program
of equal or greater spending.
Well, in the rarified air of that room that night, I got laughed out
of the room. I don't do instant messages, but I think the term ``LOL''
comes to mind. They were laughing out loud. One Member rolled their
eyes the way my 14-year-old daughter used to do about, I guess, how
naive I was about this process.
But I can assure you, I can assure you that back in Texas the idea of
setting priorities, of trying to decide between good things, what we
can afford and what we can't afford, and putting in place a mechanism
that helps us with that discipline, does not get laughed out of the
room. It is only in Washington that would be a laughingstock.
We also attempted to do away with the Gephardt rule. I have heard for
the first 2 years of my service here night after night after night
people decrying the fact that we had hidden in our arcane way of doing
business raising the debt ceiling without taking an up-or-down vote,
without standing in here and doing it the way we ought to do.
We offered an amendment that would have eliminated the Gephardt rule.
A vote for this resolution is a vote for whatever requisite debt
ceiling limits are necessary; a separate vote would have been better on
that.
We offered up other process reforms that had been offered in the
109th Congress by the Democrats. We brought these to the committee
hearing on a word-for-word basis for what they proposed, brought and
voted for just last year. Not one of those passed. Every single one of
those went down on a party-line vote.
I am here tonight to express my disappointment with the fact that we
were not able to gain some process reforms in this resolution. I am
disappointed that it is not in the underlying resolution. I will oppose
it for that reason and a lot of others. I am here to express my
disappointment, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this
resolution.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, a budget is a statement of priorities.
What this budget states clearly is that our Federal Government's first
priority must be to defend our Nation from terrorists and foreign
enemies. We begin by fully funding the administration's 2008 request
for national defense and our military, $5.3 billion, and that is just
the first step.
Next, we invest more than the administration had proposed to defend
our homeland against terrorism. For example, this budget funds the
implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, such as
increasing screening of cargo on passenger aircraft. We do more to scan
shipping containers destined for the United States while those
containers are still in foreign seaports. Why? Because we must stop
nuclear terrorists long before their weapons reach U.S. shores.
This resolution says ``no'' to the administration's ill-advised
proposals to cut funding for first responders. Why? Because our police,
firefighters and EMS personnel must be well trained to respond to
terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
On national defense, this budget states loudly and clearly that a
strong national defense begins with supporting our troops and our
veterans and their families. This bill includes the largest increase in
funding for veterans' health care in the 77-year history of the
Veterans Administration, and our service men and women, Mr. Chairman,
and our veterans have earned every dollar of this funding with their
service and sacrifice.
This means better health care for those with traumatic brain injury
and post traumatic stress disorder, and better health care for over 5
million of America's veterans. It means shorter waiting lines for those
who have earned their benefits through service-connected combat
injuries. And in the aftermath of the Walter Reed Annex 18 tragedy, we
say in this resolution that no soldier, no veteran should ever again
have to endure the indignity of living in moldy, rat-infested housing.
Never.
A vote against this budget is a vote against the largest increase
ever in veterans' health care funding.
[[Page H3243]]
We also reject the administration's proposal to put in effect a
$1,400 annual tax on our military retirees by raising their TRICARE
health care premiums. It is interesting, the administration didn't ask
members of the President's cabinet or Members of Congress to raise our
health care premiums by $1,400 this year, and yet it would do so to men
and women who served in the military for 20 to 30 years. That's wrong,
and this budget resolution rights that wrong.
This budget provides for a strong national defense. It improves our
homeland security against terrorism, and it supports our military
forces and veterans with our deeds, not just our words. Our troops, our
veterans, and our Nation's defense deserve a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton),
the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Texas for giving me
this opportunity to speak so I can applaud my friend, John Spratt, the
gentleman from South Carolina, for bringing to this House floor a
fiscally responsible budget, particularly as it relates to defense. It
is an excellent budget.
The fiscal year 2008 budget resolution provides the same level of
funding for national defense as was requested by the President. It
provides for $507 billion for national defense and another $145 billion
for overseas deployments, numbers consistent with the CBO's reestimates
of the President's budget.
The budget resolution includes proposals that would reorient the
national defense priorities, including more funding for CTR and
nonproliferation programs, which I think are very important, and
greater assistance for wounded veterans, including fixing the problems
at Walter Reed. This is serious.
Earlier today we passed legislation that was the first step in fixing
the challenges at Walter Reed Hospital, and this budget resolution
gives us greater assistance in doing just that, and we will be able to
do that in the Armed Services Committee.
The budget resolution also calls for a significant increase in
funding for veterans' health, and I fully support this proposal which
falls within the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Budget resolutions are difficult at best. But if you look at it
through the eyes of the Committee on Armed Services and if you look at
it through the eyes of national security, this is an excellent
approach. It gives us the opportunity to work our will within the
committee, to make things even better, particularly for the young men
and women in uniform. They are our national treasures, and this budget
resolution gives us the opportunity to do something positive about
that.
Again, I thank my friend from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the chairman for his remarks.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon
(Ms. Hooley) who has been a strong advocate and a national leader on
veterans' affairs issues.
Ms. HOOLEY. I thank my friend from Texas for yielding, and I thank
the chairman of the Budget Committee for the fabulous job he did.
I rise today to speak on the budget, a budget I am very proud of.
This budget keeps our promise to our veterans, gives us the tools to
defend our country, grows our economy, provides American children
health care, and much more. All of it is done in a fiscally responsible
way, ensuring a balanced budget by 2012, and all the while not raising
taxes.
This budget before us sets priorities and ensures that a promise made
to our brave veterans will truly be a promise kept. Too often over the
last 6 years we failed to meet our basic obligation to our veterans.
American veterans who served with honor and distinction deserve better.
This budget is a step towards making sure our veterans get what they
have earned.
We also have to remember that today's soldiers are tomorrow's
veterans. At a time when we are asking our men and women in uniform to
sacrifice so much, it is inexcusable not to honor their service by
providing the benefits and health care our veterans were promised.
This budget, Mr. Chairman, puts us back on track. I am proud to say
that the $5.4 billion increase in funding for veterans is a record 18
percent increase.
We are sending a strong statement to our veterans and service men and
women of today that we as a Nation will not forget their sacrifices. I
have three letters that I would like to submit for the Record, and I
would like to quote from them.
First of all, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Gary Kurpius, Commander-in-
Chief, says: ``We have long argued that the price of health care and
benefits for this Nation's veterans are the ongoing costs of war. The
$3.5 billion increase above the President's request is a strong
acknowledgment that you agree and that this Nation must do more to live
up to its sacred obligation to those who have defended her. The costs
of war are not just about buying bombs or tanks, but about providing
for our sick and disabled when they return and helping those heroes
care for families and independents. The members of the VFW stand firmly
behind you.''
From the Disabled American Veterans, National Commander Bradley
Barton says: ``The budget recommendations that came out of the House
and Senate Budget Committee will make a real difference in the lives of
America's sick and disabled veterans. This is especially important as
our Nation is at war.''
And finally, from Steve Robertson, director, National Legislative
Commission of the American Legion says: ``The American Legion and its
2.8 million members applaud the Budget Committee. As a Nation at war,
this funding will help cover the ongoing cost of war to care for the
men and women of the United States Armed Forces and their families.''
I support this budget. I support our veterans. This is a good budget.
Again, I want to remind people, it does not raise taxes. But if you
want to support our veterans, you should vote for this budget.
March 21, 2007.
Hon. John Spratt,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Spratt: On behalf of the 2.4 million men and
women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. (VFW), and
our Auxiliaries, I would like to offer our gratitude for the
leadership you have demonstrated on veterans' issues through
your dramatic increase above and beyond the President's
request for fiscal year 2008 funding for the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).
We have long argued at the price of health care and
benefits for this Nation's veterans are the ongoing costs of
war. The $3.5 billion increase above the President's request
is a strong acknowledgement that you agree and that this
Nation must do more to live up to its sacred obligations to
those who have defended her. The costs of war are not just
about buying bombs or tanks, but about providing for our sick
and disabled when they return, and helping these heroes care
for their families and dependents.
The dramatic increase in this budget recommendation will
help to ensure that all veterans--those from Operations
Enduring and Iraqi Freedom and those from all our previous
conflicts--have access to the high-quality health care VA
provides, and quicker resolution to their veterans'
disability compensation decisions.
The members of the VFW stand firmly behind you, in support
of your strong advocacy for this Nation's veterans. We thank
you for your strong leadership on veterans' health care and
benefits, and we look forward to working with you to ensure
the success of this budget.
Sincerely,
Gary Kurpius,
Commander-in-Chief.
____
House, Senate Budget Plans Keep Faith With Veterans
Washington.--The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) is urging
lawmakers to support a recommended $6.6 billion increase in
funding for veterans health care and other programs as called
for in 2008 budget blueprints being debated in the House and
Senate.
``The budget recommendations that came out of the House and
Senate Budget Committees will make a real difference in the
lives of America's sick and disabled veterans,'' said DAV
National Commander Bradley S. Barton. ``This is especially
important as our nation is at war.''
Both budget resolutions reported out of committee call for
$43.1 billion in discretionary spending for the Department of
Veterans Affairs, the bulk of which is for veterans health
care. That is $6.6 billion above the fiscal 2007 enacted
level and $3.5 billion above the President's request. The
congressional budget blueprints do not include user fees and
higher prescription co-payments contained in the President's
plan.
Commander Barton praised Senate Budget Committee Chairman
Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)
[[Page H3244]]
and House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-N.C.) for
their support of discretionary funding levels in line with
recommendations in The Independent Budget authored by the DAV
and other veterans service organizations. ``This much-needed
funding increase will allow the Department of Veterans
Affairs to better meet the needs of the men and women
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as all veterans
who have served in the past,'' he said.
While the draft budget resolutions call for significant
increases in spending for veterans programs in fiscal year
2008, the DAV is concerned about future projected funding
levels. ``Funding must keep pace with rising health care
costs and an expected increase in veterans seeking services
from the VA,'' Barton said. ``The DAV will continue working
with Congress to ensure that future budgets meet the needs of
our nation's sick and disabled veterans.''
The 1.3 million-member Disabled American Veterans, a non-
profit organization founded in 1920 and chartered by the U.S.
Congress in 1932, represents this nation's disabled veterans.
It is dedicated to a single purpose: building better lives
for our nation's disabled veterans and their families. For
more information, visit the organization's Web site
www.dav.org.
____
March 21, 2007.
Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Budget, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The American Legion and its 2.8 million
members applaud the Budget Committee for the Budget
Resolution recommendation for $43.1 billion in discretionary
funding for Veterans (Function 700). This represents an
increase of $3.5 billion above the President's budget request
for FY 2008 and $6.6 billion above current funding level for
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
As a nation at war, this funding will help cover the
ongoing cost of war to care for the men and women of the
United States Armed Forces and their families. Your
recommendations closely parallel the views and estimates
submitted by The American Legion earlier this year.
The American Legion urges the Congress to provide the
Department of Veterans Affairs with sufficient funding to
meet the needs of taking care of America's service members--
past, present, and future. We look forward to working with
you and your congressional colleagues in ensuring the
Department of Veterans Affairs remains a solid agency that
meets this nation's obligation to those men and women sent
into harm's way.
Sincerely,
Steve Robertson,
Director,
National Legislative Commission.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentlewoman from Oregon who just spoke, the tax increase in this
budget would hit the average Oregon household with an annual tax
increase of $2,751 which would affect 1,336,000 taxpayers in that State
alone.
I would like to take a moment to compliment my colleagues on the
other side on the veterans' portion of the budget. They do add more
resources for veterans, to veterans' health care. They do meet the
President's numbers on defense. This is a part of their budget that I
would like to compliment them on. We, too, in our substitute, will add
additional resources to veterans and veterans' health care. This is an
area where I think they have made some improvements over the
President's budget in their budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Bonner).
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin, our ranking member.
Either our friends on the other side of the aisle have a bad case of
amnesia, or their selective memory is such that they need to check
themselves into the House physician's office.
The Democratic majority likes to claim that when President Bush came
into office, we had a budget surplus, which we did. But because of
those evil tax cuts, which let the record also show that many of our
Democratic colleagues actually voted for, and some even still profess
to support, that because of these dastardly tax cuts, all of the
problems we are facing now are because of George Bush and the
Republican Congress.
{time} 1815
Mr. Chairman, our Democratic colleagues either have forgotten or they
fail to acknowledge the fact that when President Bush came into office
in January of 2001, he was walking into a recession left courtesy of
the outgoing Clinton administration. A few months later, the dot-com
bust and the corporate scandal made matters worse. And then remember
September 11, 2001, and the ensuing costs associated with responding to
the worst terrorist attack in American history and the additional costs
associated with fighting the global war on terror.
I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because this budget is step one in the
Democratic majority's plan to dismantle the tax policies that
Republicans have put in place these past few years, policies that have
actually worked, and replace it with the single largest tax increase in
American history.
Do not take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. Consider the following:
During the past 45 months the tax relief was enacted, 7.6 million new
jobs have been created, an average of 168,000 per month; contrast that
with the 27 months prior to the tax relief, where we lost 2.7 million
jobs.
During the past 15 quarters since the tax relief was enacted, real
GDP growth has averaged a robust 3.5 percent, faster than the averages
of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. In the nine quarters prior to the tax
relief, actual GDP growth was just 1.1 percent.
Since the enactment of the tax relief, unemployment has fallen from
6.1 percent in June of 2003 to a near 5-year low of 4.5 percent. This
is below the averages of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
My friends in Alabama know a good economy when they see one. Our
unemployment rate under the leadership of Republican Governor Bob Riley
is just 3.3 percent, the lowest since we became a State in 1819.
Mr. Chairman, no one on our side is saying that we can continue the
great economy or that everyone who has a job has the job they hope to
retire from.
One thing is for certain. The Democratic majority had 32
opportunities last week in committee to vote on amendments that would
have made these tax cuts permanent, 32 opportunities where they had an
opportunity to vote for it, put it in writing, make it acceptable to
the American people; and all 32 times they voted it down on a party-
line vote.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have a chart. I have a picture of America's
children. These tax increases are going to result in Alabama alone of
an increase of $2,500 for the average working, tax-paying family. That
means no braces, no college education fund, no family vacation. That is
what this budget is about, our children.
And I thank the gentleman.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will take a little time on our
side to try and catch up. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
for yielding the time.
I find this such an interesting debate every year, Mr. Chairman. You
know, as we come down here and debate the budget every year, we do talk
about the budget, and it should be a reflection of the priorities of
the people of this Nation. And what we see in the budget document that
is before us is the priorities of the bureaucracy reflected. Because
what we see is a budget document that is going to make spending
permanent and tax reductions temporary.
Now, one of the things that we all know is that is not what the
American people voted for. That is not what they wanted. They did not
want to grow spending. They did not want to increase what the Federal
Government spent. They did not want to increase the Federal
Government's reach into their lives. What they wanted to do was to see
that size reduced. But we do have a budget before us that is going to
raise taxes $392.5 billion over 5 years.
Now, the last time the Democrats were in control in 1993, 1994, they
passed what was then the largest tax increase in history, about $240
billion over 5 years; and this year it did not take them but about 3
months to come back and decide they were going to get it while they
could.
You know, it is baseball season. They were going for a home run. They
have earned the moniker of the hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress because
America, yes, indeed, can be sure they are coming to a pocket near them
as quick as they can get there for a wallet; and they are going to take
$2,600 out of every wallet of every one of my constituents in
Tennessee, $2,600.
And to add insult to injury, our sales tax deductibility, which was
restored
[[Page H3245]]
in 2003 because we do not have an income tax in Tennessee, thank
goodness, we just have a sales tax, that is being taken away in this
bill, $1,100 per family, $2,600 total. It is a tax increase.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore) with the request that he be allowed to yield part of
the time that is allotted to him to other Members.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if I may just interject, may I
just inquire as to how much time is on each side remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lynch). The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan) has 63 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) has 56\1/2\ minutes remaining before yielding to the
gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. On the question of yielding control of time, the
Chair would advise that the Committee of the Whole may not, even by
unanimous consent, alter the scheme for control of time for general
debate that was established by the House in House Resolution 275. The
gentleman from South Carolina controls the time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, today with this budget resolution
the majority party, the Democratic Party, takes an important step
towards restoring fiscal discipline as a priority of our government,
something the Blue Dogs in Congress have advocated for years.
When the administration took office in 2001, it inherited a projected
surplus of $5.6 trillion. Within 2 years, the surplus was gone; and,
since 2001, $3 trillion in new debt, to my friends here, $3 trillion in
new debt was added to our country's bottom line.
Because of the previous majority's lack of fiscal discipline, our
gross national debt now stands at over $8.8 trillion. They talk about
tax cuts, and they are just not providing accurate information at all.
It is not true information.
They say that our budget proposes tax increases, which simply is not
true. They wrote the tax cuts back in 2001 that were implemented in
2001, and they were to last for 10 years, and they still will be going
until 2010. The Democrats are not doing a thing in their budget to
raise taxes, not one single thing, to the contrary of what our friends
across the aisle are saying.
In fact, our friends across the aisle have added $3 trillion of debt
to our country, to our children and grandchildren. That is the way you
paid for the tax cuts, was by adding $3 trillion of debt.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Moore, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is a very healthy debate taking place. I so appreciate the
budget that has been brought out of the Budget Committee, and I
appreciate the ranking member for offering a budget. Because, in
offering a budget, now the contrast is clear.
Pay-as-you-go is the fundamental foundation of fiscally disciplined
budgeting, because it means you have made a decision the deficit goes
no deeper. We have heard about the soaring deficits, the astonishing
turnaround from a surplus to nearly $3 trillion of deficit spending
during the years of Republican control, now yielding us a national debt
approaching $9 trillion.
I was pleased to see a picture of children raised by a Member of the
other side, because I think that is exactly what it is about. We cannot
continue to raise this debt on the children, and that is why pay-as-
you-go budgeting was passed in the first 100 hours of this new Congress
included in this budget.
Now, the alternative budget, they take a little different view. They
say pay-as-you-go does not apply if you are going to cut taxes; you do
not have to pay for cutting taxes. In fact, they cut taxes $470 billion
without any pay-fors, just cut taxes.
Can you imagine a family sitting down saying, man, we have got to
tighten our budget, we have got to cut this, we have got to cut that,
we have got to this, we have got to cut that. This is so depressing
that I am going to quit working full time. I am going to work half
time.
It would not make any sense. You have got to count the revenue side;
you have got to cut the spending side. That is our plan.
But that is not the end of the Ryan budget and what it means in terms
of overall budget picture, because they do have cuts. This is an
important final point to make. It reminds me a little bit of the budget
policies we debated in the 1990s, where they wanted to cut the heck out
of Medicare in order to fund tax cuts disproportionately flowing to the
wealthiest people of this country.
In this budget you have a directive to the Ways and Means and the
Energy and Commerce Committees to cut $250 billion. We know where those
cuts are coming from. I am on the Ways and Means Committee. That is the
Medicare committee. They are coming right back after Medicare again,
taking dollars from the seniors' health care in this country in order
to fund these tax cuts for the wealthiest people, to the extent they
are funded at all.
Here is a chart illustrating the distribution on their tax cuts. This
is for those over $1 million. This has been the most regressive series
of tax cuts ever enacted in this country. We know the benefit has gone
all to the rich, predominantly to the rich, disproportionately to the
rich.
To think that they fund it out of cutting Medicare, while driving the
debt deeper, shows the budget choice. Fiscal discipline, balanced
budget by 2012; cutting Medicare, deeper deficits. Go for the Spratt
budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
The Republicans are plain wrong; and, worse than that, they are not
telling the truth when they stand over there and say that our budget
raises taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This Democratic budget does not raise taxes one single penny. In
fact, section 203 of the Democratic budget explicitly provides for tax
cuts.
One, middle-income tax cuts, including the marriage penalty. That is
in this budget. That is a tax cut. Including child tax credits. That is
in this budget. That is a tax cut. And the 10 percent tax bracket. And
on top of that, you talk about the President's tax cuts, the
President's tax cuts in 2001--
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman must
direct his remarks to the Chair and not directly to other Members. The
gentleman may proceed.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Well, Mr. Chairman, my point was simply to try
to respond to the accusations that were made to our side. I will
respect that.
But my point, if I may continue, is that it really gets on your
nerves a bit when the other side makes these accusations which are
totally bald-faced wrong. When it says, for example, the previous
speaker said, for example, that we did not support the President's tax
cuts. Not only did we, as they said, on the Democratic side, some of us
did, but we have very seriously kept, the tax cuts of the President
from 2001 and 2003 are secured in this budget. That is a fact. And they
are consistent with our House pay-as-you-go rule.
The alternative minimum tax, which otherwise would hit tens of
millions of families, these families are protected in this.
And the area where it presses us so and in previous budgets, the
President's previous budgets have cut veterans. We increase the funding
for veterans by over $2 billion in this budget.
It is a good budget.
{time} 1830
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\2/3\ minutes.
I would simply say the gentleman from North Dakota represents a State
that pays a lot of capital gains tax and farm income, death taxes.
Under this bill, the average household of North Dakota will see a tax
increase annually of $2,613, which had 244,000 taxpayers. In the State
of Georgia, the gentleman just spoke, that State will see an average
household tax increase per year of
[[Page H3246]]
$2,743, which will hit 3,132,000 taxpayers.
If this budget doesn't raise taxes, then why is it that the Democrats
shot down every single amendment that was offered to prevent all of
these tax increases?
If you really believe it doesn't raise taxes, then why would you
prevent us from adjusting the numbers to make sure it didn't raise
taxes? You can read any word you want.
You can read any word you want of these so-called reserve funds. At
the end of each of these reserve funds, it says, well, we got to come
up with offsets to pay for these priorities. We don't want to raise
these taxes. We want to extend the child tax credit, but they are not
paid for. Actions are louder than words.
More importantly, numbers are louder than words.
Announcement By the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lynch). The gentleman will suspend. The
gentleman would please direct his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the numbers are very, very
clear. The numbers, equivocally, have the largest tax increase in the
American history.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this budget does
include $392 million in increased taxes. Unfortunately, this Democrat
tax increase plan affects all Americans. Those increases would hit
middle income families, low-income earners families with small
children, business, just to name a few.
Now, we have heard here tonight from our friends on the other side of
the aisle that they don't want to raise taxes in this budget and that
this budget doesn't raise taxes. Mr. Chairman, there is a problem, that
the votes here in this body are recorded, they are actually recorded,
just last week, not last year, not last century, just last week.
I know memory sometimes fails, but last week, when we marked up this
budget, the Republicans offered several amendments making sure that the
taxes did not go up. Not a single Democrat in that committee voted for
those amendments.
So here they come, on this floor tonight, and say that they do not
raise taxes, but last week they voted against an amendment extending
the $1,000 per child tax credit. They say, tonight, on this floor, that
this budget does not raise taxes, but voted against an amendment last
week on this budget that would have extended the marriage penalty tax
relief. They say tonight on this floor that they do not want to raise
taxes and this budget does not raise taxes, but just a few days ago,
they voted against extending the elimination of death tax and even
voted against extending the State and local tax deduction.
That is on the record. You see, you can say a lot of things, but
votes are recorded.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't take my word for it, don't take theirs.
Go on the Internet. Look at the votes. They voted to extend, they voted
against those amendments which would have kept the taxes low.
What does that mean for every American family? For example, a middle
income family of four earning $60,000 will see an increase of 61
percent to their tax bill in 2011.
But wait, there is a lot more. But wait, like the TV commercial says,
but, wait, there is more, 150 million taxpayers would see their taxes
increase, on average, of $1,795 by 2011. In the State of Florida alone,
there are over 7.6 million taxpayers. I hate to break the news, there
aren't 7.6 million rich people in Florida. Over 7.6 million taxpayers
in my home State of Florida will see their taxes increase by an average
of $3,036.
Mr. Chairman, this is the largest tax increase in the history of this
country.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield myself 1
minute just to read some clarifying language, which is in the
Democrats' budget.
At the end of these reserve funds, so called, for middle income
taxpayers, it says we want to provide this tax relief, but only to the
extent that such bills or joint resolutions in the form placed before
the House in the Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or
decrease the surplus for fiscal years 2007 through 2012.
Then, in section 401, where they talk about these tax extensions as a
statement of their policy preferences, they assume that the cost of
such a policy is offset. What does that mean? That means they are not
covering the tax cuts. That means if you want to extend these tax cuts,
they would have to pay for them on top of raising these taxes.
What this budget resolution also does, if you simply merely want to
extend this tax relief, that is past 2010, you would have to come up
with more tax increases to do so. This prohibits the ability of
Congress to simply extend this tax relief, thereby bringing these tax
increases to a curve.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side have complained that I
guess we Republicans don't know what fiscal mismanagement is. What does
it mean? I guess our Democrats, by their actions this year, especially
looking at this budget, I think that fiscal mismanagement means that we
are not spending enough. Apparently, if the Republicans had spent more
money on everything, including everything in this budget, everything
would be perfect, but we certainly know that is not the case. The
Democrats seem to think that the IRS tax collectors just need to bring
in more money.
But let me tell you exactly what has happened. Collections over the
past year are up $2.5 trillion. That figure keeps going up every year.
We are collecting more tax revenue, as a share of the economy, more
than the average over the past 40 years.
So I guess they are telling me it is not enough. According to the
Democrats, there is still too much uncollected tax revenue out there.
So their budget, like the budget in the Senate that was produced last
week, calls for the IRS to make up the difference trying to close this
magical tax gap. I am sure somebody will tell me exactly what this
magical tax gap is some time tonight.
In short, this Democrat budget has found that the Federal Government
budget is almost perfect. I guess all we need to do is spend more
money. Clearly, my colleagues and I have a different approach. Number
1, we think prosperity and economic growth mainly comes from economic
investors and workers, not the Federal Government. We think creative
ideas, the ones that lead to progress and higher standards of living
come from thinking outside the box, not inside the box, because that is
government.
I guess last of all, we believe, as President Reagan said in his
first inaugural address, we are a Nation that has a government, not the
other way around. We believe these things, because we believe the
government should limit its taxing and spending, ease the burden on the
economy, and let it grow.
Judging by this budget, the Democrats, they don't see that. They
think government should call the shots and keep widening its control.
For that reason, this budget trusts the government more than the
people that are paying the tax bills. We believe this budget is
fundamentally a failure.
If you want to bring it home, in South Carolina terms, so I can let
the folks in South Carolina know, this is about a $2,500 tax increase
for my average South Carolinan home, $2,500. We believe in freedom.
With freedom comes less government, and that is a good thing.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a
distinguished member of the Budget Committee, a member who has great
financial expertise, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, you know, I am a little
stunned by this debate tonight, by what's being said by the other side.
I am hearing a lot of stuff about how this budget balances the budget,
but also about how it doesn't raise taxes. The gentleman from Georgia
said, and I believe I wrote it down correctly, that it ``does not raise
taxes one single penny.''
[[Page H3247]]
Well, this budget either doesn't raise taxes, or it doesn't balance
the budget. But it absolutely mathematically cannot do both. It will
not and cannot mathematically do both.
This budget includes every penny of tax increases, in the dollars, in
the revenue dollars, every penny, which will tax my constituents and
the people of California $3,331 each per taxpayer per year. Now, your
numbers, the numbers of their budget, includes every bit of cutting the
child care tax credit, eliminating the marriage penalty deduction,
raising rates at every income bracket, raising the capital gains tax,
raising the dividends tax, raising the death tax, raising all of those
taxes. Every penny of that is included.
That is how their budget balances. Without it, it doesn't balance.
Without it, it has a deficit in the fifth year of somewhere close to
$100 billion, which is just a little less than the deficit that we have
now.
Now, we didn't write this budget. This is their budget. I will give
them the benefit of the doubt, and, presume, that perhaps they would
like to have a budget that doesn't raise taxes, or perhaps they would
like to have a budget that balances.
But they have increased spending in this budget, which is the reason
we have the deficit today. It is not because taxes are too low, it is
because spending is too high.
So, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, choose.
You are either raising taxes, or you are not balancing the budget, but
you mathematically cannot do both. It is your budget, it is your
decision. You tell us which one you are going to do.
Announcement By the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman will
direct his remarks to the Chair, please.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, they should tell the
American people which one they are going to do, because they either are
increasing taxes or not balancing the budget. They mathematically
cannot do both.
Mr. Chairman, the budget, the way it is written, is, absolutely is,
and assumes every penny of the largest tax increase in American
history, and that is something the people of this country cannot
afford.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) let me just say once again that this budget
resolution leaves in place all of the tax cuts implemented in 2001 and
2003. Had we wished, we could have repealed those tax cuts. It leaves
them in place in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The year 2010, December 31,
those tax cuts expire their provisions, because they were written and
designed to expire by the other side, by the Republicans. That is what
happened to them.
This present resolution does not trigger their re-elimination, it
doesn't trigger their determination. It doesn't decide either way. By
its open volition, by its own terms, these tax cuts will expire on that
very day unless they are renewed.
For the purpose of renewal at that point in time, 2010, 2011 and
2012, we will have a surplus of $450 billion, and those surpluses, over
time, according to our projection, according to this budget resolution,
will build to $1 trillion. If we so choose then, depending on the
situation, we can so choose, then, to apply these to all or some of the
renewable tax cuts. But that decision can be reached and made then
better than it can be now. In the meantime, the tax cuts stand for the
next 4 years.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, just to save my good friend from Wisconsin
the time, I represent a State where 7.5 million people will not see the
repeal to their marriage penalty relief, a State where 7.5 million
people will not see capital gains rates go back up under this budget,
where 7.5 million people will not lose their child care tax credit, et
cetera. Here is what these budgets say about taxes.
In 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, the present law remains in effect. There
is no tax cut that was enacted that is modified, limited or repealed.
{time} 1845
On December 31 of 2010, whomever is in control of this Congress will
have a choice to make, and that choice will be which, if any or all, of
the tax cuts should be extended beyond their expiration date.
Here is the difference between our budget and the President's
Republican approach. We say that we should think first, analyze first,
and then make the right choice. We say that when we get to December 31
of 2010, let's look at what surplus may exist. If Mr. Spratt's budget
is adopted, the budget will be in surplus of $154 billion by fiscal
year 2012.
We say, let's look at the revenues that come in. Our budget, of
course, is based upon the CBO's more pragmatic and conservative revenue
estimates.
The President's budget, Mr. Chairman, is based upon more optimistic
revenue assumptions. We hope that he is right. We hope that the
optimistic revenue assumptions are correct, and there will be an even
greater surplus at that point in time.
Our budget contains significant investments in closing the tax gap,
in going after the tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of
dollars that are owed under present law but not collected. And we say,
let's see how we do in collecting some of those funds. Let's look at
the Nation's priorities, and then let's make an intelligent choice
about what to do.
The President and the Republican Party have fallen back into the same
old rut of saying, when we get to December 31 of 2010, let's do what we
have done throughout our period of primacy and majority. Let's borrow
more money. That is how we got into the mess that we inherited when we
took this majority in January.
We believe that this budget should not borrow money from the Social
Security trust fund and from foreign governments like the People's
Republic of China to meet our obligations. We believe we should pay as
we go, whether it is adding a dollar for the Children's Health
Insurance Program, or reducing a dollar in taxes paid by the people of
the country.
We believe that the right choice and the first choice and the
dominant choice is to stop running this country on borrowed money from
the Social Security trust fund, from the Chinese and from others.
So when my friend from Wisconsin read from our resolution, I thank
and commend him, because that is exactly what we stand for. When we get
to December 31 of 2010 and the question about which tax cuts to renew
should be taken up by this Congress, if we are the majority at that
time, we will make a wise choice based upon what the surplus is, what
the economy looks like and what our options are. But we will not borrow
the money from the Social Security trust fund and from other creditors
around the world.
We have tried that under them for the last 6 years. It is a recipe
for disaster. It is a recipe for a cataclysm in the next decade when
Social Security and Medicare come due in a very, very large way. So our
principle is not to increase this deficit and to build a surplus, and
we stand by it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to deeply thank, Mr. Chairman, the chairman
of our Budget Committee, the very able and distinguished gentleman from
South Carolina, John Spratt, who has led our committee to produce a
budget that will balance in the next 5 years with no tax increase. It
is going to take pay-as-you-go and it is going to take a real regimen
to correct America's net negative savings rate.
Certainly, the Bush administration has done much damage in the last 6
years by making a mess of fiscal policy, just as it has made a mess of
foreign policy; and now we have got these overhanging budget deficits
and trade deficits. For, in fact, in 2001, the administration inherited
a projected 10-year surplus of nearly $6 trillion; and within 2 years
alone the surplus had been eliminated and we began piling up debt,
adding $2.8 trillion over 6 years, much of it purchased by foreign
investors, which I will talk about here in just a second.
I want to thank Chairman Spratt for doing what is right for America.
Many organizations, like the Concord Coalition, states, ``Thus, to be
clear, the Democratic budget resolution does not call for nor require a
tax increase.''
[[Page H3248]]
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said this month as well,
``The House Democratic plan does not include a tax increase.''
And the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution of this month
also says, ``The Democratic budget would not raise taxes.''
I think that those on the other side of the aisle doth protest too
much, because, in fact, you didn't produce this kind of budget. Now,
you might be well intentioned. I used to think Republicans balanced
budgets. I have since learned differently after serving here in this
Congress.
I want to talk about what is so dangerous about the debt that the
Republicans and the Bush administration have accrued. If you look at
who is footing the bill, it is foreign countries, Japan, the oil-
producing and exporting nations, China. In fact, China now holds over
$1 trillion in U.S. dollar reserves, and they are looking to diversify
away from the Dow. And if you look at what is happening to the price of
gold, it is skyrocketing as the U.S. dollar's worth is dropping.
Our accounts are badly out of order. This budget maintains in the
reserve account all of the tax breaks that were given to the American
people, the extension of the child tax credit, the marriage penalty
relief, extension of the research and air experimentation tax credit,
extension of the deduction for State and local sales taxes, school
construction bonds and so forth.
So even with the incredible drag of the Iraq war on our Federal
budget and our Nation's economy, this Democratic budget that Chairman
Spratt and members of our committee have produced does achieve balance
within 5 years. It is rigorous, it will make the Nation more healthy,
and I just want to commend him for taking a most difficult challenge
and doing what is right for the American people, for our children and
grandchildren.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
I was just taken aback when I heard one of our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, I think from South Carolina, talk about the
concern they have about being, that they weren't big spenders enough.
Well, what we have seen under Republican control, where they had the
executive and both branches, the spending has skyrocketed. In fact, we
saw essays from Republican conservative pundits saying that probably
they should have lost in the last election because they have lost
control of the budget process. The greatest increase since the Great
Society.
I think it is important to go back and look at their record. When
they had complete control, spending was out of control, and the most
conservative pundits said so. The facts reveal it. They may try and run
away from their record at this point by attacking a balanced budget,
pay-as-you-go, and focus on priorities that the American public
supports, but their record does not support the assertion.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the other
side about what we are doing. And based upon what they are doing, it is
very important for us to set the record straight, that they have had
control of this place; and for the last 5 years, since 2001, under this
Congress and this administration, they have borrowed more money just
from foreign governments alone, from foreign nations, more money than
all of the previous 42 Presidents and administrations.
And I know that is shocking to the American people. But it is
important. That alone is a glaring example of the outright
mismanagement and the lack of fiscal responsibility that they put us in
debt to that tune.
Again, since 1789, the foundation of this country, all the way up to
2001, they borrowed more money in the last 5 years, $1.6 trillion. We
only borrowed $1.3 trillion from 1789 from foreign countries to 2001.
That is why we have to move with a responsible measure like this.
On top of that, Mr. Chairman, finally, I want to say that, in
addition to borrowing that money, they inherited a surplus of $5.6
trillion that was squandered in addition to the debt that was acquired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the RSC, a distinguished member
of House Budget Committee, Mr. Hensarling from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. I hope that the American people, Mr. Chairman, are
paying very careful attention to this budget debate. The budget is
really about priorities. We have heard about the priorities of the
Democratic budget, and that is, let's increase the Federal budget at
the expense of the family budget. I can hardly believe what I am
hearing with respect to taxes. We know that, having been in power fewer
than 90 days, the Democrats have now proposed the single largest tax
increase in American history, almost $400 billion of new taxes on the
American people.
Well, guess what? Last time they were in the majority, Mr. Chairman,
they proposed the single biggest tax increase in American history. I
suppose there is something to be said for consistency.
Now, I have heard from our distinguished chairman, and I have the
utmost respect for him, and others that there is really not a tax
increase. We just have expiring tax provisions.
Well, Mr. Chairman, when people all over America all of a sudden look
at their tax bill and see how much they are going to have to pay, I
think that is going to be a distinction that is lost on them. Either
you are paying more in taxes or you are not.
And I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that all the members, all the
Democratic members of the Budget Committee had the opportunity to make
sure that the tax relief for American families was permanent, that we
extended it. But, instead, they voted against it. They will have
another opportunity tomorrow. So there is the old saying that your
actions are so loud that I can hardly hear your words.
And so what are we left with? Again, the Democrats are proposing the
single largest tax increase in American history.
Now, I have the honor and privilege of representing a lot of good
people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. And in my home
State, the single largest tax increase in American history that
Democrats are trying to impose is going to mean an extra $2,700 burden
on a family of four in my State.
And I asked people, I asked people from the Fifth District, what is
this going to mean to you? And I heard from a lady, and I will use
first names here, Diana from Mesquite, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. She
said, Congressman, I wanted to let you know that I am a single mom that
does not receive any type of child support, and an increase of this
amount would break me. I would be at risk of losing my home with this
type of increase. I am writing to ask your help to keep this from
happening. This would be devastating to middle-income families in my
situation.
Mr. Chairman, what the Democrats don't seem to realize again is when
they spend more money on the Federal budget, they are taking money away
from the family budget with their single largest tax increase in
American history.
Let's hear from Brian from Dallas. Dear Congressman Hensarling, the
tax increase would most likely affect our ability to pay tuition and
books for our daughter to go to college. She is a junior this year, and
we are trying to save money for her education. The loss of these funds
due to an increase in taxes will have a negative impact on our plans
for her education.
They are taking money away from the family budget. They are putting
Diana's home in jeopardy. They are putting the education of Brian's
daughter in jeopardy.
Vote down this single largest tax increase in American history.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the House Budget Committee, Mr.
Smith from Nebraska.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise with great concern about
the proposed budget and how sustainable it is or it is not.
{time} 1900
I would express it concerns me a great deal when I see the fact that
115
[[Page H3249]]
million taxpayers would see their taxes increase on average by almost
$1,800 in 2011. I think this discussion can be healthy, and I
appreciate the fact that the majority does want to keep some of the tax
relief, but it needs a budget that comports with that intent.
It concerns me a great deal when I look at the long term when we see
absolutely no change in direction from prior spending. We hear that
there has been borrowing that has taken place. It has. There is no
denying that. But now it seem that the option is to take more tax
dollars from the taxpayers, and that is what I think will be damaging
to the economy as a whole and certainly the economy of households all
across America. When I look at what I see as very damaging to seniors
with the dividends tax relief plan that would be cut off, that concerns
me a great deal, and when I look at the impact to my State of Nebraska
in the increases in taxes, I just don't see where this new budget sets
a new direction.
We were told in the Budget Committee several times that we need
fundamental reforms in entitlements, and yet this budget presents
absolutely no reforms in entitlements.
Mr. Chairman, those are my concerns and they are concerns about the
future.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the former superintendent of education
in the State of North Carolina.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of North Carolina's children
and our working families and the people of America, I rise this evening
in support of this budget resolution and congratulate my good friend
the chairman of the committee, John Spratt, for his visionary
leadership in crafting this important document.
With this budget resolution, the new Democratic majority will succeed
where our Republican predecessors have failed. To budget is to govern,
and this resolution will produce a balanced budget with balanced
priorities, and that is important.
As the chairman has indicated, I am proud to be the only chief State
schools officer serving in Congress, and I am particularly pleased
about the measures providing for education and innovation in this
budget. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
Specifically, rather than continuing the Republicans' record of
passing a crushing debt burden on the future generations, the Spratt
resolution contains tough budget discipline for a new direction for the
Federal budget. The Spratt resolution rejects the President's proposed
education cuts and instead provides greater investment in our Nation's
schools, including the school construction bonds that Chairman Rangel
and I have been working on for nearly a decade. It provides $50 billion
for children's health insurance, and it protects millions of middle-
income families from the onslaught of the alternative minimum tax.
There are many reasons to support this resolution, but in my brief
allotted time, I want to say that I support this resolution on behalf
of my grandson, William, and my granddaughter, Virginia, and all the
children of America and their families who deserve a budget that puts
their needs first.
My friends, this is what the Republican leadership has done for the
last 6 years. They used a credit card. No one in America could get away
with paying nothing but the interest on a credit card. They have run up
the debt for my grandchildren and every child in America, and that is
wrong. The definition of a good budget is when you do what is right for
the next generation. That is the definition of this budget, and it is a
budget that is truly balanced. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
hard work.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if a Nation is judged by how it
treats its weak, its vulnerable, and its children, then American
families can be proud of the fiscal year 2008 Democratic budget.
For the past 6 years, this administration and its allies in Congress
have pit ordinary people and their struggles against the interests of
the wealthiest in our society.
The Democratic budget represents a dramatic change of course, putting
children and families first by investing in health care and education,
accommodating tax relief to middle-class families, and providing
assistance for hurricane-ravaged communities and supporting the poorest
of the poor, those who have no tax liability. We budget for expansion
of the State children's health insurance program.
We often hear folks say that education is the key, but, of course,
money is what unlocks the door. The chairman's mark increases funding
for education and social services, job training by almost $8 billion
over the 2008 program level in the President's budget for vital
services such as Head Start, IDEA, and programs under No Child Left
Behind.
We reject the President's cuts to critical social services programs
by helping struggling families make ends meet, and in doing so, we
recognize that the number of Americans living in poverty has increased
by 5.4 million since 2000. We provide the resources to help support
energy assistance, food stamps, and child care for low-income families.
The Democratic budget rejects the President's proposal to eliminate the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program, serving nearly 5,000 seniors each
month in my district.
This evening's budget debate is about our priorities as a Nation as
well as our morality. In short, the Democratic budget represents a
downpayment to fulfill the commitment we have made to our Nation's
children and families.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the Budget
Committee. I am now in my second term. There is a great contrast
between what went on in the last 2 years when I was in the Budget
Committee and this budget that is being presented.
I want to compliment, first of all, on behalf of the people in my
district, the 13th Congressional District in Pennsylvania, and as a
proud American, to be able to do the right things fiscally, to be
responsible, to compliment and congratulate Mr. Spratt for putting
forward a budget that is fiscally disciplined and fiscally responsible.
And it is very different than the budgets we saw presented by the
President or that I have seen passed in my last 2 years in Congress.
This budget is fiscally responsible, and it is a budget that is
committed to new priorities for Americans, priorities that recognize
the needs of the American families. This budget ends the Republicans
unsustainable borrow-and-spend policies.
One of the most irresponsible things we could do we have watched them
do for the last 6 years, and that is, spend money we simply do not do
not have, with no real expectation about how we are going to repay the
debt that we have incurred. In the last 6 years, we have reached a
point where we have, because of their borrow-and-spend priorities, an
almost $9 trillion national debt.
This budget will put our Nation on sounder financial footing. It
won't correct everything because the fact is that you can't deal with
an $8 trillion debt in 1 year, and we won't. But this budget does put
us on sound fiscal footing, and that is something we should all be
proud of and we should all support, both sides of the aisle, because
what this budget does is it says that we are going to finally take
responsibility to pay for what we spend and we are going to reach a
balanced budget in 5 years.
We are going to have some surplus at the end of that 5 years. We are
going to be able to start paying down our debt that we would otherwise
be leaving to our children and our grandchildren. And at the same time,
we are going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that we
spend a few extra dollars, take money other places, pay as you go, as
we have talked about, to actually be able to put some more spending
into education and health care and veterans' health.
You have heard about some of that already this evening, Mr. Chairman,
but we want to be absolutely clear that this budget requires any new
Federal spending, including what we do this year, to be fully paid for,
rather than left to future generations. It balances the Federal
Government's checkbook within 5 years without raising taxes. It sets us
on a course to pay down that debt and to pay for Social Security. It
[[Page H3250]]
is committed to tax relief for hardworking Americans, particularly the
middle class, and we are committed to do so in a way that is fiscally
responsible by saying we will do it and we will pay for it.
And we have asked our committees to take that seriously. I am on the
Ways and Means Committee. We fully expect to deal with what would be an
enormous tax increase on middle-class Americans, the alternative
minimum tax, by not just patching it for 1 year, as the Republicans
suggest and have been doing for 6 years, but by, in fact, fixing it
permanently.
This budget also, Mr. Chairman, and I want to emphasize this,
recognizes the priorities of American families as they seek to meet
their obligations, just as we should as the Federal Government.
Fifteen years ago, a long time ago now, in 1992, I worked
successfully as a Pennsylvania State Senator to start one of the
Nation's first children's health insurance programs. We call it CHIP;
the Federal Government calls it SCHIP. But as a result after 1992 to
now, we have 150,000 children in Pennsylvania who have health insurance
they wouldn't have had otherwise, private health insurance, and 4
percent of Pennsylvania children still don't have coverage. And
nationwide, there are 7 million children across America who are
uninsured. This is unacceptable.
So let me just say, Mr. Chairman, this budget responds by dedicating
resources to insure those children. So let me just say this budget is a
win for America's children, and it is a win for America's family. It is
a budget that values our Nation's future economic outlook. It balances
the budget. It lays the future groundwork for prosperity for the future
of this country. It gets us to a point where we can pay down our debt.
This budget is a proposal that presents a new direction for America. We
should all be for it. It is fiscally sound and makes that investment.
I am proud to support this budget. We all should be.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have heard someone say,
appropriately so, once they saw the Democrats' budget plan, ``Be
afraid. Be very much afraid.'' And the reason they said that was
because they were looking at one of the points that have already been
raised here, and that is the Democrats' largest tax increase in U.S.
history. As people have already noted, a $392 billion increase in taxes
on American families. That certainly is reason alone to be afraid of
this budget and what it will mean to the American taxpayer.
But mind you, the Democrats don't stop there. After they raise your
taxes once, they are going to be coming after you a second time. And
they do that in the form of trying to fill the so-called ``tax gap.''
What is the tax gap? The tax gap is their position of how they fill
up any shortage in their funding by going after people who are not
adequately paying their current tax amount.
I think the average American would say that we are already paying far
too much in taxes. I think if you ask the average American, they would
tell you that they are already paying their fair share. But the
Democrats are saying that in addition to the $392 billion in additional
taxes that American families are going to pay, they are going to go
after you one more time.
Right now, 86 percent of Americans, according to the IRS, are paying
their fair share and paying at the respective time. The Democrats are
saying that they are going to go for another around $300 billion from
Americans. Now, in committee, what they said they were going to do is
go after those egregious loopholes in corporations and the like. I
think Members on both sides of the aisle would agree that we should try
to close those loopholes and go after corporations who are not paying
their taxes.
{time} 1915
But do you know what? In the testimony before our committee, the IRS
Commissioner told us that when he goes after corporations, that is only
about 10 percent of all the outstanding taxes that are out there. That
means one thin dime on the dollar is maybe available.
I pointed out to you already that they want to get another $300
billion from you and I from this so-called tax gap. What does the IRS
say about that? They say the most realistic figure they could come up
with is around $20 billion. And not just in one year. It would take
about 5 years in order to achieve that $20 billion.
So what does it come down to? It comes down to that the Democrats are
raising your taxes on one hand and going with the other hand one more
time at you to try to fill that tax gap. What does that mean to the
average family, you and I?
Well, yes, they will tell you they are going to go after the bad guy
out there who is not paying his taxes, but, in order to do it, they are
going to have to change the Tax Code, strengthen the IRS, put more
agents out there.
As a matter of fact, again, the IRS Commissioner came and testified
before the committee. He said, in order to achieve even a part of what
the Democrats want to do, they are going to have to impose draconian
changes to the Tax Code. That means you put in a 1099 to pay your niece
when she babysits or pay your neighbor when he mows the law. Draconian
effects, added to this tax increase is what the Democrats would cost
the American family.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin.
Mr. Chairman, this is a landmark day in the House of Representatives;
and records are being broken. In fact, they are being shattered here on
the House floor.
Democrats are poised to pass a $392.5 billion tax increase to this
Federal budget and a spending increase to match it. And, you guessed
it, it sets the record for our Nation's history, the record of the
largest tax increase in American history.
Now, they should be proud, because they have outdone themselves from
their budget in 1993, which was then the largest tax increase in
American history. One hundred and fifteen million taxpayers will see
their taxes increase by $1,795; 48 million married couples will see
their taxes increase by $2,899; 17 million elderly individuals will see
their taxes increases by $2,270. This isn't chump change for the
American people. It is real money. It is real money the Democrats
believe the American people owe them.
And why do Democrats feel entitled to this money? Because it is what
they do. It is what they do. They tax and they spend. They spend and
they tax. It is what the Democrat Party here in Washington does. And
why is that? Well, I think it is because they haven't had a new idea in
70 years with the advent of the New Deal.
But as a side note, for the American people listening today, Mr.
Chairman, I think it is very interesting, very striking, the level of
hypocrisy in this budget. Because it also does something very
interesting with this budget today. It accepts the President's funding
levels for the troops in Iraq through 2009.
Well, this is pretty interesting, because just last week the liberal
majority voted to cut off funds in 2008, right before the general
election, didn't they? I think this is a high level of hypocrisy out of
this budget. And what they said last week is ``we are standing against
the war in Iraq. Get our troops out in 2008.'' What they are saying
with this budget here today is, ``we will fund it a little longer.'' It
is a level of hypocrisy here in Washington, D.C., Mr. Chairman, that
the American people need to know about. They say, forget about last
week.
This Democrat party is the party of consistent inconsistencies.
Another glaring error is, in their first majority budget in 13 years,
they don't tackle the entitlement programs. They don't tackle reforming
entitlement programs to make sure Medicare and Medicaid and Social
Security can last for generations. We need entitlement reform.
Republicans, when we were in the majority, we had $280 billion worth
of entitlement savings and reform to preserve Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid and all the entitlement programs. But the Democrats ignore
the looming entitlement crisis.
I think what we have to go back to is this is the tax-and-spend
party, and we must oppose them. I urge my colleagues to vote against
this budget.
[[Page H3251]]
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the Budget
Committee and the distinguished chairman of the Republican Policy
Committee.
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, in addressing my issues with this budget,
I prepared some elaborate charts. I know that you are pretty worn out
of charts by now, but I think these will try to encapsulate some of the
problems that I believe my party and myself in particular have with
this budget.
Some of the problems I think have to be dealt with right off the top.
We have a budget that promises to balance by 2012. It does so with many
promises for future spending, and it promises to hit American taxpayers
with the largest tax increase in American history.
Now, we are told not to be concerned about that. As someone with
young children who would like to be out of the poorhouse when I retire,
I worry about that greatly. I worry about that greatly, the economic
opportunities that they will have in the future.
So when I see that it is being defended, the largest tax increase in
human history is being defended because there are promises contained
within the budget that, no, we do not mean this, we will only raise
certain of your taxes, that still provides me very cold comfort indeed.
When I hear there are promises for billions upon billions in future
spending in things called reserve funds, which means there is no money
in it, it constitutes an IOU account, which to its name you have signed
the American taxpayer, I also take very cold comfort in that.
When I hear that we talk about trying to find tax gap money to pay
for new spending, I am reminded of the fact that tax gap funding is the
difference between taxes levied and taxes collected. In short, tax gap
money has to go for deficit reduction or debt reduction, because you
are going to collect money for which services have already been
purchased. If you allow new spending based upon that money, you will
continue to perpetuate a deficit.
Now, I have come to this also as a father with young children and as
a member of Generation X. I know I don't look it, because I am bald,
but I am far younger than my service here has rendered me to look.
In the final analysis, there is no true entitlement reform here. My
generation is the one that thinks it is never going to see Social
Security, that the babyboomers will break the social safety net. We are
concerned about Medicare, we are concerned about Medicaid, and yet we
are told that we will deal with that later.
We are told by the Democratic majority that, when they were in the
minority, somehow we impaired their ability to think and devise plans
to save the social safety net of the United States, and let us wait. I
tell you, I am not getting any younger, and I prefer not to wait.
Now, one of my particular concerns I have to address. I have much
respect for the Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party. My father was a Blue
Dog Democrat. He wound up being a Reagan Democrat, which I think is
pretty good.
The Blue Dog Democrats looked like this before in the past when they
were in the minority, trying to show that they were fiscally
conservative. Now, I don't know that I would let this dog watch my
wallet, but I wouldn't think he would bite me. So I might take a chance
on him or not.
But today's budget, for the Blue Dogs who support it, I want you to
see what America is going to think of you. There you are. There you
are, with a fine new hairdo. There are you are with silk and threads,
purchased with the largest tax increase in American history.
Now, that dog might not bite you, but I certainly wouldn't trust it
to guard my wallet either.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thought I had seen it all, until I just saw the
cartoon. What we have seen tonight is a sort of unrelenting attack for
3 hours on a straw man, a demonized version of this particular budget
resolution. Because if you read it, you read it in vain in search of
any particular language or place where these tax cuts are terminated or
extended. That decision, as we have said, has been left open until a
better time when we know better where we stand.
If we had wanted, if we had wished, we could have repealed all of the
deductions, credits and exemptions passed in 2001 and 2003. We did not
do that. They remain in effect this year, next year, 2009, 2010. Then
they expire on December 31, 2010, because that is the way they wrote
them to expire, in order to diminish the size of the tax cuts somewhat
and shoehorn them into the budget situation, which would only provide
for so much tax expenditure reduction.
I have also heard it said out here something about defense spending.
Let me mention to you one little anomaly we haven't brought up tonight.
But in order for the other side to say they are spending more than us
on defense, I guess, I surmise, they have added $38 billion to budget
authority, BA, for national defense. But, at the same time, they have
taken $60 billion out of the outlay stream. That is the real money that
is outlaid, that is spent by the Pentagon.
So they have taken $60 billion away from our troops in the field by
their assumption about outlays, if it were efficacious; and, in fact,
it is not efficacious. You can't control outlays. So they have an
anomaly like that in the middle of the budget.
So I don't think it behooves them to criticize our budget resolution
or to make it something that it isn't, because they have got things
there in their own budget resolution that won't bear scrutiny and
require explanation.
But the tax cut, let's get down to the bottom line, this budget
resolution does not raise taxes. It allows all of the tax cuts passed
in 2001 and 2003 to remain in place until they expire December 31,
2010, and leaves for then the decision as to what to do about their
renewal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mahoney).
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight on behalf of
Florida's 16th Congressional District in support of the House budget
resolution for fiscal year 2008.
I decided to run for Congress 18 months ago because I wanted to
protect my daughter Bailey's American Dream. I was appalled by how
Republican leadership had turned a budget surplus into a $3 trillion
deficit. I was appalled by out-of-control earmarks that put political
payoffs over good government. Tonight, my daughter's legacy of this
Republican mismanagement is her personal debt tax of $29,000.
I am proud to stand here tonight with Chairman Spratt and my fellow
Blue Dogs in support of a fiscally responsible budget that reflects the
priorities and values of the American people. I am proud that the
Democratic Party is taking yet another step in bringing fiscal
responsibility back to our Nation.
Our first step happened within hours of our swearing in, when we
began to clean up the Republicans' culture of corruption by passing
earmark reform. Next, we passed the pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule that
forces this Congress to live within its means, just as American
families do. I am proud that this budget follows the PAYGO rule, as it
demonstrates a Democratic commitment to walk the walk of fiscal
responsibility and not just talk the talk.
Instead of a fiscal policy that gives tax breaks today and funding
them by going into debt and mortgaging our children's future, this
budget begins the process of bringing spending under control and lays
the foundation to return to a budget surplus so that we can
legitimately lower taxes.
While the President's budget imposes nearly $81 billion in new taxes
over the next 5 years through user fees for veterans, seniors and other
taxpayers, our budget reduces taxes on middle-income families.
While the President's budget increases taxes by more than $300
billion by cutting employer-provided health care, our budget lowers
taxes by extending the child tax credit, the marriage penalty tax
relief, the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, the research and
development tax credit and the deduction for State and local sales tax,
something that is critical to my constituents in Florida.
And while the President's budget increases the deficit by over $1.4
trillion
[[Page H3252]]
over the next 10 years, our budget would create a budget surplus within
5 years.
This budget resolution provides for a strong national defense, giving
the President what he requested, while increasing homeland security
funding for port security and our first responders. It takes care of
those who have served our country by increasing funding for veterans
service programs by a record $6.6 billion. It stands up for Florida's
1.8 million small business owners by rejecting the President's plan to
slash the Small Business Administration's budget by 26 percent.
Mr. Chairman, this budget puts children and families first by
investing in health care and education. It helps 733,000 of Florida's
most vulnerable children who do not have health insurance.
{time} 1930
This budget helps 733,000 of Florida's most vulnerable children who
do not have health insurance by increasing funding for the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, and invests in our children and
our economy's future by honoring the President's broken promises by
funding No Child Left Behind and special education and Head Start.
This budget resolution funds our priorities and reflects the
priorities of our districts, the States and Nation; it lowers taxes,
not raises taxes.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the House budget
resolution.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman, only
to say that I can't understand how you can say that their budget lowers
taxes, let alone doesn't raise taxes.
You can't have it both ways. Either you are raising taxes and
balancing the budget or you are not raising taxes and not balancing the
budget. It is mathematically impossible for the other side to say they
are balancing the budget and not raising taxes.
With that, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of
the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer of Indiana.
(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUYER. I compliment Mr. Ryan for his budget. I speak in support
of the Republican alternative for fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.
In particular, I would like to address the veterans discretionary
health care and programs which would provide $42.4 billion, most of it
for health care. This budget is $2.9 billion above the administration's
overall request.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican alternative would provide our Nation's
veterans with an increase of $8 billion more than the Democrats over
the next 5 years, without any tax increases on the very same veterans.
That is a budget of $8 billion more for our veterans versus a tax
increase of $392.5 billion on America's veterans.
Now think about that. They want to stand up and say, oh, we are going
to be against enrollment fees and copays, but what are they really
doing? They are increasing taxes on veterans to do what? Increase
funding for veterans programs. Think about it. Over 25 million veterans
they want to increase taxes on.
The assumptions behind the numbers of Mr. Ryan's budget here, within
the $28.5 billion for medical services for FY08, House Republicans
would provide $1.3 billion more than the President's request, including
$463 more in increasing demands on VA health care system, $200 million
for mental health over and above the President. These numbers are over
and above the administration. $100 million more on OIF, OEF, $100
million for chiropractic care, $100 million for dental care, $80.2
million on long-term care, $50 million more than the administration on
polytrauma care, $65 million for prosthetic and sensory aids, $25
million for blind rehabilitation. Republicans would also provide nearly
$100 million more than the administration's request for the medical and
prosthetic research.
We also fund $1.4 billion above the administration's budget for
construction and facilities. This includes $585 million to the O&M
accounts for improving our current medical facilities, an additional
$691.7 million to support a substantial investment in the construction,
renovation, planning and design of major medical VA facility projects,
and $120 million for the gravesite expansion in the National Cemetery
Administration.
When you look at the chart, the zeros on the chart, the dots here are
the National Cemetery expansions. Those would include Calverton, New
York; Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania; Canton, Georgia; Abraham Lincoln,
Illinois; Dayton Ohio; Houston, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona and Riverside,
California.
When you look at the diamonds, what this would include would be
advanced planning for construction projects in Tampa, Florida; in Bay
Pines, Florida; Seattle, Washington; American Lake, Washington;
Seattle, Washington; Roseburg, Oregon; Palo Alto, California; San
Francisco, Loma Linda, Los Angeles; Dallas, Texas; Louisville,
Kentucky; Butler, Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C.
In North Carolina it would be in Salisbury, Ashville and
Fayetteville; Wichita, Kansas; Omaha, Nebraska. And in South Carolina,
it would be in Columbia and in Charleston. In Alabama, it would be
Birmingham. Perry Point, Maryland; Bronx, New York; West Haven,
Connecticut.
With regard to major construction projects and full funding, that is
depicted by the stars on this map, you would have in Los Angeles,
California would be seismic corrections of $103.8 million;
Fayetteville, Arkansas, clinical addition $59 million; Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, a campus consolidation of $105.5 million; Lee County,
Florida outpatient clinic of $89 million. St. Louis, Missouri, is
medical center improvements of $25.8 million. Columbia, Missouri
operating suite replacement of $32.5 million. And in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, a spinal cord center of $30 million.
With regard to how we get to the $8 billion differential, it is this:
The Democrats assume an assumption over the 5 years of an increase of
5.8 percent. The Republican proposal over 5 years is an increase of 7.2
percent. What I did is I looked at the medical inflation plus
utilization rate, and when you work those numbers, we actually come up
with a differential of $8 billion. The Republican alternative is an $8
billion increase in veterans funding over and above the Democrat
proposal. And we do that without increasing taxes on America's
veterans. I think that is pretty important.
When I think about the taxes on America's veterans and families,
let's see, those are tax increases on middle-income veterans and their
families, tax increases on low-income earners, tax increases on
veterans with children, those who own small businesses. Think about it.
It is going to be an increase in marginal rates potential, the child
tax credit reduction could be wiped out. You've got the increase in the
marriage penalty, increase in death taxes, increase in capital gains
and other tax increases. That is going to be upon America's veterans,
and I think that is pretty disturbing.
So a $392.5 billion Democrat tax increase, who does it hurt? It hurts
America's veterans. It hurts our wounded warriors. It hurts our low-
income veterans. It hurts veterans with children. It hurts our veterans
who are business owners.
Now think about this for a second. I want to go back to it. I support
the copays, I support enrollment fees for proper utilization. But what
is happening here? You see, my Democrat colleagues will stand up and
say to the veterans community, oh, I don't want to increase any copays,
I don't want to do enrollment fees, but what are they doing instead?
They are taxing America's veterans, who in turn will then take those
dollars and roll them back into veterans programs. But they are going
to champion that we are not going to increase copays, I am not going to
increase enrollment fees, but what I am going to do to 25 million
veterans is I am going to tax them, not only during your life, but I am
going to tax you when you die.
Thank you, for the time Mr. Ryan and I thank you and your staff for
your hard work on this budget. It is a budget of which we can be proud.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican Alternative for Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Resolution for veterans discretionary healthcare and programs would
provide $42.356 billion, most of it for health care. This budget is
$2.939 billion above the administration's request.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican alternative would provide our Nation's
veterans with an
[[Page H3253]]
increase of $8 billion more than the Democrats over the next 5 years
without any tax hikes on those same veterans.
Within our $28.5 billion for medical services for FY08, House
Republicans would provide $1.3 billion more than the President's
request, including: $463 million more for increasing demands on the VA
health care system; $200 million for mental health care; $100 million
more for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom; $100 million
for chiropractic care; $100 million for dental care; $80.2 million for
long-term care; $50 million more than the administration for polytrauma
care; $65 million for prosthetic and sensory aids; and $25 million for
blind rehabilitation.
Republicans also would provide nearly $100 million more than the
administration's request for medical and prosthetic research.
We fund $1.4 billion above the administration's budget for
construction and facilities. Included in this is $585 million for
improving our current medical facilities and an additional $691.7
million to support a substantial investment for the construction,
renovation and planning and design of major medical facility projects.
The Republican Alternative also includes $120 million for the National
Shrine Commitment of the National Cemetery Administration and expands
gravesites in the following locations: Annville, PA; Canton, GA;
Elwood, IL; Riverside, CA; Calverton, NY; Houston, TX; Elwood, IL;
Dayton, OH; and Phoenix, AZ.
This is why the Republican alternative also funds an additional
$691.6 million above the administration's request to support a
substantial investment for the construction, renovation and planning
and design of major medical facility projects.
$105.5 million for the consolidation of campuses in Mr. Doyle's
district in Pittsburgh, PA. Constituents in Mr. Altmire's, Mr.
Murphy's, and Mr. Murtha's district will benefit as well.
$103.8 million for seismic corrections in Mr. Waxman's district in
Los Angeles, CA. Constituents all over the Los Angeles area would also
benefit including constituents in Ms. Harman's and Ms. Watson's
district.
$32 million for a Spinal Cord Center in Ms. Moore's district in
Milwaukee, WI. Constituents in Ms. Baldwin's, Mr. Sensenbrenner's, and
Mr. Ryan's district will benefit.
$89 million for outpatient improvements in Mr. Mack's district in Lee
County, FL. Constituents in Mr. Mahoney's, Mr. Diaz-Balart's, and Mr.
Buchanan's district will benefit as well.
$59.9 million for a clinical addition in Mr. Boozman's district in
Fayetteville, AR. Constituents in Mr. Snyder's, Mr. Blunt's, and Mr.
Ross' district will also benefit.
$92 million for medical center improvements in Mr. Carnahan's
district in St. Louis, MO. Constituents in Mr. Lacy Clay's and Mr.
Akin's district will benefit.
$25.8 million for operating suite replacement in Mr. Hulshof's
district in Columbia, MO. Constituents in Mr. Graves', Mr. Skelton's,
and Mr. Akin's district will benefit.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican Members also fund advanced planning for
medical facilities. The funding represents about 5 percent of the
estimated cost of the project and is an important first step in the
construction of these new facilities.
$36.8 million for a co-located joint use medical facility with the
Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, SC. This project is
in Mr. Brown's district but constituents in Mr. Clyburn's district will
benefit as well.
$8 million for Poly-trauma center expansion and a bed tower in Tampa,
FL. The project is in Ms. Castor's district, but it will also help
constituents in the districts of Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Putnam, and Mr.
Young.
$1.9 million for seismic improvements in Seattle, WA. The project is
in Mr. McDermott's district but will also help constituents in the
districts of Mr. Dicks and Mr. Smith.
$6.8 million for inpatient and outpatient clinic improvements in Bay
Pines, FL. This is in Mr. Young's district and the project will also
help constituents in the districts of Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Castor, and
Mr. Putnam.
$26.5 million for land to build a new medical facility in Louisville,
KY. This project is in Mr. Yarmuth's district but will also benefit
constituents in the districts of Mr. Davis and Mr. Lewis.
$14 million for seismic correction in ambulatory care in Palo Alto,
CA. This project is in Ms. Eshoo's district but constituents in the
districts of Mr. Honda, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Stark will also benefit.
$2.4 million for seismic corrections in American Lake, WA. This
project is in Mr. Smith's district but constituents in the districts of
Mr. Dicks, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Reichert will also benefit
$3.6 million for seismic corrections for the mental health building
in Roseburg, OR. This project is in Mr. DeFazio's district but
constituents in the districts of Ms. Hooley and Mr. Walden will also
benefit.
$2.9 million for a spinal cord injury center in Dallas, TX. This
project is in Ms. Bernice Johnson's district but other constituents in
the Dallas area will also benefit.
$4.1 million for a spinal cord injury center in Bronx, NY. This is in
Mr. Serrano's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Rangel,
Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Engel will also benefit.
$4.3 million for seismic corrections to five buildings in San
Francisco, CA. This project is in Speaker Pelosi's district but
constituents in the districts of Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Lantos
will also benefit.
$7.5 million for seismic corrections to thirteen buildings in Los
Angeles, CA. This project is in Mr. Waxman's district but all
constituents in the greater Los Angles area will benefit especially
those in the districts of Ms. Harman and Ms. Watson.
$2.2 million for an outpatient clinic in Butler, PA. This project is
in Mr. English's district but constituents in the districts of Mr.
Altmire and Mr. Peterson will also benefit.
$6.5 million for seismic corrections for buildings in Seattle, WA.
The project is in Mr. McDermott's district but will also help
constituents in the districts of Mr. Dicks and Mr. Smith.
$3 million for an outpatient clinic in Palo Alto, CA. This project is
in Ms. Eshoo's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Honda,
Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Stark will also benefit.
$8.5 million for outpatient clinic expansion in Washington, DC. This
project would affect constituents in Eleanor Holmes Norton's district
but also benefits constituents in Mr. Davis's and Moran of Virginia, as
well as constituents in Mr. Wynn's and leader Hoyer's district.
$2 million for a clinical addition in Salisbury, NC. This project is
in Melvin Watt's district, but constituents in Mrs. Bono's, Mr. Baca's,
and Mr. McKeon's districts will also benefit.
$3.75 million for medical and surgical bed, and ambulatory
modernization in Wichita, KS. This project is in Mr. Tiahrt's district
but will benefit all veterans in Kansas.
$2.6 million for diagnostics and specialty care facility renovation
in Columbia, SC. This project is in Mr. Wilson's district but the
constituents in the districts of Mr. Spratt, Chairman of the Budget
Committee, and Mr. Clyburn will also benefit.
$5.9 million for clinical expansion in Dallas, TX. This project is in
Ms. Bernice Johnson's district but constituents in the districts of Mr.
Sessions and Mr. Marchant will also benefit.
$1.6 million for an outpatient clinic in Huntsville, AL. This project
is in Mr. Davis' districts constituents in the districts of Mr.
Aderholt and Mr. Bachus will also benefit.
$2.5 million for a nursing home care unit in Perry Point, MD. This is
in Mr. Gilchrest's district but constituents in the districts of Mr.
Miller and Mr. Sarbanes will also benefit.
$5.2 million for a clinical ward tower in West Haven, CT. This
project is in Ms. DeLauro's district but constituents in the districts
of Mr. Hall, Mr. Shays, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Courtney will also benefit.
$7.8 million to fix heating and air conditioning and clinical
deficiencies in Omaha, NE. This is Mr. Terry's district but I am sure
all Nebraskan veterans will benefit.
$1.8 million for outpatient expansion in Ashville, NC. This project
is in Mr. Shuler's district but constituents in the districts of Mr.
Davis and Mr. Duncan, of Tennessee, will also benefit.
Mr. Chairman, I now turn to my next chart, which shows the Republican
alternative budget outlays for the next five years.
As you can see, the President's five-year average budget growth rate
for VA discretionary spending is 1.60 percent, the Democrat's is only
5.8 percent and the Republican alternative five-year average growth
rate is 7.2 percent.
This number accounts for the cost of medical inflation that is
calculated by the consumer price index and annual increased use of VA
by all veterans.
What this means Mr. Chairman is that over the next five years
Republicans would increase spending by $8 billion more than our friends
on the other side of the aisle and we will do this without a tax
increase.
Mr. Chairman, at first blush the Democratic budget appears good for
veterans, but it is really just smoke and mirrors.
The Democratic budget contains a $392.5 billion tax hike. This
includes tax hikes on middle income veterans and their families,
veterans who are low-income earners and veterans who own a small
business. Democrats also blocked every amendment offered in the Budget
Committee that would stop unfair taxes on veterans and their families.
Mr. Chairman, the last time Democrats were in the majority they
passed the largest tax hike in history. Now, with only 3 months in
office they have already broken their own record. This is the wrong
message to send to our veterans and their families.
Mr. Chairman, we are a nation at war, and we will win this war. The
best way to maintain morale of our servicemembers is not to micromanage
the fight, pretending that's good for the troops; it is to make tough
decisions here that will engender their confidence in our capacity to
preserve the vitality of this nation while they fight for its freedom.
[[Page H3254]]
I believe that the Republican budget helps do exactly that, while
honoring the promises we have made our veterans.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much
time is left on each side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lynch). The gentleman from Wisconsin has
31\1/2\ minutes and the gentleman from South Carolina has 23\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I will yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, if America is watching this debate, I'm sure they are
getting confused by all this minutia, which is very, very important. So
the things that they really need to be listening to tonight is, and I
hope America is paying attention to this, this is the largest tax
increase in the history of the United States by the people who said
they weren't going to do it when they were running for office. They
promised a streamlined government. They promised less spending and
lower taxes.
Let me tell you what they are going to raise, and I hope everybody in
America is listening because this isn't minutia, this is the facts.
Marginal tax rates are going up by $192 billion. The reduction in child
credit, if you've got a child, the reduction in child credit is $27
billion. That's an increase. The increase in the marriage penalty is
$13 billion, you know, the marriage issue that has been around for a
long time.
The death tax. If you are going to leave your business to your kids,
if you want to reduce that so that you can leave your children your
farm or something, they are going to increase that by $91 billion. They
are going to increase the capital gains tax. If you are a small
businessman trying to make it in this very competitive society in which
we live, they are going to increase the cost of capital gains by $32.5
billion, and then other tax increases by $47 billion.
So, America, if you are listening tonight, and I hope you are, it is
late in the day, except in California, I guess in California it is only
about 5 o'clock or a little before, but if you are listening, remember,
the people who promised you a streamlined government, the Democrats,
the people who promised you lower taxes and better government, the
Democrats, remember, they are giving you, across the board, the largest
tax increase in the history of America, $392.5 billion over 5 years.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded that they are to direct
their remarks to the Chair, and not to the television audience.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for putting
together such a great alternative budget.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution being
considered today, and I do urge support for the minority substitute
budget.
Totaling nearly $3 trillion, the 2008 budget, as introduced, is the
largest in history, and it fails on many levels.
First, it fails to provide significant entitlement reform. Second, it
fails to provide fiscal restraint on discretionary spending. And
finally, it fails in reducing the physical burden on taxpayers.
The 2008 budget, as introduced, also fails to provide a blueprint for
reining in our bloated farm programs. I want to talk about that for a
minute.
This budget is consistent with CBO's March baseline and provides
funding for reauthorization of current farm bill programs. But it also
allows for up to $20 billion in so-called ``reserve spending'' over 5
years. Even with select commodity prices as high as they are, allowing
for farm programs to continue at their current funding level is a tough
pill to swallow.
Even though an estimated allocation is included in the budget, under
the current farm programs, the actual amount of spending will depend on
future commodity prices. Should crop prices fall, as they did after the
1996 farm bill, we will see dramatic increases in farm payments,
spending that we have not accounted for or that we have otherwise
offset for.
According to the CRS, the 1996 farm bill was expected to cost $37
billion over 7 years, but with farm prices falling dramatically, the
Federal Government actually spent nearly $90 billion. This could happen
again. With the volatility inherent in current farm program spending,
taxpayers should not be saddled with an additional $20 billion over 5
years in so-called reserve spending.
While at this point this reserve spending requires offsets, there is
no way to ensure that that requirement will actually stick in the
outyears.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the minority substitute, which
includes fiscal restraint and an unprecedented level of transparency.
The substitute budget includes about $300 billion worth of savings in
entitlement reforms and balances the budget in 5 years without
increasing taxes.
With 77 million baby boomers set to retire, pushing the total cost of
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from today's 8.4 percent of GDP
to 18.9 percent of GDP in 2050, we literally cannot afford to do
nothing. The substitute budget also does not provide the additional
reserve spending for agriculture programs.
Finally, the substitute budget includes a requirement that earmarks
be included in the text of appropriation bills. This is a measure that
I have championed for a while, and I should point out in the last
Congress I had good bipartisan support. Many Democrats supported this
legislation. They are not today. I think it should be noted, if it was
good last year, it's good this year as well.
I urge support for the substitute budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Before yielding to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), let me read from three letters we received in our committee.
One is from the American Legion with respect to our support for
veterans' health care.
``The American Legion and its 2.8 million members applaud the Budget
Committee,'' that's us, Democrats, ``for the budget resolution
recommendation of $43.1 billion in funding for veterans' health care.
That is our recommendation.'' That is the American Legion speaking.
The DAV says, ``The budget recommendation coming out of the House
will make a real difference in the lives of America's sick and disabled
veterans. This is important if our Nation is at war.''
And the Veterans of Foreign War, the VFW says, ``The members of the
VFW stand firmly behind you in support of your strong advocacy for this
Nation's veterans.'' These letter go on and on and on. We had a press
conference yesterday where they endorsed our budget resolution because
of what we provide for veterans' health care, the biggest increase in
veterans' health care funding in the history of the organization.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We have been lectured. And sometimes you just have to be reminded
about what's been happening to the deficit. We have been lectured by
the people who created this chart. You don't create charts like this by
accident. Those that created this chart are the ones that are lecturing
us on what to do. Just look at the chart.
Now, one way to improve this mess is to improve the economy. Some
economic policies help the economy, some don't. We know that creating
jobs is extremely important.
{time} 1945
If you look all the way back to Herbert Hoover, the job growth under
this administration is tied for last since Herbert Hoover. We know that
the job growth during this administration in fact isn't even as good
after two major budget-busting tax cuts, isn't even as large as the
Congressional Budget Office suggested it would be if we had done
nothing. They had a projected job growth if we do nothing. They cut the
taxes, and we actually didn't even do as well as that. So, the worst
job performance since Herbert Hoover.
And what has it done to the stock market? Every 4 years, since the
first Reagan administration, the first 4 years of Reagan, the second 4
years, the first 4 years of the first Bush administration, Clinton, the
aggregate 4 years change in the Dow, worst since before 1980. That is
what is the result of the economic policy.
[[Page H3255]]
Now, we know that we can grow the economy if we reduce the deficit,
reduce the vulnerability to foreign countries. Three-fourths of our net
debt has been financed by foreign investments, China, Japan, Saudi
Arabia being three of the largest. You can't negotiate trade deals if
you are borrowing money from somebody. You can't negotiate oil prices
if you are borrowing money.
We can also grow the economy with investments in education, job
training, and science. The Democratic budget does it. You can help with
health care, with help in productivity. You can invest in agricultural,
rural communities, and transportation. Our budget does that. And we can
grow the economy with fiscal responsibility, and the Democratic budget
will help dig us out of the ditch that was formed by the Republican
policy starting in 2001.
There will be a number of budgets introduced. I will be introducing
the Congressional Black Caucus budget that I frankly think does even a
better job and makes tougher decisions. But this budget will dig us out
of the ditch because it will make those important investments in the
economy.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for
recognizing me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this fiscally responsible and
morally sound budget resolution. I am especially proud that it
prioritizes health care for our neediest children over tax breaks for
our wealthiest few.
For the first time in my tenure in Congress, I feel we have a
blueprint that invests in our future. I want to commend Chairman Spratt
and my colleagues on the Budget Committee for including the necessary
funds to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to every
child who qualifies. These are children of hardworking families. Low-
income children and their families should have access to the same
quality health care as everyone else, but the reality is that they
don't. Under the President's budget, even more of them would have been
cut off from SCHIP and Medicaid.
As a former school nurse, I can tell you that children without health
care translates into children who do not receive primary care, who do
not receive dental care, who are sent to school sick, who suffer from
preventable illnesses.
I applaud the $50 billion investment into SCHIP because it is sure to
bring us great returns, returns in the form of healthy, productive
children. After all, that is what we have been sent here to do. I urge
my colleagues to support this budget and support this bill.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, given the history of the last few years, there is no
reason to take what the Republican minority is saying seriously. And I
say that because the history of the last 6 years has been to prove that
people who don't believe in government don't run it well.
It is also true that past Republican budgets have never made
permanent the President's tax cuts. So there is rank hypocrisy to
suggest that there is a tax increase embedded in this one when there
was a similar increase embedded in past Republican budgets.
But, beyond that, what we are really talking about is criticism from
a party which ran up $3 trillion in the Federal debt over the last few
years; and they have done that, frankly, by putting their tax cuts for
the richest people in the country on a credit card. Only they don't
intend to pay the credit card. They intend our children and
grandchildren to pay back the credit card with $3 trillion of
additional Federal debt.
Now, we could go on, on that subject, but the bottom line is budgets
are about priorities; and the Democratic priorities in this budget are
very, very different from what the administration and the Republicans
have done before.
For example, clean water. In my home State of Maine, we value the
environment. A good environment is absolutely essential to the health
of our economy, because so many people come to me precisely because we
have clean air and clean water and a beautiful place to visit. So it is
important to the economy. People move to Maine because it is a fabulous
place to live, and the quality of the environment is important there as
well. Our future responsibility for the planet is all tied up in
environmental issues.
But the President and the past Republican Congress has reduced the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund over the last few years. Clean water
is a basic value for all Americans, and they tried to reduce funds for
the Clean Water Revolving Fund. Conservation and preservation of
important resources, important to all people in this country, they
tried to cut it. We are increasing that funding.
The bottom line is this: Our budget priorities are dramatically
different. We have rejected the administration's proposed cuts to core
environmental programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
the Fish and Wildlife Refuge System, and EPA's own budget. They have
been trying to reduce funding for the Environmental Protection Agency.
We have a different set of priorities. We increase that funding, and
this makes a dramatic difference. This budget funds conservation and
environmental protection infrastructure at $31.4 billion, $2.46 billion
more than the President requested.
We have provided a deficit neutral reserve fund for the
reauthorization of the farm bill, and a significant portion of that
increased funding would go toward enhancing the Department of
Agriculture's natural resource conservation programs.
I would go on to say that expanded agricultural conservation programs
help farmers better comply with environmental regulations, and they
certainly provide valuable natural resource benefits for the public.
The bottom line is this: clean water, clean air, protecting public
health, improving the environment, fulfilling our responsibility to
preserve the planet for our children and grandchildren, to preserve our
parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and open space. That is what this
Congress should be doing. That is what this Democratic budget does. It
is a dramatic change from the past, and I just want to congratulate
Chairman Spratt for the good work he has done in making this budget
environmentally sensitive.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, what we are hearing this evening almost
gives hypocrisy a bad name. We have our friends on the other side of
the aisle somehow chastising us for not doing enough on entitlement
reform when they have had 6 years of being in control. We have a
situation, in spite of their collapse of the budget process last year,
they couldn't put it together, collapse of the appropriations process
and, quoting from the Heritage Foundation, that they presided over one
of the largest run-ups in spending in American history. They somehow
are looking at our budget and thinking that it is wanting.
Well, through their warped prism, I can understand that. Their top
priority is not dealing with the tsunami of the alternative minimum
tax, which they have ignored for the last 6 years, but to put $1
trillion in the hands of the top 1 percent over the next 10 years with
their tax priorities.
As my friend Mr. Allen pointed out, this is about priorities. And,
for the first time in 6 years, we are going to reverse their negative
priorities dealing with the environment, one of the few areas that they
could control spending. Now, bear in mind, these are the folks that
gave us the rainforest in Iowa which they are now concerned about, the
Bridge to Nowhere.
Announcement By the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lynch). The gentleman must direct his
comments to the Chair.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the advice of the Chair.
They cut spending for the environment, the 300 section, 16 percent;
and under the leadership of Mr. Spratt and the Democrats, we are
reversing it. We can't deal with all their problems in just one year,
but we are making a good start with over $2.5 billion to deal with the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, dealing with cleaning up of superfund
sites and toxic waste.
But look at the details of what they offer in their alternative
later. Mr. Ryan has suggested almost $19 billion of reductions in ag,
transportation, and
[[Page H3256]]
natural resources. These are conservation, these are clean water, these
are environmental protection. The contrast could not be more stark.
We are investing in America's environmental future. They, if their
alternative were adopted, would continue the deterioration, the
disinvestment, the attack on America's priorities. I would respectfully
suggest that this alone ought to be a compelling argument to reject
their alternative offered later and to adopt the Democratic proposal
that is before us this evening.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from the Budget Committee, Mr. Hensarling from
Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that the last speaker is reading the same
budget that I am. I mean, it is incredible to be lectured here on the
whole question of entitlement spending, and the Democrat budget
alternative is stone cold silent on the issue, the number one fiscal
issue that is challenging our Nation.
And don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. Look at the testimony of
the Congressional Budget Office. Look at the testimony of the General
Accountability Office. Look at the testimony of our Federal Reserve
Chairman, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of OMB. Anybody
who has any responsibility for fiscal policy in America will tell you
that we are on the verge, we are on the verge, and to paraphrase the
Comptroller General, we are on the verge of being the first generation
in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard
of living.
So when we get lectured about entitlement spending, why is the
Democrat alternative silent on it? Why have all the Democrats refused
to join us in doing anything to save Social Security, save Medicare,
save Medicaid for the next generation?
Let's look here. They speak about what has happened in the Federal
debt, and they should be concerned about it. But when it increases $3
trillion, look at what has happened to the unfunded liability in Social
Security and Medicare when they refuse to do anything, anything to
reform entitlement spending. If you do not reform Medicare, Medicaid,
and Social Security, they will not be there for the next generation.
They will not be there. If you do not reform them, you lose them.
So how their budget, Mr. Chairman, can be described as fiscally
responsible when they are absolutely silent on the number one fiscal
issue that faces our Nation is beyond me.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
{time} 2000
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time.
I appreciate Mr. Hensarling's comments as well. My comments this
evening are going to be directed toward the entitlement program known
as Medicare. It does seem that the budget, before this evening, the
budget we are debating, does lack a lot. It has a significant
deficiency.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) has already pointed out the
lack of any real entitlement reform; but there is a missed opportunity
in this budget which is disturbing. Yesterday in the Rules Committee, I
offered an amendment which was not made in order. This amendment was
relatively simple. It would have provided for reconciliation
instructions, require the House Judiciary Committee to take up and
report to the full House a bill that would reform our medical justice
system, and limit the number of lawsuits of questionable merit in order
to achieve an overall savings of $2 billion over 5 years.
By capping noneconomic damages at $250,000 per provider, $500,000 per
case for noneconomic damages, the CBO estimates that this amendment
would save nearly $2 billion over 5 years, $4.5 billion over 10.
Because the practice of defensive medicine is so pervasive, this
amendment would establish a liability safety net for many States. It
would also insulate providers from lawsuits of questionable merit while
ensuring just compensation for those who have been truly injured.
Defensive medicines increases the cost of medical care. It reduces
access for patients, and increases the cost of programs like Medicare
and Medicaid for the United States taxpayer. This is doubly important
as costs increase in Medicare and Medicaid year after year, and we seek
savings to make certain that these programs are solvent and viable for
those who depend on them now and well into the future.
Medicare and Medicaid represent a growing expenditure of over $600
billion a year for the Federal Government. As the medical liability
crisis grows, a large fraction of these dollars will be spent on
inefficient health care services provided more to protect the provider
from a lawsuit than to improve the patient's health.
Effective medical liability reform would constrain the growth of
vital programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and ensure their long-
term viability.
I am happy that the Republican substitute addresses this issue in a
responsible manner. Once again, it is an example of a missed
opportunity by the budget before us tonight. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on the budget and ``yes'' on the Republican substitute.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this resolution. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue
that this budget represents the largest tax increase in history;
nothing could be further from the truth. This budget does not increase
taxes by a single dime.
Rather, this budget simply extends current law as the President and
the then-Republican majority designed with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts,
which expire on December 31, 2010. At that time we will have a decision
to make: Whether to renew those tax cuts, and how to pay for them. The
era of blank checks for tax cuts is over. Today, we restore fiscal
responsibility to the budget process. With respect to entitlement
reform, I think many of us would like to hear some acknowledgment from
our friends on the other side of the aisle that the $3 trillion in debt
that was accumulated on their watch makes dealing with the growing
demands on Medicare and Social Security all the more difficult to
contend with.
We balance the budget within 5 years and set the table for tax-
writing committees to do their job, which first and foremost, should
result in repeal of the AMT for middle-income Americans once and for
all.
As this budget puts us on the glidepath to fiscal responsibility, it
dramatically raises spending levels education, veterans, and health
care. These priorities will never be overlooked on our watch.
We reject the President's proposal to cut funding for education by
$1.5 billion and eliminate 44 programs. We give college students and
their families a chance to succeed by rejecting the President's plan to
zero out SEOG, Perkins loans and need-based grants.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished chairman and his staff for
their excellent work, restoring middle-class priorities is
accomplished. Fiscal responsibility is achieved. Finally, the fiscal
blueprint of America's future reflects our hopes, dreams and the
promise of economic prosperity and security in the years ahead.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I stand here tonight as probably
the only Member of this House of Representatives that is a member of
the Congressional Black Caucus, the Blue Dogs, as well as the New Dems.
That is a broad cross-section of diversity within our party that is not
shared by this party, and I make that observation only because the
American people are watching this tonight. The truth must come out and
be said properly.
That is why all three of these groups, moderate, conservative to the
liberal are behind this budget. Let me state very quickly, because
there is one fact I want understood tonight, and that is that this
budget is not a tax increase, does not raise taxes one penny.
Let me quote, for example, and this is not Democrats who are just
saying this, this is what economists from the Concord Coalition,
moderate conservative economists say. ``Thus to be
[[Page H3257]]
clear, the Democratic budget resolution does not call for or require a
tax increase.'' That is not just us saying it.
From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this is what they
say: ``The House plan does not include a tax increase.''
The Alexander Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institute says this:
``This Democratic budget does not raise taxes.''
Now, that is so important for us to get across tonight. They have run
the polls. They did their surveys. Stick it to the Democrats, just say
they are raising taxes. That will stick with them.
But not tonight, Mr. Chairman, not tonight. These are other people
who are speaking and saying that the Democrats' budget does not raise
taxes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to
simply say, you can get every left-leaning think tank to say whatever
you want, but the Congressional Budget Office is saying: This raises
taxes. Plain and simple.
We can reinvent new words and come up with new language. We can put
reserve funds that are meaningless into the budget.
Mr. SPRATT. If you are quoting the Congressional Budget Office, can
you cite the quote?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The CBO says that their baseline, which the
gentleman is using for his budget, if the tax cuts expire, the baseline
goes up, that is what they are using.
Let me put it another way. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, their budget does not balance if they don't raise taxes. Their
budget does balance, which they are claiming it does, by letting these
tax cuts expire and raising taxes across the board.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, whatever the rhetoric, the
Democratic budget resolution fails to keep faith with the American
people.
Instead of embracing fiscal responsibility, it underwrites a
saturnalia of spending propped up by, and listen to my words, the
largest tax increase in American history.
Instead of maintaining pro-growth tax policies that grow the economy
and reduce the deficit, this budget clobbers the American economy by
requiring nearly $400 billion of new revenue.
Instead of protecting middle-class families, it lays the groundwork
for tax increases on a whole new level of taxpayers.
Instead of setting new priorities, it throws priority setting to the
wind and undercuts the benefits of tax policies that have clearly
helped the middle class.
The details are stunning. For starters, the Democratic budget
threatens to reduce the child tax credit by half, increase the lowest
tax bracket from 10 to 15 percent, reconstitute the marriage penalty
and eliminate incentives for higher education savings like the student
loan interest deduction.
In my home State of Pennsylvania, the average taxpayer can expect to
see an estimated $3,000-plus increase in their annual tax bill. That is
an increase in the tax bill for a working family of more than $15,000
over a 5-year period. That is a different standard of living.
So much for their empty rhetoric about children and families. Not
only does this budget contain the largest tax increase in American
history, it also chooses to employ smoke and mirrors instead of
underwriting real financial relief from the AMT for Americans.
For years, the AMT has been a growing monster because while
originally intended to close loopholes for the very wealthiest
taxpayers, it was never indexed for inflation. It is now hitting more
and more middle-class taxpayers. As a result, this year, without
relief, 23 million taxpayers will be forced into AMT status and hit
with a significant tax increase, ten times the number than if it had
been indexed to inflation. The Democrats' budget does nothing, sets
aside no resources to address this problem.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle fail to include an AMT
repeal in their budget. They don't even include the bare minimum step
of a patch to keep it at bay as Republicans have in previous years.
Instead, this budget resolution holds millions of middle-class
taxpayers hostage to a record tax increase. Don't let the rhetoric on
the other side of the aisle fool you. The reserve fund that is folded
into this resolution is utterly meaningless. This is a piggybank that
doesn't even rattle when you shake it.
America's working families deserve better. I urge every Member who
cares about working families, cares about protecting their earnings to
vote ``no'' on this budget today.
Mr. SPRATT. How much time is left on each side, and who has the right
to close?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan) has 18 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from South Carolina has the right to close.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time for
closing.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself 1\1/2\
minutes.
I want to go to the point that I mentioned a minute ago about who
says what about what this budget does. Let me talk about the
Congressional Budget Office. By law, that is what we use.
Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says: The year 2010, all
of these tax cuts expire. I think we all agree with that. All of these
tax cuts expire in 2010. But we are talking about marriage penalty, per
child tax credit, death tax, capital gains dividends, income tax rates
across the board, they all go up.
That is the red line. That red line shoots up because all of those
taxes are increased. That is the line the Democrats are using to run
their budget. That is the line the Democrats are using to finance their
new spending. That's the line the Democrats are using to show that they
get to a balanced budget.
The green line, the dotted line, that is the CBO line that says here
is what revenues will be if you extend the tax cuts. That's the line we
are using in our budget. We are balancing the budget by controlling
spending.
So reserve fund, shmerve fund, that means nothing. What matters are
the numbers. And the numbers, not by the Center For Budget and Policy
Priorities, not by the Brookings Institution. The Congressional Budget
Office. The Congressional Budget Office shows us very clearly, black
and white in the numbers, in the numbers in your budget resolution.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair reminds Members to direct their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, what I am saying, the red line
shows all the tax increases kicking in and hitting American taxpayers.
That is the line that the Democrats are using to run their budget, to
balance their budget, to pay for their new spending.
You can use any word you want, you can't escape the fact that they
are imposing, banking on, planning on, assuming, legislating the
largest tax increase in American history.
They want to smoke screen it with reserve funds and cute language.
The fact is the fact, and the fact is underlined by the Congressional
Budget Office.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling).
{time} 2015
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the ranking
member, for yielding once again; and I wish to follow up on his
insights about this single largest tax increase in American history
that the Democrats are trying to impose. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is
reminiscent of what they did 12 years ago, the last time they were in
the majority. Again, as I said, they at least get an A for consistency.
But, Mr. Chairman, this is very, very serious business; and we need
to take a good hard look at the numbers. But beyond the numbers, Mr.
Chairman, we need to look at the people.
Earlier this evening, I read some correspondence from some
constituents from the Fifth District of Texas that I have the honor of
representing in Congress. These are people who will be hurt by the
single largest tax increase
[[Page H3258]]
in American history that the Democrats are attempting to impose upon
America today.
I heard from Carrie of Dallas, and she said: ``Jeb, you asked us to
let you know what we'd be sacrificing if I had to spend another $2,200
in taxes. Well my family's basic needs may not be met, food, shelter,
school clothes for the kids. Not to mention not being able to pay my
creditors. Please continue to do your best to help the working class
and families.''
Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to let Carrie in Dallas know that I want
her to be able to keep her earnings, and I am going to fight this
single largest tax increase in American history that the Democrats are
trying to impose.
Mr. Chairman, I heard from Lorri in Palestine, TX: ``Dear
Congressman, I have a son going to college and my mother is on a fixed
income and needs my help more times than less. The tax relief I
received gave me the opportunity to help my family with their needs. If
my taxes are increased again, my family would suffer tremendously.''
Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to let Lorri in Palestine know that I am
going to do everything I can to make sure she can keep more of her
earnings and fight this single largest tax increase in America's
history.
Mr. Chairman, I had a particularly poignant letter from Linda from
Rowlett, TX, that I have the honor to represent in Congress. She said:
``This tax increase would make the difference whether my daughter and
her husband would be able to purchase a car or not. For my husband and
I, it helps us continue with his radiation treatments for his prostate
cancer. It allows us to continue providing in-home assistance for my
elderly parents, one of whom has Parkinson's and one who has dementia.
Please allow us to retain this money for our needs. Please do not let
our government take additional tax dollars from us. Please allow us to
decide how this money will be spent. Please do not allow the government
to decide for us.''
Well, Mr. Chairman, again, I have a message for Linda of Rowlett. I
am going to do everything I can to ensure that she gets to keep her
earnings for her family, for her health care needs, for her housing
needs, her transportation needs.
Vote against this largest tax increase in American history.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pomeroy). Who seeks time?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I am reserving my time to close.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
As a representative from the State of Wisconsin, each of us
represents about 670,000 people in our congressional districts, and in
my home State of Wisconsin, the average tax increase on the average
household in the State of Wisconsin will be $2,964, and this will hit
2,164,000 taxpayers. Numbers do not lie. The CBO certifies it. If we
pass this budget and it comes into being, that is what will happen. Mr.
Chairman, I think that is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I look at our families in Texas,
everything seems more expensive these days, whether it is getting your
kids through school or paying medical bills or insurance or paying
light bills; and it is tough enough for family budgets to stretch as it
is. I just cannot imagine why we in Washington would hand our families
another tax bill for $2,700 for Texas families and expect them to like
it, especially since we can balance this budget without that tax
increase.
When I talk to our Texas seniors, the first thing they tell me is,
please stop spending our Social Security money, quit spending the trust
fund; that is our money. Yet, the Democrat budget spends that Social
Security trust fund. The Republican budget for the first time in 40
years stops spending it, preserves it for Social Security.
When I look at small businesses, who are the backbone of our country
and really struggle to make payroll, I used to be a Chamber of Commerce
manager. I know how hard it is to meet that payroll. And 26 million
small business owners, we are going to hand them another tax bill of
about $4,000 on top of what they struggle today? That is just asking
too much, especially when we can balance the budget without those tax
increases, without taking senior's Social Security, and do it the right
way.
That is why I respectfully disagree, strongly disagree with this bill
and why we need to pass the Republican alternative. It makes much more
sense for our families.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining
time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important debate. It is an important
debate about our priorities as a country. It is an important debate
about how we run the fiscal ship of state, but it is more important
than that. It is an important debate about our future.
I related a story the other day in committee that I want to share
again with my colleagues.
When I first ran for Congress in 1998, I was a 28-year-old young guy,
single, no children. I remember at a Kiwanis Pancake Day, we have a lot
of pancake days in Wisconsin. It is how we raise money for charities. I
remember going up to a woman in line, not much older than me, and she
had three little children. I asked her for her vote. I asked her to
support me in my race for Congress.
She said something to me. She said, I do not think I am going to vote
for you. I said, well, why not? She said, because I do not think you
can relate to me. I said, well, why can I not relate to you? She said,
because you do not have children and you do not know what it is like to
have children; you do not know what it is like to think about their
futures. I said, well, I was in a family. I know what it is like to be
in a family. And you know, I did not understand what she was saying to
me at the time.
You know what? Now that I have a 5-year-old daughter, a 3-year-old
son and a 2-year-old son, I understand exactly what that woman was
telling me. I understand exactly what it feels like to really, really,
really care about the next generation. It is like your heart is walking
around in someone else's body. I can only imagine what grandparents
feel like.
So this debate is about numbers. It is about priorities, how much for
the Pentagon and how much for veterans and how much for this program
and that program. But it is also about what is that horizon we are
looking for, what is that vision on the horizon and what are we doing
for our kids and our grandkids? What legacy are we putting in place for
our country?
The great, beautiful thing about America, the American Dream is that
one generation leaves a better standard of living for the next
generation. That was drilled into me by my parents, that they were
working and thriving so that we would have a better life than they had.
That is what our job in Congress is to do.
We have big challenges and our country has faced big ones before, the
Great Depression, World War I, World War II, the Cold War. We have got
three challenges right now hitting us simultaneously, the global war on
terror, globalization, and this entitlement explosion, the retirement
of the baby boomer generation which we are not prepared for. This
budget is about all of those things, but let me talk about two of them.
Globalization: We have got new kinds of competitive pressures against
us unlike that which we have ever seen before. No longer do the oceans
separate us from competitive pressures. We have broadband and digital
technology. We have competition from countries like China and India
unlike any we have ever seen before, and it is something we have to
respond to so that our kids and our grandkids can have that higher
standard of living.
At the same time, we have got entitlement programs that are exploding
before us. We have an enormous debt on our horizon that we have to
address.
Now, you heard this talk about taxes, tax increases. This budget does
unequivocally raise taxes. I will not belabor that point.
Let me show you three lines. The lower line here, the blue line,
shows you what revenues would look like if we kept those tax cuts
permanent. That is what our budget will propose to do. Do not raise
taxes, keep the marriage penalty down, keep the kid credit where it is,
keep income tax rates where they are, get rid of the death tax, do not
raise taxes. That is the blue line.
[[Page H3259]]
The red line right here shows you what happens if we let the tax cuts
expire as this budget proposes to do if you increase taxes. It shows
you a $400 billion tax increase.
What really matters here is not the red and the blue line at the end
of the day for our children and grandchildren, matters a lot, but at
the end of the day what matters is the green line, the spending line.
This is the line that is occurring right now under our watch. This is
the spending trajectory of the Federal Government because of
Republicans and Democrats, both of us. We are all in this thing
together. This is the line that happens.
So if you do not address the spending, you are not addressing the
real problem. That is why I really have a big problem with this budget.
Not only does it have the largest tax increase in history, not only
does it raise taxes about $400 billion, it does nothing to control
spending. It does not reform our entitlement programs. If you want
these entitlement programs to succeed, to exist, to continue, you have
to reform them.
Let me show you one more chart. This is the Government Accountability
Office. This shows you the trajectory we are on when you take a look at
Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the debt, when you
take a look at all the discretionary spending. It shows you this: By
the year 2040, that is when my kids will be exactly my age, by the year
2040, our Federal Government will be doubled in size.
Let me put it another way. If we want to have no new programs
whatsoever, keep today's government in place, no fewer programs, no
more programs, just today's Federal Government, the cost of that
Federal Government when my kids are my age will be double what it costs
today.
Let us put it another way. We have historically run our government,
the Federal Government, by taxing about 18 percent of GDP to fund the
Federal Government. Since about 1960, the Federal Government has had to
tax the American people at about 18 percent of the economy and its
output to fund the Federal Government. When my kids are my age, to fund
today's Federal Government at that time it will require us to tax 40
percent of GDP. We will literally have to tax our kids at twice the
rate we are taxing ourselves today if we do nothing to reform spending
and reform these entitlements.
You cannot survive globalization if you are going to double the tax
rates on every man, woman and child in America at that time. We cannot
win when we are competing against the likes of China and India if we
are going to crank taxes up like that.
So the real problem with this budget is not what it contains, the
largest tax increase in American history. The even larger problem with
this budget is that it contains no reforms. It contains no spending
control. It includes immense new spending.
You have 12 of these reserve funds which are worth less than this
piece of paper. They do not pay for anything, but the one thing they do
say is we want to spend $115 billion in more money. We do not have the
money for it, but if we can have the money for it, we would do it. The
other reserve funds say we do not want these taxes to go up, but we are
planning on having them go up. We would stop them going up if we had
money to do it, but we really are not stopping these tax increases.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say you are going to balance
the budget and not control spending without raising taxes. In order for
your budget to balance, in order for the Democrat budget to balance,
Mr. Chairman, they have to raise taxes, especially since they are not
only not controlling spending, they are increasing spending. That is
the way mathematics works.
But more important than all of this, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that
we have to get our kids and our country ready to compete in the global
economy. We are not prepared for that. We have got to do more to help
them compete, and we do not do it by doubling their taxes.
{time} 2030
We tax our country, our businesses and our capital more than any
other country in the industrialized world except for Japan, and they
just finished two decades of recession. We can't tax our way out of
this problem. We will tax ourselves out of being the leading economic
superpower. We will tax ourselves out of a good standard of living.
If we don't tackle this problem, we will have severed that American
Dream, that American legacy, that legacy that says each generation
should leave on to the next a better country, a better standard of
living. That is what is really wrong with this budget. We can't keep
spending or taxing our way out of these problems. If this budget
achieves balance on paper, which I will clearly, freely admit that it
does, it will only do so for a short period of time.
Because if you don't fix these entitlement programs, it will drive us
that much deeper into debt, that much more in the deficit, just around
the corner. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the big three
entitlements. They are very important programs. Health care for low
income, health care for people in old age, retirement security. We all
agree with that. We think that is the right thing.
But you have got to reform these programs if you are going to save
these programs. You have got to reform these programs if people are
truly going to be able to count on these benefits. Because if you don't
reform these programs, you are driving the debt even higher. You are
driving taxes up on our kids and grandkids even more. Not only will we
not have programs to depend on for our livelihood when we reach the age
of 65, not only will we not be prepared for the baby boomers, we will
hit our kids with the biggest tax burden this country has ever seen.
We will lose our greatness, and we will not pass on this legacy of a
better country and a higher standard of living to our children. I urge
a ``no'' vote on this budget.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have been treated to a show tonight featuring a one-
trick pony. Every Republican who has come to the well of this Chamber
has come with the same mantra, the same slogan, alleging wrongfully
that our budget resolution would raise taxes. We have repeatedly
explained why, only to have them keep coming to the floor basically on
the belief if they say it often enough, maybe somebody will believe it.
Here is one thing you can believe. There is no conjecture in this.
These are matter of fact. As Casey used to say, you can look it up. You
can look it up. There is the debt of the United States, $5.7 trillion
before President Bush came to office. Here is the debt of the United
States today, $8.8 trillion. That arithmetic is very simple and very
straightforward. It's a $3.1 trillion increase of debt of United States
on their watch. This isn't conjecture, this is a matter of record.
I will just show you this chart one more time, because it shows that
the revenue flows that we are projecting, based upon CBO's base-line
certification of projection of revenues is essentially the same as the
President is assuming in his budget from OMB, there is a 1.2 percent
difference. This is the so-called biggest tax increase in American
history. The President is right where we are, 1.2 percent difference
between us.
Now, why all of these shenanigans? Partly it is because this is a red
herring. They don't want to talk about really what is in their budget
resolution. It's their resolution they will have to pass tomorrow. They
bear the burden of truth and persuasion. You would think they would be
talking about it.
But deep down in that resolution, you have to dig hard. You will find
the same thing in the Agriculture Committee. This year they are to
renew and reauthorize the farm bill. We want you to reconcile $9.85
billion in cost reduction in the agriculture bill. It will be awfully
hard to get that farm bill out if that reconciliation is implemented.
They say to Labor, which has student loans, Pell Grants under its
jurisdiction, you can cut $4.9 billion. Where from, student loans? No
where else to go.
They say to Energy and Commerce, with Medicare and Medicaid in its
jurisdiction cut $97.539 billion over the next 9 years. Judiciary and
our law enforcement programs, cut $3.5 billion
[[Page H3260]]
dollars; Natural Resources, already strained, huge backlog for our
national parks, cut $4.7 billion; Transportation and Infrastructure,
about to run short of funds for our highways, cut $4.2 billion; Ways
and Means, with all kinds of safety net programs, this is an
instruction to Ways and Means, to cut $153 billion.
Now, this is done under the name and guise of balancing the budget.
But what's the bottom line? They also tell Ways and Means to cut taxes
by $447 billion.
When you net the $447 billion tax cut against the $278 billion in
reconciled spending cuts, the result is $168 billion more to be added
to the deficit. That is why they are talking about this other subject.
That is why they wouldn't talk about their own resolution. Our
resolution will stand on all fours. Our resolution is a good
resolution. It's not the best, but it is doggone good.
It brings us to balance by 2012. It fully funds defense. By the way
we don't have any shenanigans with the outlays. We don't short up guys
in the field $67 billion in outlays. When we get through paying and
providing for defense, which is a big item there, is not a lot left
over. We husband our resources. We say to our veterans, by golly, you
deserve what you are talking about. We give the biggest increase in
history, $5.4 billion over current services for veterans health care.
Education, we think it's critically important. We genuinely believe
in it on this side. We provide $9 billion more than the President for
education next year, over the next 5 years, we provide $46 billion more
for education than does theirs.
Children's health insurance, it's going to expire this year. What
they propose will not even allow us to insure the children now on the
program. We want to not only renew it, but expand it. We also want to
pay for it. So we say to those who advocate SCHIP, its expansion, if
you pay for it, you can go up to $50 billion in expanding the program.
That is in our budget resolution.
Why do they want to put this red herring out there? To keep us from
talking about these things that the American people really care about,
the health of their children. They should.
We don't have any Medicaid cuts, and we don't have any Medicare cuts.
I will tell you, because I have been at this business of the budget for
a long time, in 1990 and 1991 Democrats voted for budget measures that
truly reduced the deficit and had some restraints on Medicare and
Medicaid in them; 1997, the same thing; 1993, with Mr. Clinton, the
same thing. When we knew that it was going to improve the bottom line
and not be used simply to offset another of their tax cuts, we were
willing to pay for Medicare and Medicaid reduction. They have not been
able to or willing to.
Finally, as to taxes, we have no tax increase anywhere in this
resolution, none whatsoever. For that matter, the 2001 and 2003 tax
cuts, particularly those middle-income tax cuts, which we list and
enumerate, not once but twice in our resolution, we fully protect them
and leave them in place, full force and effect, this year, next year,
2008, 2009 and 2010.
They only expire then, not because of anything in this budget
resolution, but because when the Republicans first wrote those tax cuts
and passed them, they put that sunset date in there in order to
diminish the size and shoehorn these tax cuts under what was allowed
under that budget resolution.
We have got a good budget resolution. It will stand on all fours. It
brings the budget to balance in 2012, encourages less in deficits and
depth than the President does. Furthermore, we have got a track record
to talk about.
When President Clinton came to office in 1993, there was a deficit of
$290 billion. Every year thereafter, every year thereafter, the bottom
line of the budget got better, to the point where in 2000, there was a
surplus of $236 billion. That is what happened on his watch.
President Bush came to office with an advantage few preceding
Presidents have enjoyed, a surplus of $5.6 trillion projected by his
own economists. He has run that into a deficit of $8.2 trillion. We
haven't seen a reversal like that since the Great Depression. That was
not the President's fault in the 1930s.
This is the record they have to rely on. The record we have to rely
on is the record of the Clinton administration, which balanced the
budget in the year 1998 for the first time in 30 years, and built up a
surplus of $236 billion, which we turned over to Mr. Bush.
We will discuss this further tomorrow. But what we offer is a
responsible budget resolution that reaches responsible results but is
balanced well in its priorities.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady) each will control 30 minutes on the subject of
economic goals and policies.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, as Vice Chair of the Joint
Economic Committee, I am pleased to speak in the time reserved by the
Budget Act for a discussion of economic goals and policies that is
traditionally led by members of this committee.
Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to chart a more sensible
course for economic policy than has been pursued over the past 6 years,
and this budget starts us down that path.
The President says his policies are working to make the economy
strong, and that all Americans are benefiting. But evidence of a
slowing economy is building, and an anxiety over the state of the
economy remains high. The meltdown in the subprime mortgage market is
also adding to worries about the overall health of the economy.
American families are optimistic by nature, but they are
understandably worried about the future, because the economy is
weakening, even before many have shared in the gains from the economic
growth we have seen so far.
Despite 5 years of economic expansion, most American families have
struggled just to hold their economic ground on President Bush's watch.
Job growth has been modest. Wages are barely keeping pace with
inflation. Real incomes have fallen, household debt is rising,
employer-provided health insurance coverage is declining, and private
pensions are in jeopardy.
These are the economic barometers that matter most to America's
families. Having a job is the key indicator of economic well-being for
the vast majority of Americans. The President likes to talk about these
7.5 million jobs created since August of 2003, but he neglects to
mention the fact that more than a third of those jobs were necessary
just to replace the ones that were destroyed between 2001 and 2003.
Most Americans depend on their earnings to support themselves and
their families. But unfortunately, workers' pay has lagged far beyond
productivity, and wage growth has been weaker and more unequal than in
the late 1990s. Strong productivity growth has translated into higher
profits for businesses. Corporate profits are at an all-time high as a
share of GDP, but not more take-home pay for the average worker.
Focusing on usual weekly earnings of full-time workers, we see only
modest gains concentrated in the upper half of the distribution from
2000 to 2006. As we see in this chart, the red bars show the unequal
gains during the Bush administration, and the blue bars show the
Clinton years when earnings grew for everyone across our country.
The divergence between the haves and the have-nots in the Bush
administration economy stands in marked contrast to the last 4 or 5
years of the Clinton administration when real wage gains were strong up
and down the wage ladder as productivity growth first accelerated.
These earnings figures do not reflect bonuses of highly paid
executives or capital gains and other nonwage income earned at the very
top of the income distribution. This picture likely understates the
disparities. The people experiencing the largest income gains are
executives and highly compensated individuals, while ordinary American
workers are only just beginning to see some gains in their paychecks
after inflation.
Workers' pay and benefits, the red line, have grown only half as much
as productivity; the blue line over the last 6 years. Typically, real
compensation of workers, their wages and benefits, tend to track
productivity growth as
[[Page H3261]]
they did in the late 1990s. But that has not happened since the 2001
recession. Productivity growth has been strong, but real inflation-
adjusted compensation growth has been weak.
The compensation growth we have seen came much more from benefits
than from wages, but not because employers suddenly became more
generous. Benefit costs have been increasing because health insurance
costs are rising and employers have had to make contributions to
restore the solvency of their pension plans.
{time} 2045
Higher benefit costs have squeezed take-home pay, but workers have
not been getting more generous benefits in return. Slow job growth and
stagnant wages during much of the Bush administration have depressed
families' incomes. Median household income in 2005 was nearly $1,300
lower than in 2000, a loss of 2.7 percent during the President's first
5 years in office. Clearly, many American families have a lot of lost
ground to make up.
Those who are already well-to-do are doing very well in this Bush
economy, but the typical American family is struggling to make ends
meet in the face of high costs for energy, health care and a college
education for their children.
College tuition is up 44 percent, health insurance premiums are up 87
percent, and the price of gasoline was only a $1.45 per gallon when the
President took office.
Somehow, the President's tax cuts were supposed to make up for all of
this. But the lion's share of the tax cuts went to the people at the
very top, especially the top 1 percent of earners.
The legacy of the President's tax cuts has been to run up massive
deficits and debt that leave us unprepared to deal with the budget
challenges posed by the retirement of the baby boom generation, and
that weakens the future standard of living of our children and
grandchildren.
This administration has presided over a stunning reversal of fortune.
The $5.6 trillion, 10-year budget surplus that they inherited turned
into a deficit over those same 10 years of at least $2.3 trillion.
The administration has incurred the three largest budget deficits on
record, including a $413 billion deficit in 2004. The deficit may be
retreating, as it usually does in a business cycle recovery, but each
year's deficit still stands in marked contrast to the projected
surpluses when the President took office.
The gross Federal debt is now almost $9 trillion, or more than
$29,000 per person. That is how much every man, woman and child in
America owes to this debt. This is the fiscal mess that we have to
clean up. Thanks to the President's policies, we are now a Nation of
debtors, relying on the rest of the world to finance our budget
deficits and excessive spending.
Our current account deficit, which is the broadest measure of our
trade deficit with the rest of the world, rose to a record-smashing
$856 billion in 2006, from $791 billion in 2005.
This administration keeps giving us records, but they are the wrong
kind of records. Record deficits, record debts, and record amounts of
money owed by each American citizen. The amount of Federal debt owed by
foreigners has more than doubled under President Bush, rising to $2.2
trillion, with Japan and China alone holding $1 trillion of our debt.
Recent stock market volatility underscores just how vulnerable the
U.S. economy has become to the decisions being made in other countries.
When China sneezes, a half a world away, the U.S. economy catches a
cold.
Our future prosperity depends on increasing our normal saving and
making wise investments. It depends on being ready for the retirement
of the baby boom generation and the pressure we know that that will put
on our budget.
The challenge for this Congress is to return to the fiscal discipline
that has been squandered by the President and Congress over the past 6
years, and that is what this Democratic budget proposal does.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the ranking member of
the Joint Economic Committee, Mr. Saxton, I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
A couple of corrections here. Let me make the point that the American
economy is still one of the strongest in the Nation, in the world, the
largest economy in the world. We have had 42 straight months of job
growth. We have created 7.6 million new jobs under President Bush. We
have low unemployment. And this was all done as President Bush
inherited a recession as he took office.
I should make note that President Clinton inherited an expanding
economy. President Bush inherited one that was slipping into recession.
And you don't need to take my word for it. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel
Laureate and President's Clinton's own chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers, observed the economy was slipping into recession
even before President Bush took office.
So let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about this budget. I
actually think it is a healthy thing that we are arguing over how to
balance the Federal budget. That is something that ought to be a goal
of both parties.
And, frankly, as a Republican, I am convinced one of the reasons we
got fired from management of Congress is that we forgot to pursue a
balanced budget. We forgot to limit spending. We forgot to try to look
out for the American taxpayer.
I oppose this Democratic budget because it increases the Federal
deficit by billions of dollars next year. It continues to raid the
Social Security trust fund, and it does include the largest tax
increase in American history. And that is not only fiscally
irresponsible, it means a staggering $2,700 tax increase for our
average Texas family of four.
Now, this budget will spend nearly $3 trillion next year, and we will
impose almost $400 billion of tax increases to finance new Federal
spending. If you look at what it does, it allows President Bush's tax
relief to expire, bringing back the marriage penalty, bringing back the
death tax, cutting the child tax credit in half, and raising the income
capital gains and dividend tax rates.
And their budget, closer to home, next year it also kills the State
and local sales tax deduction, which I and others on both sides of the
aisle worked so hard to restore. That State sales tax deduction saves
Texas families $1 billion annually, and they will see a new tax
increase shortly after this holiday season.
And what is, I think, most absurd, I was listening to the chairman of
the Budget Committee's discussion on shenanigans and I thought, I have
not seen a bigger shenanigan in any budget in history than what is
called the reserve account in the Democrat budget. What they say is, we
will do tax relief for middle-class families, but we will pay for it
with the reserve account. You ask, what is in the reserve account? And
not a single dime, not a single dollar. It is as if someone said, here
is a check for what I promise you, but the bank account is empty. I
don't know if there will be money in it ever. I don't know how to put
money in it. But, trust me, here is a check. Those reserve accounts are
the biggest shenanigan.
And after years of criticizing President Bush for not eliminating or
at least reforming the alternative minimum tax, the Democrat budget
doesn't allow for even 1 year of it, which means an additional 20
million Americans will be hit by this growing tax next year.
I am backing an alternative budget, the Republican budget, that
balances the budget in 5 years without a tax increase and ends the raid
on the Social Security trust fund.
It seems to me tonight we have probably as clear a choice as we have
had in many years between the Democrat philosophy of balancing the
budget and the Republican.
The Democrat philosophy in this budget is, we will balance it, which
is good for them. We balance it by increasing spending and increasing
taxes on hardworking families.
The Republicans approach is, we will balance it a different way, by
limiting the spending and by keeping the tax relief that families need.
And there has never been a clearer choice.
And I think, too, I look at the promises that were made last campaign
by
[[Page H3262]]
our new majority. We are going to reduce the deficit. Yet, under this
budget, the deficit will actually increase $36 billion in 1 year, $36
billion. That compass is headed the wrong direction.
They said, we will stop spending the Social Security trust fund, but
they spend all of it this year and in every year. And they say, we
promise middle-class tax relief, but, instead, they provide tax
increases on families and small businesses and single moms with
children.
In a moment I am going to go through some of those tax increases
which, frankly, as expensive as life is these days for most families, I
know our families in Texas can't quite handle that big a hit.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my dear friend on
the other side of the aisle that the Bush administration has given this
country several records, only they are the wrong kind of records: $9
trillion in debt, the largest debt this country has ever carried; $859
billion trade deficit, the current account deficit, the largest trade
deficit in the history of this country. And out of that $9 trillion,
each of us in this room and each person across America owes $29,000.
That is their portion of the debt that we owe.
Once again, we have heard about job creation. As I have said earlier,
a third of the jobs created since 2003 were necessary just to make up
for earlier job losses. Under President Clinton, the economy created
237,000 jobs per month, and this administration has created well less
than 100,000 jobs per month.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to make the
point that under President Clinton's watch we did have a strong
economy. It turned out that much of it was false, based on the supposed
paper accounts of Enron and WorldCom and others. Too many families woke
up after the Clinton administration and realized that retirement fund
they had counted on their whole life wasn't worth the paper it was
written on.
And I will make the point, too, that after the attacks of 9/11, after
this recession, after this administration handled the fallout of this
recession, that we bounced back with tax relief that created 7.6
million new jobs in America. We are going in the right direction.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence), former head of the Republican Study Committee and one of our
leaders on fiscal discipline.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I
express strong support for his leadership and remarks concerning the
Joint Economic Committee.
I also would echo the sentiments of the chairman who expressed on
this floor, moments ago, the importance for pursuing a ``more sensible
course for economic policy.'' And, as she did, I will reflect on the
fact that that begins with the Federal budget.
We are in the midst, Mr. Chairman, of considering the Federal budget;
and I rise this evening to reflect on that, however briefly. But I must
tell you, I have a strong sense of deja vu as I come to this floor. It
seems like it is the 1970s all over again.
I mean, seriously, if you think about it, there are hostages in Iran;
Congress is making plans to withdraw from another unpopular war; the
Equal Rights Amendment is about to be considered in the Congress, once
again; and the tax-and-spend policies of a liberal Democrat majority
are about to beset Washington, D.C.
{time} 2100
The contrast between the Democrat plan for tax and spend and the
Republican plan to balance the budget by 2012 could not be more
startling, and I would like to speak about that this evening.
On taxes, under the Democrat budget that will be considered tomorrow,
we find the largest tax increase in American history. Despite hollow
promises, the tax hikes are in the numbers, and in a budget resolution
the numbers don't lie.
The Republican budget, no tax increases, period.
On the spending side, the Democrat budget includes a $22 billion
increase in nondefense spending above the President's request on top of
$22 billion of unrequested spending in the supplemental and $6 billion
in the omnibus. More taxes and more spending.
Under the Republican budget, we see a courageous effort to freeze
nondefense, nonsecurity spending, while providing additional funds for
veterans, the war on terror, CDBG, the National Institutes of Health
and Science and Technology.
And perhaps most grievous and most startling a contrast, Mr.
Chairman, is under the Democrat budget that will be considered
tomorrow, we see a majority party in Congress that is prepared to
ignore the trillions of dollars in unfunded obligations in entitlements
altogether. The Democrat budget ignores the Nation's looming
entitlement crises and allows unfunded liabilities in Medicare and
Social Security to actually grow by an additional $25 trillion.
Again, the Republican alternative includes $279 billion in savings
and commonsense reforms to entitlement programs to preserve our social
safety net for future generations. And on budget process reform,
believing, as I always have, that we must change the way we spend the
people's money, the Democrat budget relies on gimmickry and hollow
promises of reserve funds and PAYGO strategies that will only chase
higher spending and higher taxes.
Under the Republican plan, we see legislative line item veto and
PAYGO for all congressional spending.
So the contrasts have been startling, and it does seem like deja vu.
But who will pay the price? Well, under the Democrat plan, working
families in Indiana will pay an additional $2,700 per year. The
Democrat budget resolution will increase marginal tax rates for all
Americans, eliminate the new 10 percent tax bracket, increase taxes
paid on capital gains and dividends, reimpose the death tax, cut the
child tax credit. And that is just a start.
The GOP budget alternative will preserve tax cuts, will protect
Social Security, and will balance the Federal budget by the year 2012.
It is truly an historic recommitment by this Republican minority to the
principles of fiscal discipline and reform.
It is, in fact, the 1970s all over again. But I would say very
humbly, Mr. Chairman, let's not, as a Nation, relearn those lessons.
Let's rather say ``no'' to bell bottoms, to disco, and to the tax and
spend policies of the 1970s; and say ``yes'' to the fiscal discipline
and reform reflected in the Republican budget resolution.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I find it
rather ironic that my good friends on the other side of the aisle are
lecturing us on fiscal responsibility. After all, let us remember that
the $5.6 trillion 10-year budget surplus that Mr. Bush and the
Republican majority at that time inherited turned into a deficit over
those same 10 years of at least $2.3 trillion. Numbers do not lie, Mr.
Chairman. They turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $2.3 trillion
deficit. And they are preaching fiscal responsibility.
The administration has incurred the three largest budget deficits on
record, including a $413 billion deficit in 2004. And let's remember
that the Bush administration not only lost 3 million manufacturing jobs
since they took office, but we now have almost a $9 trillion debt, and
that breaks down to all of us in America owing, our own individual
share, $29,000. Now, that is what they have given the American people.
On top of that they gave us another record, another horrible record.
The highest trade deficit in the history of our country, $857 billion.
So they give us the record debt, the record trade deficit, and the
record budget deficit in the history of this country, and they are
talking fiscal responsibility. And then on top of it they turn the
surplus into a $2.3 trillion deficit.
Believe me, I am so glad that for the future of America we have a
Democratic budget before us today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from the great State
of Washington, Congressman McDermott.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to respond
to what I heard out here.
[[Page H3263]]
I was sitting in my office listening, and it is interesting to
imagine yourself being like the people at home listening on television
to the Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility. Now, you have just
heard the figures, but I want to bring back some images to your mind
because a budget is a statement of your principles and what you care
about in society.
I remember when Katrina hit and we were sitting watching television
looking at the absolute chaos and failure of the Republicans to deal
with a national crisis. Those pictures looked like the Third World. In
fact, we were quicker to go out to Indonesia to deal with the effects
of tsunami than we were to deal with the problems of people in our own
country, in New Orleans.
In large measure, I believe, the election of 2006 was a rejection by
the American people of the Republican we-don't-want-government-to-work
philosophy. Anybody who appoints a guy who runs cattle shows or horse
shows to run the emergency management organization in this country does
not care about the security of the American people. Meanwhile, giving
tax breaks. Unbelievable. Spending us into a deficit.
I mean, when I came to Congress, all I heard for the first 6 years
were Republicans coming out and saying, We have to pass a balanced
budget amendment. By God, we have got to balance the budget.
So we did in 1994. We did it, and lo and behold, here comes all this
money in and soon we have a balanced budget with a potential surplus.
The Republicans win, and I don't know whether they had amnesia or they
didn't really mean it in the first place when they talked about a
balanced budget. You can choose which of those you want.
Either they were deceiving the people or they just lost their minds
when they got in control and spent us into this hole. Now for them to
come out and say we are going to balance the budget in 2012, why don't
you say you are going to balance the budget in 2049? That is as good a
date as any. You don't mean it. You never meant it because when you
came in, you made decision after decision after decision that dug the
hole deeper. The old aphorism everybody knows in this country: If you
are in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. But the
Republicans, session after session, came out here and dug the hole
deeper. I don't know what they were looking for. Maybe they were
looking for china or gold. I don't know where they were going. But,
clearly, the budgeting that has come out of the Republicans was phony
from the outset and the people said we don't want any more of that.
The people want a government that works. There is a reason why we
have government. We have government to do those things for people that
they cannot do for themselves. All of us over here believe in
individual responsibility. We think people should be responsible. They
should save money. They should get an education. They should raise
their children. None of us over here disagree with that individual
responsibility.
But there are some things that people cannot do for themselves. They
cannot prevent the effects of a hurricane. They look to the government
to deal with that. But the Republicans said, No problem. Leave the jobs
open. And you could find the same kind of things all through this
budget, whether you are looking at the national parks or you are
looking at what they have done to the environment.
The President bragged about what a great education Governor he was,
and he came in here and told us we are going to have this No Child Left
Behind bill. Then he proceeded to underfund it by $17 billion. Now, if
you are serious about schools, you put the money in schools. You don't
give tax breaks to people making a half million dollars a year. They
have got enough to get by. Most all of them can pretty much get by on
half a million. But there are schools in this country which are failing
for the lack of money to do the things that are necessary for the
school system.
And the choice the President made was let's give the tax break. Never
mind that silly bill I had about No Child Left Behind. He didn't mean
it. You didn't mean it. And that is why we had the election of 2006.
And the budget you see out here is the priorities of the Democrats
trying to bring some sense back to a government that we want to
actually function when the people look to it and need it.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman does make many relevant points, just not relevant
accuracies.
The truth of the matter is he claimed that the Democrats balanced the
budget in 1994, but there was a $200 billion deficit in 1994. In fact,
it was the Republican Congress that balanced the Federal budget for the
first time after 40 years of Democrat leadership in Washington, D.C.
The gentlewoman from New York claims that manufacturing jobs were
lost under President Bush, but manufacturing losses began in 1998,
1999, and 2000 under President Clinton's administration.
And while I agree with the gentlewoman that the $9 trillion debt is
unconscionable, I will point out that in every budget that we passed in
the 10 years that I have been here, Democrats voted against it because
it was not spending enough. And the gentleman in front of me just said
we haven't spent enough on Katrina, we haven't spent enough on
education, we haven't spent enough on health care; yet they say we
shouldn't be spending this much. And that $9 trillion debt, when I go
onto their Web sites, when I look at the press releases on all the pork
barrel projects, I brought home this highway fund, this university
research, I brought home this special program, now, either they didn't
support that spending or they are just claiming credit for that
spending.
You can't have it both ways. You can't be fiscally responsible. You
are spending too much. No, you are spending too little, and I am taking
credit for what you did.
The fact of the matter is when we look at the Democratic budget, what
we see is a massive tax rate, massive new spending, all in an effort, I
think, to reclaim the title of the biggest government possible.
{time} 2115
I try to explain this to my taxpayers back home and my families, what
does this budget mean to you?
You look at an elderly couple in Texas with $40,000 income. That is
where the husband and the wife is still working. Under the Democrat
bill, this elderly couple in Texas, their tax bill would rise by $1,000
a year. That is a lot of money for a senior citizen and his wife.
A family of four with $60,000 in earnings, that is maybe a
firefighter and a secretary, this bill would increase their taxes by
$1,800. A family of four, which probably is struggling already to make
ends meet.
For a single parent with two children and $30,000 in income, that is
a single mom working in the local school district, under Republicans,
at the end of the year she would get back almost $2,500. Under the
Democrat tax increase bill, she would get $1,600 less.
I know in Washington $1,600 doesn't seem like a lot, but when you are
a single mom working at the local school district with two kids, that
is a lot of clothes, that is a lot of car insurance, that is a lot of
medical bills for young people. This budget hands these families a tax
hit that, frankly, they can't afford.
Taxes will rise, on the average, for 26 million small business owners
by almost $4,000. That is a lot of payroll. That may be the only profit
they make all year.
Then, by eliminating the lowest tax bracket, you are going to take 5
million taxpayers in America who didn't have to pay taxes, we are going
to hand them a tax bill and say we want to do this so we can spend more
in Washington. So that we can try to balance the budget on the backs of
hardworking families in America, we are going to spend more.
What my Democrat friends have never figured out is, Washington has
all the money it needs. It just doesn't have all the money it wants. It
is time we know the difference.
I am supporting the Republican alternative, which balances the budget
without this massive tax increase. In fact, there is no tax increase at
all. For the first time in many, many years, it does not spend the
Social Security trust fund, which is just critical.
[[Page H3264]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pomeroy). The gentlelady from New York is
recognized to close.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the American people voted for change, and this
Democratic leadership has given them change, not only in the direction
in Iraq but the direction in our budget.
I repeat, it is unbelievable. I am mystified that the Republican
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking fiscal
discipline. Let us remember, they are the ones that gave us the largest
debt in history, $9 trillion, the largest trade deficit, over $859
billion, and they turned the $5.6 trillion 10-year budget surplus into
a $2.3 trillion deficit. That is what they gave this country.
Within the first 100 hours of this Congress, the new Democratic
leadership instituted pay-as-you-go budgeting requiring that new
spending be offset. In other words, we are not spending money we don't
have. We are not going to grow that deficit. Adhering to this policy
helped turn deficits into surpluses in the 1990s during the Clinton
administration but was abandoned by the Bush administration and the
Republican-controlled Congress. That is what led us to these huge debts
and deficits.
Today, Democrats in Congress present a realistic budget plan that
adheres to PAYGO principles for controlling the deficit and bringing
revenues into line with the amount we need to spend to defend the
country and take care of the needs of our citizens.
Our budget provides health care for millions of additional uninsured
children. We make investments in veterans health care and benefits. We
restore critical funding for first responders and State and local law
enforcement.
In order to spur innovation that will keep America number one in the
world, we provide increased funding for the National Science
Foundation, increase investments in math and science and education, and
make college more affordable for our young people, investing in the
future of our country.
We also expand renewable energy and energy efficiency to reduce
global warming and dependence on foreign oil.
Democrats target tax relief to those who need it most. Our plan
protects 19 million middle-American families from a tax increase by
setting up a reserve fund for a long-term fix for the alternative
minimum tax, which is snagging millions more families each year in its
widening net. We pay for these tax cuts in part by eliminating tax
loopholes and closing the tax gap to make sure that middle-class
families don't have to pay the tab for tax cheats.
Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is an important step toward
putting our fiscal house back in order and creating greater economic
opportunities and prosperity for all American families.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Concurrent
Resolution 99, the Congressional Budget Resolution for fiscal year
2008.
I am extremely pleased that the budget proposed by Chairman Spratt
recognizes the critical importance of meeting our nation's
infrastructure investment needs, even while achieving a balanced budget
by the year 2012.
Increased investment in our transportation infrastructure has far-
reaching effects on our nation's economy, our competitiveness in the
world marketplace, and the quality of life in our communities.
Yet, too often, capital investments are shortchanged due to a more
immediate need to finance day-to-day operations.
This budget does not make that mistake. Rather, it assumes full
funding for programs financed by the Highway and Aviation Trust Funds.
These programs are funded by highway and aviation system users and do
not contribute to the deficit.
Specifically, the proposed budget fully funds highway, transit, and
highway safety programs at the levels guaranteed by the surface
transportation reauthorization act, commonly known as SAFETEA-LU. It
rejects the Administration's proposal to cut highway and transit
funding below the guaranteed levels by $631 million and $309 million,
respectively.
The Administration's proposal to cut transit funding was particularly
ill-advised. The Administration proposed that Capital Investment Grants
receive $1.4 billion, compared to $1.7 billion authorized by SAFETEA-
LU. Of the $1.4 billion requested for Capital Investment Grants, the
Administration proposed to fund 11 existing Full Funding Grant
Agreements, seven projects that are currently in final design, and
three other projects currently in preliminary engineering. However, the
Administration's request ignores the significant pipeline of new start
projects seeking funding, including 11 projects that are currently in
preliminary engineering, as well as another eight projects that are
very close to approval to enter preliminary engineering.
Furthermore, within the $300 million reduction in Capital Investment
Grants proposed by the Administration, $100 million was to have come
from the small starts program. The small starts program is authorized
in SAFETEA-LU to receive $200 million in fiscal year 2008. The
Administration proposed to provide just $100 million, to fund four
small start projects. There are, however, at least 11 other small start
projects around the country which may be ready for project development
approval in fiscal year 2007.
Given that traffic congestion has become a major national problem
costing motorists more than $63 billion in wasted time and fuel each
year, the Administration's proposal to cut funding for transit
investments is just plain wrong, and I am pleased it is not included in
the Concurrent Resolution before us today.
Beyond highways and transit, the Concurrent Resolution lays the
groundwork for reauthorization of Federal Aviation Administration
programs by allocating the full amounts recommended by the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP). As requested in the Committee's Views and Estimates, the
proposed budget provides an allocation for AIP of $3.8 billion in FY
2008, $3.9 billion in FY 2009, $4.0 billion in FY 2010, and $4.1
billion in FY 2011. In contrast to the Administration's proposal to cut
AIP funding to $2.75 billion in FY 2008, the increased funding levels
provided by this Resolution will allow the AIP program to keep pace
with inflationary cost increases, and begin to address the investment
gap in airport safety and capacity needs.
I commend Chairman Spratt for bringing this Resolution to the Floor,
and look forward to working with him on continued improvements to our
nation's infrastructure.
I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 99.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I was thrilled to join
four distinguished members of the House Armed Services Committee--Ms.
Davis, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Conaway, and our esteemed chairman, Mr.
Skelton--on a tour of Fort Riley.
I am proud to represent Fort Riley in Congress, and my pride only
grew as I saw the professionalism and patriotism of Fort Riley's
troops. Fort Riley is charged with training Military Training Teams--
small groups of American soldiers who recruit, organize, and train
Iraqi forces to take charge of their nation's security.
Fort Riley goes to tremendous lengths to prepare soldiers for their
tours in Iraq. The fort runs complex simulations of battle conditions--
they engage actors to portray Arab citizens; they encourage soldiers to
behave throughout their training as though they are already in Iraq.
For transition teams at Fort Riley, the war begins months before they
leave American soil. Their war will continue through twelve months of
hazardous, exhausting deployment in Iraq. And even when they return
home, their war will continue still. Many will bear the scars of the
Iraq war--both physical and mental--for a lifetime.
Just as Fort Riley has recognized that we cannot drop soldiers into a
war zone without adequate preparation, this Congress must realize that
we cannot abandon soldiers upon their return to America. We owe
veterans nothing less than a lifetime of support. Abraham Lincoln
understood this concept when he charged America ``to care for him who
shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.'' It is
time that this Congress meet our obligation.
I was proud in January to support a continuing resolution that
increased VA funding by $3.4 billion. Last week this House passed a
supplemental bill that provided a further $1.7 billion. These increases
were meaningful and long-overdue--but our support must not waver now.
The Budget Committee has provided superb leadership toward that end.
The Committee proposed a fiscally responsible, comprehensive 2008
budget that includes a $6.6 billion increase for the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Their approach has earned praise from AMVETS, the
Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the American Legion.
I urge my colleagues to follow the Budget Committee's lead.
No one can doubt that every Member of this esteemed body supports
America's veterans. The only question is whether we will demonstrate
our support using the most powerful tool at our disposal: the federal
budget.
[[Page H3265]]
I urge you to turn words of support for veterans into action, to
transform sentiment into financing. Please vote for full funding of the
VA.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McDermott) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pomeroy, Acting Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 99) revising the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2007, establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2008, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2009 through 2012, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________