Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 74 (Monday, May 7, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 74 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4509-H4516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. CON RES. 21, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

[[Page H4510]]

call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 370

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (S. Con.
Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and
2009 through 2012. The concurrent resolution shall be
considered as read. An amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of House Concurrent
Resolution 99, as adopted by the House, shall be considered
as adopted. All points of order against the concurrent
resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution,
as amended, to final adoption without intervening motion or
demand for division of the question. If the Senate concurrent
resolution, as amended, is adopted, then it shall be in order
to move that the House insist on its amendment to the
concurrent resolution and request a conference with the
Senate thereon. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on that motion to adoption without intervening
motion.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume and I ask unanimous consent
to revise and extend my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that all
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on House Resolution 370.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 370 provides for consideration in
the House of S. Con. Res. 21, the Senate version of the concurrent
budget resolution for 2008. It also provides for the House to insist on
the House-passed version of the budget resolution and to request a
conference with the Senate.
The rule is very simple. It allows the House to disagree with the
Senate budget resolution and request a conference. It doesn't interfere
with the motion to instruct conferees; it just allows the House to go
to conference and appoint conferees.
This rule is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because the Republican
leadership refused to agree to the customary unanimous consent request
required to go to conference on a Senate numbered bill. In fact, there
is no instance in recent memory where a separate rule has been adopted
to go to conference with the Senate on a budget resolution due to the
objection of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time figuring out why my Republican
friends are choosing to be obstructionists on even the most routine
housekeeping measures. They talk a lot about civility and comity in the
House, but apparently it is just that, talk, because their actions
point to a very different strategy.
The new Democratic majority, on the other hand, is committed to
results. We were elected to get things done, and that is exactly what
we will do, with or without the cooperation of the Republican minority.
This rule does not block a vote on approval of the Senate budget
resolution, as amended. It does not interfere with the motion to
instruct conferees. It simply allows the House to insist on its version
of the budget resolution and to request a conference with the Senate,
nothing more. So let's pass this rule and get the budget resolution
into conference.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1600

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
rule and the unprecedented tax increase that the Democrat majority is
bringing back to the House today.
I wish I could report to my colleagues that this legislation was
improved since the last time the House considered it in March.
Unfortunately, the massive and irresponsible tax increase included in
the House version of this budget would still be the largest tax
increase in American history, weighing in at a shocking $392.5 billion
over the next 5 years.
This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of everyday
taxpayers, would be used to finance bloated new government spending
that will grow well above the rate of inflation through 2012, while
also ignoring the brewing entitlement crisis. Around 77 million baby
boomers will be retiring in the very near future and will begin
collecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Funding this new
spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era, and it
is a challenge that the Democrat budget has chosen to completely
ignore, while going on its own spending spree elsewhere.
In the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, which I have the honor
to represent, the Heritage Foundation estimates that the passage of
this budget will cost every single taxpayer an additional $2,920 in
2012. It will also mean a per capita loss of $474 in personal income,
as well as 2,389 lost jobs as a result of a loss of $328 million to the
local economy of the 32nd Congressional District of Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record this entire document which
details the severe negative impact on the passage that this budget will
have on every single taxpayer from every single district across the
country.
Mr. Speaker, if fiscal discipline is what the Democrats promised
voters this past fall, then, by my account, it took only 3 months for
the Democrat candidates to abandon their campaign promises and an
additional 2 months for Democrats to reiterate their really true
support for tax-and-spend policies again here on the House floor today.
This deeply flawed budget would increase taxes on almost 8 million
taxpayers just in my home State of Texas alone. It would collect these
taxes by allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax relief provided by the
Republican Congress to expire.
In real terms, for every American taxpayer, this means reducing the
child tax credit for working families so that the government can
collect $27 billion more to finance, yes, you've got it, Mr. Speaker,
brand-new spending.
It means reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax to
collect an additional $104 billion so that the new majority Democrats
can kick the can further down the road, rather than reforming and
strengthening our Nation's entitlement programs.
And it means completely ignoring the alternative minimum tax crisis
which is projected to hit 23 million middle-class families if not dealt
with in a responsible manner.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the voters watching this debate on C-SPAN
understand what these tax increases mean for them, the economy, and for
our ability to compete globally. But they may not realize what they
mean for the average family of four with $60,000 in earnings. It will
mean a tax increase of 61 percent. It means that a single parent with
two children and $30,000 in earnings would see a tax increase of 67
percent. And it means that an elderly couple with $40,000 of income
would see their taxes increase by a whopping 156 percent.
Mr. Speaker, you can see the advantages of the Republican tax cut and
what it means to every single middle-class American.
Now, one would think that a hike of almost $400 billion impacting
every American taxpayer would be enough to finance the Democrats'
appetite for big government. But trust me, it's just the start. This
budget also contains 12 reserve funds or pet initiative IOUs which set
the stage for more than $115 billion in higher future spending which
would have to be financed by, you guessed it, even higher taxes.
For the last 4 years, responsible budgets passed by the Republican
Party kept discretionary spending at or below inflation for all
nondefense, non-homeland security spending. This budget plan brought
forward by the Democrats brings this fiscally disciplined tradition to
a screeching halt by allowing about $25 billion more in discretionary
spending than President Bush or even the spendthrift Senate, for that
matter, which asked for about $7 billion less than the House.
Thankfully, it's not too late to stop this fiscal train wreck. By
voting against this rule, every Member of this

[[Page H4511]]

body can demonstrate their opposition to the Federal largesse included
in this budget, as well as their opposition to the largest tax increase
in American history.
Without the meaningful tax relief passed by this recent Republican
Congress, our economy would not have seen the massive job growth with
7.6 million new jobs created for American workers and tremendous
economic growth of 3.5 percent per year that has our economy growing at
the highest rate and has done so over the last 15 quarters.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to stand up for fiscal
discipline, economic growth, and responsible budgeting by opposing this
rule and the underlying tax increase.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I could respond to the gentleman from
Texas, I don't know what he's talking about. The fact of the matter is
that the Democratic budget resolution does not contain a single tax
increase. Period. The Concord Coalition stated that the budget
resolution does not call for or require a tax increase. The Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities said the House plan does not include a tax
increase. The Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institute says the
budget would not raise taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I sat on the Budget Committee. I had the honor of
serving under Chairman Spratt. And I would say to the gentleman from
Texas, if he reads the budget resolution, it actually supports the
renewal of the middle-class income tax cut.
Section 401 of the budget resolution commits the budget to the
support of the middle-class tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, including
the child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent
individual income tax bracket, estate tax reform, research and
development tax credit, and the deduction of State and local sales
taxes.
Section 203 of the budget resolution clearly provides a reserve fund
for the extension of those tax cuts so long as the legislation complies
with the House pay-as-you-go rule.
Now, the gentleman from Texas gets up here and brags about the fiscal
record of the Republicans in the Congress. Well, the American people, I
think, saw through the misplaced priorities of the Republican
Congresses, as evidenced by the results of the November election.
But so there is no misunderstanding, let me make it very clear to
everybody who is watching. We need to correct the fiscal course of the
country because the fiscal outlook that we are confronting has
deteriorated dramatically over the past 6 years because of the
Republicans misplaced priorities.
In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a projected 10-year budget
surplus of $5.6 trillion. That's $5.6 trillion. Within 2 years, that
surplus was gone, and the United States began accumulating an amount of
national debt, adding $2.8 trillion to our Federal debt burden since
2001.
Now, to make matters worse, most of that debt has been purchased by
foreign investors, making the U.S. economy more vulnerable to economic
and political instability and political pressure from abroad.
So for anyone to get up here and to brag about the Republican record
on fiscal matters, I think, to me, defies comprehension. The record is
clear. You have messed up the economy of this country in terms of this
incredible debt that we have now put on the backs of our kids and our
grandkids and our great grandkids. What the Democratic budget is trying
to do is restore some fiscal discipline, pay-as-you-go, and to get this
country back on the right course.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 8 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the House
Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, this rule simply makes in order a motion to
go to conference on the House and Senate budget resolution. That's all
it does.
The budget resolution, in turn, frames all that we will do in fiscal
year 2008, next year; and it helps keep the process fiscally
disciplined as we move forward. Usually, this procedure is accompanied
by, expedited by, unanimous consent. In this case, we couldn't be
assured of unanimous consent, so we are, instead, moving forward with
the rule.
Now, naturally, we in the House think that the House-passed budget is
a better expression of our goals. But both resolutions to be resolved
in conference, both are Democratic products, and we think both are
vastly better, far better budgets than the Republicans offered this
year or last year, for that matter. It's a matter of record. Last year
the Republicans failed to pass a concurrent budget resolution. They
couldn't get the two Houses together.
When we came back here in November, we had to finish up the
unfinished work. Only 2 of 11 appropriations bills were passed, partly
because they didn't have the framework of a budget resolution in which
to proceed.
Just weeks ago, we had the Republican budget on the House floor. It
fell 60 votes short of a majority, way behind. So unless we do what we
are doing today, we are going to find ourselves shortly in the same
situation we were last fall when the work was undone at the end of the
year.
Both budgets, both the House and the Senate budgets, have this goal.
Both budgets are designed to bring the budget back to balance by the
year 2012. The House resolution carries forward, I'm proud to say,
carries forward our commitment to pay-as-you-go. And the Senate
resolution includes a pay-as-you-go rule of its own.
There are a number of initiatives, it's true, in this bill. A number
of new initiatives. One is the Children's Health Insurance Initiative,
but none of these initiatives, including CHIP, will be undertaken, none
of them will be undertaken unless there are offsetting revenues or
offsetting expenses to make them budget neutral so they do not have any
impact on the bottom line.
This budget resolution and the Senate resolution both contain program
integrity measures requested by the President, augmented by us in our
budget resolution to crack down on wasteful spending. We're proud of
that. We want to see that money appropriated. We want to see some that
could be saved on wasteful sending.
Both budgets, and let me emphasize this, both budgets support middle-
income tax relief. We'll say it again and again and again. It bears
repeating because it's absolutely true.
The House budget resolution sites in its text income tax cuts that
were passed in 2001 and 2003, and it supports, not in one place, but
two, wholesomely supports the extension and renewal of those tax cuts
past 2010, when they will all expire.
Now, let me make something clear. This budget resolution for the next
4 years does not take a thing away from any taxpayer. The tax cuts
passed in 2001 and 2003 remain unaffected, remain standing and in
place.
In addition, let me make clear that when the tax cuts adopted in 2001
and 2003 expire at the end of 2010, it's by design. That's the way you
wrote the resolution. That's the way you wrote the bill that passed it.
And we do not propose anything here in this bill about not renewing
those tax cuts when they come up. We simply say that's a bridge we will
cross when we get to it.
But in the Senate, Senator Baucus has offered an amendment that will
require a vote before the year 2010 to renew those middle-income tax
cuts that sunset in the year 2010. The Baucus amendment limits these
tax cuts to $180 billion in annual revenue reduction, the amount of the
surplus that is anticipated in 2012 in the budget resolution.

{time} 1615

In the meantime, let me say again, all the tax cuts passed in 2001
and 2003 were provided for, allowed and in place under this budget
resolution. It is completely specious to say that we have raised taxes
by one dime. Completely specious.
If you don't believe, let me say once again or let me show you in
writing what Mr. McGovern just introduced. Here is the Concord
Coalition. Nobody would dispute their bona fides or their unpartisan
character. Here is how they sum up their analysis of our budget
resolution: ``Thus to be clear, the budget resolution does not call for
or require a tax increase.'' That is the Concord Coalition.

[[Page H4512]]

Next is the Brookings Institution, Hamilton Project: ``This budget
would not raise taxes.'' An independent group, no axes to grind. That
is their opinion.
And, finally, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: ``This
claim is incorrect. The House plan does not include a single tax
increase.''
Those are three outside organizations with no axes to grind. They
looked at our resolution. That is the judgment they rendered on it.
Now, let me move on to say that both the House and Senate budget
resolutions meet the President's request for national defense. They
protect our country, and they exceed the President's request for
veterans' health care. Funding for veterans' health care in our
resolution is 6 billion bucks, $6 billion, above the 2007 level and
more than $3 billion above the President's request.
Both budgets are also designed to reduce the deficit and bring the
budget back to balance, as I said earlier. That will decrease our
reliance on foreigners who buy our debt. Since 2001, foreign ownership
of Treasury bonds has more than doubled to $2.2 trillion, making our
economy vulnerable to global markets and the whims of foreign
investors.
If I could see this chart next to show you the total debt
accumulation under this administration. On the back of an envelope,
this shows you what we are about, what we want to avoid. When this
administration came to office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. In
the last 6 years, they have added 60 percent to that sum, $3.1 trillion
in additional debt. And as a consequence, the national debt stands at
$8.8 trillion. This is what Republicans have produced. This isn't about
claiming or argumentation or anything else. This is a matter of record.
You can look it up, from $5.7 to $8.8 trillion.
Finally, this budget resolution maintains the priorities that we
Democrats stand for and are proud of. We put families first. We put
children first by investing in health care; child care; education; Head
Start; and as I said earlier, tax relief to middle-income families.
Both budgets, both budgets, plan huge steps, and this is one of the
great initiatives we hope to achieve in this Congress, huge steps to
expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program so that it covers
most of the 9 million children without health insurance in this
country, and we propose to do that with offsets so that there will not
be a dime of the cost of that added to the bottom line.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, in short, this rule will make in order the
steps necessary to send our budget resolution to conference so that
they can move us forward on a fiscally responsible, fiscally
disciplined path.
I urge support for this resolution so that we can move forward with
the budget process.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, my wonderful colleague from Massachusetts
is trying to have it both ways: We're going to balance the budget;
we're not going to cut taxes. We're going to balance the budget; we're
not going to cut taxes. But, in fact, what happens is this budget
relies on every single tax cut going away so that they can then say
they balance the budget, but the fact of the matter is that they do not
even address the biggest issues and the problems that face the Nation.
He is correct. The gentleman from Massachusetts is correct.
Republicans did produce a balanced budget as a result of cutting taxes
and fiscal discipline in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. And in 2001, the day
America was attacked, we had a balanced budget. He is absolutely
correct. Since that time, we have not had a balanced budget. One
million jobs were lost within 1 month after 9/11, 2001. And so as a
result of that, Republicans decided that in order for us to gain
financial advantage, that we would have tax cuts.
It is true that, as a result of rules in the Senate, the other body,
that we could not make these tax cuts permanent. It is also true that
every single year since that period of time that Republicans have asked
Democrats, please make every single one of these tax cuts permanent,
well, that's like light to a vampire. Absolutely no, not for the
Democrats, because they're opposed to the tax cuts. They're on record
of opposing the tax cuts. And today they come to the floor, oh, we're
not taking away any of the tax cuts. Of course they are. Because if
they didn't, they couldn't then ``balance the budget'' that they have
on the floor today. That is exactly what they are doing.
Second point, Social Security, as a result of our growing economy,
every single new worker that comes in, Social Security has to add to
its deficit the amount of money that is owed to Social Security every
time we get a new worker, and that is more than half of this deficit.
It's an accounting gimmick because what happens is that Social Security
accounts for what they have to have as an unfunded liability out for 50
years.
So to talk about the irresponsibility, I will take part of the blame.
But growing this economy, having increased tax revenue, having the
greatest single economy we have ever had, more people than ever living
in homes, their own homes and our challenging the Democrat minority and
now majority to say, why don't we get on with the real things that are
important like worrying about Medicare and Medicaid? Nothing. Why don't
we make sure that families do not have to pay after-tax dollars for
health care? Silence. Silence from our Democrat majority.
The new Democrats want to tax and spend. That's what they've always
been about. That's what they're about on the floor of the House of
Representatives today. And they're trying to get it both ways.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the
ranking member from the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want
to echo the point he made.
Our chairman, the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, came
to the floor and accurately said both budgets, the Senate budget
resolution and the House-passed budget resolution, balance the budget.
That is correct. They do. It is certified by the Congressional Budget
Office. There is only one reason and way and method how they balance
the budget, though, Mr. Speaker: by raising taxes.
The House-passed budget resolution relies upon, requires, in fact,
makes sure that it passes the largest tax increase in American history
in order to balance the budget. The Senate-passed budget resolution
relies upon, requires and ensures that the second largest tax increase
in American history be enacted on the American people, on the American
taxpayers, in order to achieve balance.
I have two major concerns with this budget resolution, Mr. Speaker.
Number one, it is very bad economic policy. And number two, it is an
enormous missed opportunity.
Why is this budget resolution bad economic policy? Inflicting the
largest tax increase in American history on the American family,
business, entrepreneur, on American taxpayers, is bad economic policy.
And here is why: Back in 2001, where we realized we had 9/11, and in
2003, where we realized we had a recession, with the dot-com bubble
burst, with Enron scandals, we had job losses to the tune where we were
losing about 124,000 jobs a month. We had to act quickly to get people
back to work, so we cut taxes across the board. We cut taxes on
entrepreneurs, on families, on workers, on businesses, on capital. What
happened: 7.6 million new jobs were created since then. We have been
creating on average over 200,000 jobs a month since then. The stock
market turned around. The savings portfolios of senior citizens which
were eviscerated in the market crash came back. The Dow hit 13,000 last
week, an all-time high. We saw business investment, from negative
decline after negative decline for 11 consecutive quarters, turn around
and hit all-time highs. More jobs were created. And what happened at
these lower tax rates? Revenues came into the Federal Government at a
much, much faster pace, at about a 25-year high. So we saw more
revenues coming into the Federal Government, which actually brought the
deficit down at these lower tax rates.
What this budget resolution does is it puts that economic recovery
plan in jeopardy. By raising taxes on people and businesses and
entrepreneurs, you are reducing job growth in America. You are raising
the cost of capital.
We have a problem, Mr. Speaker, and that is we live in the era of

[[Page H4513]]

globalization. The oceans no longer separate our economy from the rest
of the world. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers don't live
in this country. They are overseas.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have got to wake up. Wake up to the fact that we
have real competitive pressures. Countries like China and India, let
alone Japan and Europe, are giving us real competitive pressures, real
competitive challenges. And when we go back to the old adage of taxing,
taxing and taxing, what we are going to do is tax more and more jobs
overseas to these other countries. By taxing our economy and our
businesses and our workers more and more than our competitors tax
theirs, you know what happens? They get our jobs. That is a mistake.
That is wrong.
America taxes capital more than any other industrialized country in
the world except for one, Japan, and they just finished two decades of
recession. So it is really bad economic policy to have all these tax
increases.
You just heard the gentleman from Massachusetts talk about the
reserve funds they have in this budget. They really want to make sure
that they don't raise these taxes. So they put a reserve fund in the
budget. And the reserve fund basically says, we don't want to raise
these taxes; we would like to come up and pay for them, but our money
is not there.
A budget is basically a page full of numbers, and numbers don't lie.
The numbers in this budget require these taxes to go up, require these
taxes to sunset; otherwise, they don't balance the budget.
You can't have it both ways. You can't balance the budget on the left
hand and then say we are not raising taxes on the right hand. It is one
or the other. So regardless of how many empty promise reserve funds you
have in a budget resolution, the numbers don't lie, and the numbers say
these taxes are being raised.
Now, as to the point that the sunset was put in by the Republicans,
not by the Democrats, and we are simply letting this Republican policy
manifest itself, and we are budgeting for it, that is not quite true,
Mr. Speaker. And I remember being a member of the Ways and Means
Committee and working on the conference committee at this time. When
these tax cuts went through the Ways and Means Committee in the House,
when these tax cuts passed the House floor, they were permanent. They
never had a sunset in them. What happened? This arcane rule in the
Senate called the Byrd rule was put in place. And the Byrd rule said
for these tax cuts to be permanent, it needs 60 votes in the Senate.
What happened? We had 52 Republicans voting to make them permanent; no
Democrats would vote to make these tax cuts permanent. So the Democrats
filibustered making these tax cuts permanent, and because of the
Democrat filibuster in the Senate, these tax cuts were made temporary.
The only way to get this tax relief to the American economy, to the
American people, to get out of the job loss, to get out of the
recession, was this temporary tax policy because of the Democrat-led
filibuster by then Senator Daschle at the time in the Senate. That's
why there's a sunset in this law.
We always kind of wondered at the time, why would they stand in the
way of the taxpayer and make these tax cuts temporary? Why would they
insist upon these sunsets? Well, now we know why. Because it is how
they balance the budget because they plan on, bank for, certify,
require, rely on these tax cuts going away.
The second reason I think this is a bad policy is it is an enormous
missed opportunity, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from South Carolina, who
really is a gentleman from South Carolina, and I mean that sincerely,
had a lot of good hearings in the Budget Committee. We have had a few
in Ways and Means as well. We had all these experts coming to us from
the left and from the right, from think tanks on the left side of the
aisle and think tanks on the right side of the aisle, we had the
Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Reserve Chairman, the Treasury
Department coming to us, all saying the same thing: Entitlements are
growing out of control. The entitlement program problem is enormous. We
are doubling the amount of retirees in this country within one
generation; yet we are only increasing the amount of workers coming in
behind them by 17 percent.

{time} 1630

We have an enormous unfunded liability, about $49 trillion. It's a
mind-boggling number. But when you take three entitlements, Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security, those three entitlements right there, Mr.
Speaker, will consume 100 percent of the Federal budget by the time my
children are my age.
So all these experts came to us and said, Do something. You're the
Budget Committee, you've got to do something to control the growth of
entitlements. It's going to bankrupt America. And if we don't do
anything, if we keep the government we have today and do nothing to
reform entitlements, by the time my children are my age, they will
literally have to pay double the amount of taxes for that Federal
Government at that time.
Let me say it one other way, Mr. Speaker. Since about 1960,
Washington has funded the Federal Government by taxing the U.S. economy
by about 18 percent of the economy. About 18 percent of the gross
domestic product has been required to pay for the Federal Government.
It's been remarkably consistent. Now, if you take today's government,
add no new programs, take none away, and transfer that out to about
2040 when my kids are my age, just to keep today's government afloat at
that time you will have to tax 40 percent of GDP, 40 percent of the
national economy just to pay for that government because of three
entitlement programs.
You can't compete with China and India by taxing our economy at 40
percent, let alone Germany and Japan. You can't prepare for
globalization. You can't help people get careers for tomorrow and enjoy
higher standards of living if we don't address our entitlements right
now.
That is the biggest travesty of this bill, Mr. Speaker. This bill
says we will do absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, nothing at all either
in the Senate budget resolution or the House budget resolution to
attack and reform entitlement programs, to attack this problem for 5
years. This budget says let's do nothing to fix our entitlement
programs for 5 years. That means we accelerate and exacerbate the
bankruptcy of Social Security, of Medicare, of Medicaid. How is that
helping senior citizens if we push these programs faster toward
bankruptcy? I think that's wrong. I think we need to fix these programs
so seniors can better rely on these programs.
And you know what, Mr. Speaker? In Wisconsin we say this a lot, and I
think people say it around the country, and prior generations always
told this to me, my parents and my grandparents, they said, the thing
about America, what's beautiful about America is that one generation
works hard and leaves to the next generation a country that's better
off. The dream of parents is to leave your children with a country
that's better off so you can enjoy a higher standard of living. That is
the beautiful legacy of America.
Mr. Speaker, we are at risk of severing that legacy. If we don't
address these entitlements, if we simply go the old easy Washington
route of simply raising taxes and raising spending and doing nothing to
address this entitlement problem, we will really run the risk of
severing that legacy and giving our children a lower standard of living
than that which we enjoy today.
We have new competitive pressures from other countries unlike any we
have seen before. Raising taxes on families and workers will not bring
more prosperity to America. It will give jobs to other countries. Doing
nothing to attack the entitlement problem in this country will only
ensure that an unprecedented mountain of debt is befallen onto our
children and our grandchildren, and they are going to have to pay far
higher taxes than any American has ever paid in the past.
This, Mr. Speaker, is why I say vote against this rule and vote
against this budget resolution, which includes and relies on the
largest tax increase in American history and the biggest missed
opportunity by doing nothing to reform entitlements over the next 5
years.
This could have been a bipartisan opportunity to fix these problems.
Sadly, it's not.

[[Page H4514]]

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just because my colleagues on the
Republican side say that the Democratic budget raises taxes doesn't
mean it's true. Let me repeat that so no one misses this point. The
budget resolution that we are talking about does not contain a single
tax increase. That is a fact. Sometimes facts are a stubborn thing, but
that is the fact. And the Republican spin machine can say whatever it
wants; but the fact of the matter is, and I repeat, this budget
resolution does not increase any taxes.
Secondly, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Texas was
waxing nostalgic about the Clinton years when President Bill Clinton
was the President of the United States and we were getting our fiscal
house in order. But what I was talking about was what happened when
President Bush became President and we had Republicans in the White
House and in the Congress, and that is when we saw the skyrocketing of
our Federal debt.
You know, budgets do reflect the priorities of a nation. And one of
the reasons that I think people decided to vote for change in the last
election is because they did not appreciate the priorities that were
put forth by the previous Republican Congresses. They did not
appreciate our veterans being shortchanged; they did not appreciate the
most vulnerable in our country being shortchanged. If anyone has any
questions about whether or not we were adequately funding veterans
health, just recall the recent scandals of Walter Reed and at so many
other of our veteran hospitals all across the country. You know, we
voted in this Congress to send our young men and women into war. The
least we can do is to make sure that the necessary funding is there to
take care of them when they return, and the Democratic budget does
that.
Let me also say for the record, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding all
of the flowery language that we've heard from the other side, it is
important to remember that in the last 6 years poverty has gotten worse
in America. There are more people today than 6 years ago that need to
rely on food stamps and other government programs just to get by.
So these fiscal policies that have resulted in skyrocketing debt,
that have resulted in foreign countries like China purchasing our debt,
I don't know how that serves our national interest, have not produced
this incredible economic boom that we're hearing today. And I would
encourage my colleagues to look at the statistics, to look at the
facts, to talk to some of the people who have gone from being in the
middle class, who have now fallen below the poverty line. There are far
too many people that have done that, and what we are trying to do is to
make sure that there is opportunity for everyone.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.
Mr. SPRATT. I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin,
and I mean that compliment, I return the compliment, that I
nevertheless vigorously disagree with some of the points you just made.
Facts are stubborn things, and the fact of the matter is that during
the Clinton years, on average 237,000 jobs were created every month
over an 8-year period of time. The Bush record is half that amount, if
that. During the past month, you're leading with your left making that
point at this point in time because during the past month job growth
was just 88,000 jobs.
Secondly, with respect to Medicare, we know that Medicare has to be
dealt with, but you know as well as I that this is not the forum. We
need a much bigger group. We need the administration involved in the
process. It is a very difficult undertaking to make the systemic
changes that are necessary. And before we commence those negotiations,
we need to do what President Clinton required in 1997, everybody needs
to put some ante on the table. Everybody's got to have some skin in
this game to be a player in this process of trying to diminish the cost
of the health care entitlements to the United States. It has to be
done, but this is not the correct forum for doing it.
The gentleman's budget resolution, I believe, cuts Medicare by $250
billion.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. No. It increased Medicare spending. It just
didn't increase it as fast as it is projected to grow at this time.
Mr. SPRATT. Well, the President's budget cut Medicare by $252 billion
over a 10-year period of time and cut Medicaid by 50 to $60 billion
over the same 10-year period of time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. SPRATT. Those numbers are correct, are they not?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The President's numbers on the 10-year? I
think they are probably correct; I have no reason to dispute them. But
remember, Medicare spending goes up every year and thereon after under
either of these budgets.
Mr. SPRATT. Well, I can only surmise what happened to your budget
resolution. One reason it didn't muster, besides the fact that you lost
40 votes, as you recall, is I am sure there are certain Republicans on
your side of the aisle who did not want to vote for those massive cuts
emasculating Medicare and Medicaid.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The question I have for the chairman is, if
we're not going to fix these entitlements in the budget, then where are
we going to fix them? If we don't put it in the Federal budget, then
how do you get it done? If you don't have reconciliation protection to
do entitlement reform, then when are you ever going to do it?
The 1997 bill that President Clinton passed through on a bipartisan
basis was reconciliation.
Mr. SPRATT. If I could reclaim my time, it takes a bigger forum than
the Budget Committee provides. It takes more participants than just the
Congress. Everybody has got to be a player in this game to make it
happen in a significant way because it has got to involve, as you and I
know, systemic change. No question about it.
And, finally, PAYGO. We are proud of the fact that we adopted the
PAYGO rule in 1991, and it contributed significantly to the fact that
over a period of 8 years during the Clinton administration the bottom
line of the budget got better every year for 8 straight years to the
point where we had a surplus of $236 billion under the Clinton
administration resulting in part from the Balanced Budget Act of 1993
and 1997. $236 billion we handed over to President Bush. By the year
2004, between 2001 and 2004, we went from a surplus of $236 billion to
a deficit of $412 billion. That happened on your watch. The Republicans
controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, they controlled the
White House. There is no way you can escape responsibility for what
happened in those circumstances.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the chairman yield for an additional
question?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Why doesn't the gentleman's PAYGO apply to
discretionary spending? Why doesn't the gentleman's PAYGO apply to
current Federal spending?
Mr. SPRATT. PAYGO is never applied to discretionary spending. It
would be very difficult at this time to do it when every year we have
an end run around discretionary budget with the President's
supplementals for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be very difficult to
cap discretionary.
Your party, on its watch, allowed PAYGO discretionary spending caps,
all of those constraints in 1990, to expire and did not renew them. The
main reason you didn't was you knew if we had a double-edge PAYGO
applicable to tax cuts as well as mandatory increases, you would be
unable to pass additional tax cuts as part of your agenda.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I make an entreaty to the chairman?
Mr. SPRATT. Yes, sir.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would love to work on a bipartisan basis to
put discretionary caps in place. I would be delighted to work with the
chairman of the Budget Committee to put discretionary spending caps in
place. Is that something that you would be willing to work with us on?
Mr. SPRATT. We'll talk about it. If we've got a forum, the Budget
Committee, once we've got this budget resolution behind us, and that is
the order of the day, there are lots of things along those lines that
we can explore, and we will.

[[Page H4515]]

Let me conclude by saying everybody should vote for this budget
resolution if they want to see an orderly, fiscally responsible,
disciplined process in the next fiscal year.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a second and
highlight the admiration that this House has for the two gentlemen who
have just been speaking. The gentleman, Mr. Spratt, and the gentleman,
Mr. Ryan, have conducted themselves despite tough differences, and I
applaud both of them, in particular my good friend from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) for the conduct that he has on this floor.
Now back to the real issues.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the Republican minority is here on
the floor of the House today opposing this bill. We are opposing this
resolution because we do not believe that this properly talks about the
future of this country for entitlement spending, raising taxes and not
being responsible for the future opportunity for America to compete.
So we, once again, continue our opposition to the process that is
happening today, as well as the underlying legislation.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas (Mr.
Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to this
underlying resolution.
I have listened to my chairman carefully, the gentleman from South
Carolina, and I wish to add my respect along with that of the
gentleman, ranking member from Wisconsin. He conducts our committee in
a very fair-minded manner, and I appreciate and respect him for that.
And I take him at his word when he says that he believes that he is
putting forth on this floor a fiscally responsible budget. But, Mr.
Speaker, there is a distinct difference in our philosophies. How you
look the American people in the eye and impose upon them the single
largest tax increase in American history and call that fiscally
responsible is simply beyond me. Our chairman has a different
definition.
Now, I believe that what we need to do is try to help protect the
family budget from the Federal budget. Already, Mr. Speaker, we are
awash in Federal tax revenues. And we've heard the gentleman from South
Carolina and many other people from this side of the aisle extol the
virtues of their balanced budget. Okay. If they have a balanced budget,
did they cut spending to get there? No. There is only one other option,
and that is that they increase taxes.
And don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Go, for example, to the
Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought in our
Nation. They have said that the only way the Democrat budget will
achieve balance is they assume the tax relief goes away, and thus it
imposes the single largest tax increase in American history.
Now, I have heard our chairman and other people from this side of the
aisle, different colleagues get up and say, well, we're not really
raising taxes on the American people, we're just letting the tax relief
expire.

{time} 1645

But if you make the same paycheck last year that you made this year
and your tax bill is higher, that is going to be a distinction that is
lost on the American people.
Is it letting tax relief expire if it is a tax increase? I have to
tell you, if the people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas
have to pay a larger tax bill, they call it a tax increase, and the
sooner that we in this body recognize that fact, the better off America
will be. Under the Democrat's budget resolution, the average family,
the average family in Texas will have a $2,700 a year tax increased
phased in over 5 years.
Something else we need to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that every time
you are taking money away from the American family to plus-up some
Federal budget category, you are having to subtract from some family
budget category; $2,700 a year is a lot of money to Texas families. How
many families can no longer send a child to college because of the
single largest tax increase in American history that the Democrats are
trying to impose upon us? How many American families will not be able
to find their American dream, to put together their savings and invest
in that first small business because the Democrats are imposing the
single largest tax increase in American history? How many families will
no longer be able to afford their healthcare premiums because the
Democrats are imposing the single largest tax increase in American
history? $2,700 a year.
First, the working poor under this plan would have their taxes
increased 50 percent, from the 10 percent bracket to the 15 percent
bracket. The child tax credit would be cut in half. The death tax would
come up to where Uncle Sam could take as much as 55 percent of your
estate.
Mr. Speaker, as bad as this budget is for what it does, it is even
worse for what it doesn't do, because I know the chairman presided over
the hearings that I attended with the Federal Reserve Chairman, with
the head of OMB, with the Secretary of the Treasury, with CBO, who all
said the same thing: The single largest fiscal challenge in this Nation
is out of control entitlement spending, and this budget is stone-cold
silent on that number one challenge.
As bad as the tax imposition is going to be on this generation, if we
don't act, if we kick the can down the road, if we avoid leadership,
the next generation will see their taxes double. There is nothing
fiscally responsible about doubling taxes on the next generation,
nothing fiscally responsible about taking their dreams away.
Mr. Speaker, we must defeat this rule and defeat this budget. Again,
Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why you would avoid dealing with the
number one fiscal challenge in the Nation.
I know the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, said this
isn't the place to do it. Well, I will ask a question that was asked by
a very famous President: If not us, who? If not now, when?
I am curious as to what advantage we have by somehow kicking this can
down the road to some other body or to some other bill or to some other
institution. At least in the last two Republican Congresses, we had two
budgets in a row from the House, from the House, that actually made
steps toward reforming entitlement spending.
Now, it is a huge challenge, I admit, but every year we avoid it. In
Social Security alone, we run up an extra $400 billion of debt, of
unfunded obligations to pass on to the next generation. And yet the
Democrats turn their back on this once again. That is another reason to
defeat this.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat for the record that
section 401 of the budget resolution commits the budget to support the
middle-class income tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, including the
child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent individual
income tax bracket, estate tax reform, research and development tax
credit, and the deduction of State and local sales taxes.
Section 203 of the budget resolution clearly provides a reserve fund
for the extension of those tax cuts so long as the legislation complies
with the House pay-as-you-go rule.
I would simply say to my colleagues that under their watch, that many
middle-class taxpayers actually saw their taxes go up, because when the
Federal Government cut essential programs to States and cities and
towns, people saw their property taxes go through the roof.
I think one can make an argument that people are paying far too high
gas prices right now because of the years that were squandered under
the Republican leadership, emboldened to the oil industry and refusing
to invest adequately in alternative sources of energy.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that this is a good budget, and I
would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule
and support the budget.
Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4516]]

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to this bill. The first
thing this is going to do is provide for higher taxes, $392 billion
worth of new taxes between now and 2012. Secondly, this budget
outspends inflation. It outspends inflation moving forward that will
increase higher than the average of 2.4 percent. It is reckless
entitlement spending increases. It is either empty promises or tax
increases that they have.
Mr. Speaker, lastly, it is very obvious that there is no entitlement
reform that will take place. They had a 5-year budget to do it. They
had 5 years to look out and say, we are going to match our Republican
colleagues. It is now our chance, because the Republicans tried and got
no support from the Democrats for the last 12 years to make sure we
could do entitlement reform. Now it is their turn. Nothing. Nada. They
are ignoring the future. This is a bad precedent.
We know that the Democratic party is about taxing and spending. It is
obvious. It is there today. We will let them vote for the tax
increases. We will continue on the Republican side to make sure that we
are for growing the economy and cutting taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just say that I think
there is a reason why the Republicans lost the last election, and that
is that the people of this country were fed up with their priorities.
They were tired of budget resolution after budget resolution that
shortchanged our veterans, that shortchanged our schools, that
shortchanged our environment, that shortchanged our senior citizens,
that shortchanged health care.
As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are more people in
poverty today than 6 years ago. There are more people who are food
insecure today than 6 years ago. That is not a record of accomplishment
that I would want to brag about on the House floor.
The budget that Mr. Spratt has brought before us achieves key
objectives in six areas. It is fiscal responsibility, defending our
Nation, putting our children and families first, growing our economy,
preserving our planet, and promoting an accountable and efficient
government.
Mr. Speaker, we have inherited this incredible budget deficit and
this debt from the previous majority. It is not easy to try to clean up
this mess, but that is what the underlying budget before us tries to
do.
I would urge all my colleagues to vote for it. It is the right thing
to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.

____________________