[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 82 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5361-H5374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. CON. RES. 21, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 409, I call up
the conference report on the Senate 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 Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). Pursuant to House Resolution
409, the conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
May 16, 2007, at page H5071.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) each will control
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This budget resolution which we present today did not come easily. It
comes from months of hard work, hearings, and negotiations. The end
product is a good budget, not perfect, I will admit. Not complete but
worthy of support. Indeed, it requires our support if we do not want
the process to fail again, as it did last year when no concurrent
resolution was passed and only two of 11 appropriation bills were
enacted.
This budget moves us to balance over the next 5 years. Along the way,
it posts smaller deficits than the President's budget. It adheres to
the pay-as-you-go principle and contains no new
[[Page H5362]]
mandatory spending that is not paid for, and it funds ``program
integrity initiatives'' to root out wasteful spending, fraud, and tax
evasion.
Within this framework, our budget does more for veterans' health
care, more for children's health care, and more for education. Here in
a nutshell are the basics of this budget:
This budget comes to balance in 5 years and runs a surplus of $41
billion in the year 2012. Contrast that with the President's budget,
which remains always in deficit. This budget allocates $954 billion to
discretionary spending, or about $75 billion more than this year, of
which about $50 billion is for national defense. This total includes
$450 billion for nondefense discretionary, or about $23 billion more
than this year.
This budget not only abides by the PAYGO principles, it extends them,
establishing a Senate PAYGO rule and calling for statutory PAYGO as
well.
The concurrent resolution before us, like the House resolution, sets
defense spending at levels the President requested, though it targets
resources to the troops and conventional forces. It provides more for
homeland security than the administration requested, and it funds the
recommendations of the
9/11 Commission. So it is strong on defense, internal and external.
This budget does all of the above, and I would emphasize this, it
does all of the above without raising taxes. The tax cuts enacted in
2001 and 2003 all remain in force, unaffected in any way by this
resolution. As originally written and enacted, most of the tax cuts
expire on December 31, 2010. In our budget resolution, we separated out
the middle income tax cuts and made it the policy of our resolution to
extend those tax cuts when they expire.
{time} 1415
In this concurrent resolution, we go even further. We install a
trigger that facilitates the extension of these tax cuts so long as the
House waives its PAYGO rule and so long as the tax cuts extended do not
exceed 80 percent of the surplus projected by OMB for the year 2012.
This budget's basic objective is to get back to balance. That is the
bottom line. In such a budget, we can't have everything we want, but we
do believe that some promises should be kept above all others, for
example, the promises we've made to our veterans. This resolution
increases funding for veterans health care in 2008 by $6.7 billion,
18.3 percent above the current year.
We also do not believe that children's health care and education
should be sidetracked while we seek to work out ways to balance the
budget. This budget accommodates an increase of $50 billion to expand
the Childrens Health Insurance Program, so-called SCHIP, and cover
millions of uninsured children. This budget also provides $4.6 billion
over current services for education, job training and employment
services. That includes more money for No Child Left Behind, for
special education and student loans.
Lacking any other arguments, our friends from across the aisle, our
Republican adversaries, will claim that this budget resolution raises
taxes, as they have repeatedly and wrongly. Let me answer that claim
emphatically. This budget does not raise taxes by one penny. Period.
Not by one penny.
On the contrary, the 2008 budget resolution accommodates the
extension of the middle income tax cuts, pays for a 1-year patch to
prevent the AMT from coming down on middle income taxpayers, and calls
for reform of the AMT, consistent with PAYGO principles, to save middle
income taxpayers from this stealthy tax.
This budget is fiscally sound, a solid framework, is balanced from
the top line to the bottom, and I urge support for it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to start off by congratulating Chairman Spratt and the
majority staff on the Budget Committee for reaching this point in the
budget process. This is not easy. And they are to be commended for
getting the budget up to this point.
I have long believed that the budget resolution is an important
statement of congressional policy and a critical act of governing. So
in a sense, I am glad to see this conference report here today. And the
gentleman from South Carolina deserves credit for that.
That said, the choices in this budget, or some would argue, the
complete lack thereof, represents an enormous missed opportunity, an
enormous missed bipartisan opportunity.
The Democrats' fiscal year 2008 budget sets off a vicious cycle, Mr.
Speaker. Higher taxes fuel higher spending and greater spending demand.
In order to meet this appetite for greater spending, we are going to
have to raise taxes again and again and again. Let's take a look at how
this will work.
First, the linchpin of this budget, and numbers do not lie, check
with the Congressional Budget Office, its only one binding fiscal
policy is the same one that Democrats have been bringing to the floor
time and again, ``raise taxes.'' This budget will raise taxes on the
American economy and American workers by at least $217 billion. That is
the second largest tax increase in American history. And to be clear,
their $217 billion tax increase is just an opening bid. It will last
only until the majority can raise the ante.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the House Democrats wanted and
included in their budget a $400 billion tax increase. That would have
been the largest in history. But the Senate made it clear by a vote of
97-1 that they would not accept the House's number. So from this
conference report, it would initially appear that the House Democrats
receded to the Senate's smaller tax number, the smaller tax increase,
that's according to the CBO, that is, until you take a closer look at
some of the procedures and gimmicks included in this report.
First let's look at the trigger. There is this so-called tax trigger.
In short, this trigger will provide the majority with an immense
loophole allowing them to renege on their promise to protect certain
high-profile tax benefits, and they can do it without leaving any
fingerprints because it would all be automatic. All the Democrats have
to do, believe it or not, is spend too much money, and that will set
off the trigger and raise those taxes.
Mr. Speaker, they are saying in this budget they want to extend
marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit and the 10 percent
bracket. But if they spend too much money, guess what happens
automatically? Those tax cuts go away.
Then there is the $190 billion worth of unfunded spending increases
promised in this budget's 23 reserve funds. If they actually deliver on
these promised 23 wish list reserve funds, that's another tax hike.
Mr. Speaker, even their version of PAYGO, which they touted as proof
of their commitment to fiscal discipline, is just a means to make it
easier to raise taxes. What happens if they raise mandatory spending,
Mr. Speaker? You guessed it. They have to raise taxes to pay for it.
So again, this $217 billion tax hike is just the starting bid. You
can expect them to draw from that well again and again and again. Why
is this a problem? Why do we have this huge difference of opinion,
difference in philosophy of ideology of economic doctrines? Because the
enormous tax increases will threaten the economic and fiscal progress
our Nation has made these past several years.
As I have said many times before, the tax decreases, the tax cuts we
passed in 2001 and 2003 have turned this economy around, it brought us
out of recession. It improved job growth, GDP growth. It lowered the
unemployment rate. Business investment and the entire market rebounded.
And all that growth has led to surging revenues coming into the Federal
Treasury. Three years of double digit revenue growth at these lower tax
rates. The tax hikes contained in this budget threaten to reverse all
of this.
And think of the impact this tax hike will have on the small
businesses that it hits. Our small businesses, who are already paying
the second highest tax burden in the industrialized world, will be told
that they are just not paying enough. In this increasingly global
economy, where these companies are struggling to compete with China and
India, imposing an even larger tax burden will be crushing. It will
severely threaten our ability to compete, and let alone lead, in the
global economy.
[[Page H5363]]
So what will taxpayers get in return for sending Congress ever higher
cuts of their paychecks? Better working, more efficient, less wasteful
spending? No. The majority doesn't even pretend they are going to
control spending.
There is no control on the existing trajectory of spending we have in
this budget. We are only 5 months into this Congress, and at every
opportunity the new majority has chosen the path of higher spending.
They increased discretionary spending by $6 billion in the omnibus,
another $20 billion or so of extraneous spending in the supplemental,
and now they're increasing nondefense discretionary appropriations next
year by another $23 billion.
For all we've heard about how the Democrats had to clean up the mess
the Republicans gave them, their only response to this seems to be
spend more and tax more. This formula has never worked for getting
control of the budget in the past, and it won't work now. It's also the
reverse of what's going on in the rest of the world. Across Europe,
governments are moving away from their welfare state, big government
tax policies and toward more market-oriented policies. For instance,
the latest, most clear example. But here in the States, where we should
be leading the tide toward free markets, Democrats are taking us in the
other direction.
Finally, I think the biggest failure of this budget is not what it
does do, it's what it doesn't do. This budget does nothing to reform
entitlement programs, to extend their solvency. We had a parade of
witnesses from the left and from the right, Democrat witnesses,
Republican witnesses, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the OMB
Director, the CBO Director, all come to us and say, you've got to get a
handle on entitlements. You have to reform the entitlement programs to
make them more solvent, to stop this enormous unfunded liability that
is hitting American taxpayers.
Even with the Democrats' $400 billion tax increase, they had in the
House-passed version, that would quickly outpace revenues, entitlements
would swamp us.
So Mr. Speaker, even if we hit a temporary balanced budget, as this
might achieve, it will be temporary because you can't raise taxes
enough again and again to outpace the trajectory of entitlement
spending growth. We will go back into deficits because this budget does
nothing to control spending.
So why have the Democrats failed to even address this dire situation?
Because as Senate Budget Chairman Senator Conrad told 60 Minutes,
``It's always easier not to. It's always easier to defer, to kick the
can down the road, to avoid making choices.'' ``You know, you get into
trouble in politics when you make choices.'' I appreciate that
sentiment, but we all know that is not what budgeting is about.
Budgeting is about making choices even when they're tough, even when
they are not politically popular because that is what we came here to
do.
In closing, I believe this budget fails to make any real choices, let
alone the right ones. It will impose on American families and
businesses at least the second largest tax increase in American
history, if not the largest, add immense new government spending, and
put off critical entitlement reforms for at least another 5 years. Our
House Republican budget proved we can balance the budget without
raising taxes and stop the rate on Social Security.
It is my genuine hope that the House will vote today to change this
dangerous course and send the Democrat budget back to the drawing
board.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the majority leader, let
me set the record straight with respect to revenue flows.
If you look in the Congressional Budget Office projections of
revenues in the budget, you will see that for the period 2008 through
2012, cumulative revenues are projected to be $15.3 trillion. If you
subtract 176 for that to account for the agreement we've made with the
Senate, which will facilitate the adoption and extension of the middle
income tax cuts adopted between 2001 and 2003, then our number for
total revenues, according to CBO is $14.828 trillion. The President's
budget, total revenues are $14.826 trillion. We are $14.828 trillion,
the President is $14.826 trillion; $2 billion difference. This is the
biggest tax increase in history? Give me a break.
And how about the Republican's own revenue stream. You start from the
same baseline. They have to use CBO numbers too. $15.3 trillion. Deduct
from that $447 billion, which they have in tax cuts during that period
of time, the baseline number for them becomes $14.556 trillion. That is
a difference of $272 billion over 5 years, less than $50 billion a year
over that period of time. This is absurd. This has gone on and on and
on, as the speeches claim, and we will refute it every time it's raised
today.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the
distinguished majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
As my friend from Wisconsin has heard me say so often, I am at once
amused, and at the same time deeply disappointed because I have watched
an unending series of young, earnest, very bright Republican leaders
stand on this floor or stand in the OMB or in the White House, led by
David Stockman, and then John Kasich, then Jim Nussle, and now Paul
Ryan, all very able representatives who served in this body, who come
before us and assert, with a certitude that is unflappable, that they
have the answer to bringing economic well-being to America.
During that 26 years that I have observed those serious, I believe,
conscientious young men make that representation, without fail they
have presented budgets that have put this country, without exception,
every year of their budgets $4.1 trillion further in debt. And then
they said in 1993, when we adopted an economic program sent down by
President Clinton, ``this is going to destroy our country.'' They
called it the largest tax increase in history. They were, of course,
not telling the truth. That was not the fact.
In fact, the largest tax increase that has occurred in this country
since I have been in Congress, in terms of real dollars, was the Dole-
Reagan tax increase in the early 1980s.
So I come before this House to say I hope the American people will
understand that the representation we have just heard has been made
over and over and over again. And the results of the policies promoted
by that rhetoric have been unending and inevitable large deficits. In
fact, of course, the revenues are substantially below, as the gentleman
knows, the projections that were made.
{time} 1430
Mr. Speaker, today the Members of this House can proudly vote for a
budget conference report that addresses our Nation's critical needs on
national security, education, health care, the environment and many
other areas, while also making a 180-degree turn away from the most
reckless fiscal policies in the history of our Nation.
My young friend from Wisconsin knows well that spending over the last
6 years was twice the rate of spending in terms of percentage increase
under the Clinton years. Twice. Of course, the Republicans controlled
the House, the Senate and the presidency, and spending was at twice the
rate of growth that it was during the Clinton years.
I urge every Member of this House, on both sides of the aisle, to
vote for this responsible Democratic budget conference report. It will
be a change from the past, because we will adopt a budget, and I say
you are probably even going to adopt appropriations bills, unlike last
year.
First and foremost, this Democratic budget provides robust defense
spending levels, because our national security is our highest priority.
This budget provides more homeland security funding than the Bush
administration requested. It funds the 9/11 Commission recommendations,
and it increases funding for veterans health care and services by $6.7
billion.
We talk about supporting our troops. If we support our troops, we
need to honor our veterans, and we need to honor our veterans with more
than just talk. We need to make sure that their health care is
provided. This budget does that. In fact, this budget is $3.6 billion
more than the President requested. Of course, he requested that before
Walter Reed, before the long lines, before the American public was
aware of how underfunded veterans health care is.
[[Page H5364]]
Furthermore, after 6 years of fiscal irresponsibility, this budget
will bring our budget back into balance in 2012. President Reagan,
President Bush I and the 7 years of Bush II, never one balanced budget
year in those 19 years. During the Clinton administration, 4, half of
the budget years had surpluses.
Now, the great falsehood, the great deceit, the great
misrepresentation perpetrated by many of our friends on the other side
of the aisle is that the budget somehow raises taxes. That is simply
and absolutely untrue.
Now, the Republicans pride themselves on not raising taxes. They
simply borrow money from the Chinese, the Japanese, the Saudis, the
Germans. In fact, they borrowed over $1.2 trillion over the last 6\1/2\
years to fund their spending increases.
It is somewhat humorous, I think, that our Republican friends are
claiming that this budget raises taxes by failing to extend cuts that
the Republicans themselves designed to expire in 2010. By their logic,
last year, when the Republicans still controlled both Chambers of this
Congress and chose not to extend the taxes, in your budget proposal,
remember that, my friends on the other side of the aisle, you did not
suggest extending these tax cuts. It is ridiculous.
Don't take it from me, just listen to the Hamilton Project at the
Brookings Institution, which yesterday stated, ``The budget conference
report would not raise taxes. If anything, the budget resolution
assumes that Congress will cut taxes.''
This is true. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the budget accommodates the
extension of middle income tax cuts, as the chairman has said, and
provides immediate relief for middle income taxpayers affected by the
Alternative Minimum Tax. We want to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax. In
fact we want to fix it by giving 81 million Americans a tax cut.
In addition, this budget increases funding for Head Start, LIHEAP,
accommodates a $50 billion increase to cover millions of uninsured
children, and rejects the administration's harmful cuts to
environmental programs.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, for our friends on the other side to complain
that this budget provides for an increase in the debt ceiling strains
credibility. The rule that is in this bill was in your budgets
repeatedly.
In just 6 years, this administration and Republican Congress turned a
projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion into an over $3 trillion
deficit, an $8.6 trillion turnaround to the red side of the budget on
your watch when you controlled all of the levers of this House. And you
raised the debt ceiling 4 years in a row.
The new Democratic majorities in this Congress have inherited a
fiscal debacle that today, through this conference report, we can begin
to address and make right. This is a budget that we can be proud of,
and it stands in stark contrast to the extraordinarily irresponsible
policies of the last 6 years.
I urge all of my colleagues, vote for fiscal responsibility and a
brighter future for our children and for our country. Vote for this
Democratic budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to yield to my friend from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification. I
think the gentleman said that our budget did not extend the tax cuts.
It did. In fact, it extended all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. I just
wanted to state that for the record. That is all.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I don't have it in front
of me, but what your budget did was you assumed that the tax cuts were
going to be extended. You did not extend them in your budget legally,
which you could have done under the rules. You claim you didn't do it
initially because of the rules in the Senate. I think that is accurate.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Well, I can go back into that, but I think we
have belabored the point.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his work, I thank
him for yielding me the time, and I urge a yes vote on this
responsible, effective budget for our country.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply
to ask a rhetorical question, if the Democrats chose to extend some of
the tax cuts in this budget and therefore not all of the others, how is
this not a tax increase?
If the Senate said that the Democrat House budget raised taxes and
they didn't want to raise them as much and they forced the conference
to negotiate to keep some of the tax cuts at bay, how is this not a tax
increase? If they are saying they are preserving some of the tax cuts,
then by definition they are raising the other taxes.
You can't have it both ways.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a young, earnest, conscientious
Republican leader, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the young ranking member for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, unlike the majority leader, protocol does not allow me
unlimited time to rebut his numerous inaccuracies, but let me lay out
this fact first: The Democratic budget that we will vote on this
evening raises taxes. And if you don't believe it, just wait until your
tax bill comes due in a couple of years when you are asked to pay more
then than you are today. And you will be asked to pay the largest tax
increase in American history.
The marriage penalty will be back. The death tax, back. The bracket
creep, back. Small businesses paying more than Fortune 100 companies.
It will crimp the economy that is robust and strong and creating a
record Dow as we speak.
The majority leader said national security is their highest priority.
If it is your highest and first priority, why are we now in May with
troops running out of funds, running out of resources, and a President
begging for a supplemental for men and women who are in harm's way, if
national security is your highest priority?
If you care to honor the veterans, then in addition to paying for
veterans health care, in addition to dealing with veterans retirement,
why are you not similarly honoring those veterans by reforming
entitlements, so that when those young veterans come back, that every
think tank in this town is in agreement that Social Security and
Medicare will be bankrupt before those young veterans are eligible to
receive those promised benefits, and you do nothing about it.
Why don't you honor those young veterans, why don't you honor those
future generations, those first year teachers, this spring's graduates
from high schools and colleges, why don't you honor them by dealing
with the crisis that our country faces in Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid consuming the Federal budget? It already makes up over half of
Federal expenditures.
This budget raises taxes, skyrockets the spending and does nothing to
deal with the generational crisis we face in entitlements. I urge you
to defeat this irresponsible document.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gene Green) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference
committee report and thank both the chairman and the Budget Committee
for their good work.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report
accompanying the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. This budget
resolution represents a return to fiscal soundness for our country,
which has operated without a budget resolution in 3 of the last 5
years. This budget will help our country emerge from a sea of red ink
and put us on a path toward a budget surplus in the next 5 years, with
a $41 billion surplus projected for 2012.
Key to the fiscal responsibility in this budget is the inclusion of
critical budget enforcement provisions known as PAYGO. This budget
extends to the Senate the PAYGO rules adopted earlier this year in the
House, which ensure that any future tax cuts or increases in mandatory
spending are offset elsewhere in the budget. This budget hews to that
principle and does not include any new mandatory spending that is not
offset.
Mr. Speaker, I also applaud our House and Senate Budget Committee
Chairmen for their attention to the domestic needs of this country and
the resources this budget dedicates for health care programs and
research that have suffered in previous budgets. The conference
[[Page H5365]]
report provides a reserve fund of up to $50 billion for the
reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. As a
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is working to
reauthorize the SCHIP program, I want to make sure the program is
available to the 6 million American children who are currently eligible
but not enrolled in the program. The reserve fund in this budget will
allow us to expand the program for these children while also
maintaining fiscal discipline under PAYGO.
On the discretionary side, the budget resolution includes an
additional $20 billion over last year's level for health programs. In
years past, worthy health care programs like trauma systems funding,
Emergency Medical Services for Children, Health Centers and NIH
research funding have been forced to compete for funding that was not
sufficient to meet our health care needs. This budget recognizes the
importance of adequately funding domestic priorities like health care
and education programs that are true investments in our country's
future.
I thank our House conferees for their work on this budget resolution
and congratulate them on this truly balanced budget, in terms of both
the deficit and the needs of the American people.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, how remarkable and
refreshing this budget is. Finally a budget that ends the Republican
commitment to endless seas of red ink and deficit spending. Finally a
budget that ends the Republicans' commitment to squandering the $5
trillion that they inherited from the Clinton administration.
But more remarkable about this budget is it takes us in a new
direction. It takes us in a direction where once again we see ourselves
as a country and a national government investing in young people in
this country, investing in their education, investing in the effort to
make college more affordable for families and students who have to
borrow money. That is what this budget does.
With a $9 billion increase over and above the President's budget, for
the first time we are able to change the trendlines from reducing the
expenditure on behalf of students with disabilities, on behalf of the
elementary and secondary education of America's students, on behalf of
job training. That is what this money does. This is an investment in
the future of our young people. This is an investment in the
elementary-secondary education system of young people in this country.
This is an investment in reducing the cost of college.
That is a markedly different direction than we have been going over
the last 6 years, where we just headed headlong into seas of red ink,
where it overwhelmed everything else the government was about to do,
where it started taking its toll on the education budgets of this
country, where we denied the opportunities for people to have an
affordable student loan, where we now see in excess of a quarter of a
million young people deciding they won't be able to borrow the money,
they won't be able to pay it back, and so they have decided maybe they
will have to postpone or defer a college education permanently.
This budget also gives us the opportunity to address in a
comprehensive fashion the reducing of the cost of college, to remake
the student loan program, to get rid of these mindless, endless
subsidies that the previous budgets have contained for the lenders,
subsidies that fueled the corruption that we have seen in the program.
This is a remarkably refreshing, exciting budget for this country,
for its young people and for its future.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon).
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I
thank him for his work on this budget.
I rise in opposition to the second largest tax hike in American
history. This agreement before us includes a tax hike of at least $217
billion by fiscal year 2012. Worse yet, the budget includes a troubling
tax hike trigger that would automatically raise taxes even higher if
surpluses do not materialize due to unrestrained Federal spending, a
habit I don't expect Congressional Democrats will break any time soon.
This agreement also includes a reconciliation instruction for the
Education and Labor Committee. I have supported reconciliation as a
means to reduce the deficit in the past, in just the last Congress in
fact. But clearly deficit reduction is not a priority in this budget.
The fact that our committee is the only panel with this instruction
reflects this. Instead, I am afraid this instruction might leave the
door open for the majority to abuse the process in order to give
Washington bureaucrats a greater stranglehold on student loans than
ever before through a greater emphasis on the government-run direct
loan program.
Let me be clear: I stand ready to strengthen Federal student aid
programs by promoting competition among and within the loan programs
while providing additional funds for low income students to attend
college. This is just what we did through reconciliation in the last
Congress.
However, Mr. Speaker, I won't stand idly by while the majority
attempts to drive a stake through the heart of the market-based loan
program. This would be terrible news for students and taxpayers alike,
and I will do all I can to fight against it.
{time} 1445
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we have come together and
finally agree on a fiscally responsible budget. And I am proud of the
work that we have done to address our most urgent priorities as a
Congress and as a Nation.
Last year, the previous majority failed to pass a budget and in the
process left us without the framework to pass critical appropriations
bills. In 1998, 2002, 2004, we also went without a budget resolution.
We have to do better, and that begins today. We have a responsibility
in this Congress to do our jobs and to put our Nation back on track.
At last we are beginning to get our House in order with a real
commitment to spend our tax dollars wisely and with fiscal
responsibility, finally honoring our long-standing commitments and
making a modest investment in our future. By balancing our budget and
even providing for a slight $41 billion surplus by the year 2012
without raising taxes, this plan reflects our priorities and takes our
Nation in a new direction.
Today we have a budget that makes an investment in children and
families for the first time in 6 years. We have a budget that expands
SCHIP, the hugely successful children's health insurance program to
give kids without coverage the attention and care that they need.
We have a budget that ensures new resources for No Child Left Behind
to make student achievement a reality, and a new commitment for Pell
Grants to make college education more affordable.
We have a budget that honors our veterans with the resources our VA
facilities need to handle increased patient load, and provide the care
our servicemembers deserve.
We face great challenges, challenges that the Federal Government has
the ability, the capacity, the resources and the moral obligation to
help us meet. Let us embrace that obligation, create real opportunity
today, and give people the tools they need to grow and to thrive
tomorrow.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to conference report S. Con. Res. 21, the Democratic
congressional budget for 2008.
By not addressing the Bush tax cuts, the Democratic budget resolution
conference report calls for at least a $217 billion tax hike, the
second highest in American history.
This budget resolution also includes a trigger which would
automatically turn the tax increase into the largest in American
history.
Mr. Speaker, the government spends too much money. We have serious
challenges facing this Nation and spending more money is not a
solution. The conference report increases non-defense appropriations by
$22 billion above
[[Page H5366]]
2007, and $21 billion above the President's request.
It fails to maintain emergency funds included in last year's budget
resolution. Also, emergency spending is loosely defined in this budget
resolution and does not prevent future abuses in emergency supplemental
appropriations.
The conference report has 23 reserve funds which include the promise
of more than $190 billion in additional spending which I can only
assume will be paid by additional taxes.
The House Budget Committee listened to many testimonies from budget
experts, indicating our Nation was facing a fiscal crisis when it comes
to entitlement spending; yet the conference report does nothing to
address this issue. We cannot simply raise taxes and hope our
entitlement problems will solve themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I hoped at least some of the commonsense solutions put
forth in the Republican substitute would have been settled, and I urge
my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I
first want to recognize the leadership of Chairman Spratt. It is under
his leadership that we have a budget before us that is both responsible
and attentive to America's priorities. It reaches balance in 5 years,
and it does so without raising taxes, and it meets our obligations
while making important investments in America's future.
First, it provides for our national defense. It targets resources to
the most urgent military and security concerns, including
implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
Second, our budget honors our commitment to our servicemen and women.
It provides funding that will enable the Veterans Administration to
provide for the increasing needs of our veterans.
Third, our budget recognizes the priorities of hardworking Americans.
It provides tax relief to middle-income families by fixing the AMT,
extending lower tax rates, and continuing the earned income and child
tax credits. And it expands SCHIP to provide health coverage to 7
million uninsured children in this country of middle-income families.
Fourth, our budget enhances our Nation's economic competitiveness and
makes key investments to ensure that our future workforce has the
education and skills needed to compete in the global economy.
Our budget is fiscally disciplined. It ends the unsustainable borrow-
and-spend policies of the last 6 years, and it balances the budget in 5
years, setting us on a course to pay down our debt while meeting our
Nation's obligations.
We should all be proud of this budget. It is a new direction, and it
is the right direction for America.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I recently served on the Budget Committee
for 8 years, during which time we had the only four balanced budgets in
recent history. I am sad to see, however, that today's budget envisions
what could amount to the largest tax increase in American history to
pay for higher spending.
The budget would increase discretionary spending at roughly three
times the inflationary rate while failing to achieve real savings for
taxpayers. Taxes will grow by at least $217 billion as pro-growth tax
relief is allowed to expire. Even the child tax credit and marriage
penalty relief may not be extended. I urge Members to reject this
budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
conference report. We can be proud that this budget finally produces a
vision for our future that reflects our hopes and dreams and the
promise of economic prosperity and security in the years ahead.
I commend my distinguished chairman and his staff for their hard
work, which has resulted in a balanced budget within 5 years, and
restoration of middle-class priorities to the budget process. While
restoring fiscal responsibility, we also raise funding for veterans,
for health care, and for education.
This budget contains reconciliation instructions regarding education
expenditures. I believe we have the opportunity to use these
instructions to the benefit of students and their families. This budget
guarantees that increasing college access and affordability are
paramount goals of our majority, and prove that we have followed
through on our promise to set a new direction for America.
As our chairman has said repeatedly, if you can't budget, you can't
govern. With this budget conference report today, we demonstrate our
commitment to govern.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to one issue in this
budget, and that is the tax trigger. I believe this is a ruse to hide
behind a tax increase.
I know my colleagues on the other side will argue it is not a tax
increase, but I can assure you that American families in 2010 whose
financial circumstances are similar in 2011, will pay more in taxes in
2011 than they pay in 2010. Call that what you may, but I believe it is
a tax increase.
It is a ruse, Mr. Speaker, because it is built on a foundation of
brittle clay. One of the pillars of the foundation is that spending
will be restrained. This Democratic majority can spend their way to a
point where these tax cuts won't be triggered.
They have already shown a great penchant for spending, a wanton
disregard for fiscal restraint. There is $6 billion extra in the
omnibus bill, $20 billion extra on the supplemental that is yet to
pass, and another $23 billion of new spending in this bill. So they
will spend their way.
The other thing it is built on the good graces of the Secretary of
the Treasury and the director of OMB, both of whom have to agree that
the tax cuts can in fact go forward.
I believe this is a ruse to hide behind the fact that American
families will pay more taxes in 2011 and 2012 than they do in 2010
because rates will go up. I urge my colleagues to vote against this
budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, last November, American voters sent a very
clear message that they wanted to change the status quo in Washington.
That is exactly what this budget does.
It represents a positive change that reflects the solid values of
American families. To begin with, this budget puts the higher priority
on national defense and homeland security because we understand that
defending our Nation and families is the Federal Government's first
responsibility.
We match the President's defense budget, and invest even more to make
our airlines, seaports and communities safer from terrorist attacks.
This budget, importantly, honors America's veterans by providing for
the largest single increase in VA health care services in the 77-year
history of the Veterans Administration, a $6 billion increase, and our
veterans deserve every dollar of that commitment.
Why did we do this? Because we understand that we cannot have a
strong and secure America unless we keep our promises to our servicemen
and women and veterans who have defended America.
Make no mistake, a vote against this budget is a vote against the
most significant increase in veterans health care in VA history. A vote
against this budget is a vote against hiring hundreds of new VA claim
processors who are needed to reduce the huge backlog of combat-wounded
American veterans who are having to wait far too long to get their
earned benefits approved.
Mr. Speaker, let me say I have heard some partisan criticism, let's
call it, of this bill. Let me point out the source of that criticism is
from the same Members of Congress who wrote partisan budgets for the
last 6 years, the 6 years of budgets that took this Nation and the
largest surpluses in American history to turn them into the largest
deficits in American history. These are the
[[Page H5367]]
same folks who in 3 of the last 5 years couldn't even pass a budget
resolution through the House and Senate.
We are putting America on a new course, the right course for our
country and for our veterans.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), a member of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to
this debate and listening to the arguments on the Democratic side of
the aisle, and I am waiting for David Copperfield to show up as a
member of their Budget Committee because what they are doing is magic.
They are over here bragging about all of the additional money they are
spending. And bragging, which they are, and bragging that they are
balancing the budget, which they say they are, but then saying they are
not raising taxes. Which they are.
This budget contains over $200 billion in tax increases. That is
about $1,000 for every taxpayer in America. And oddly enough, isn't it
strange that it also contains about $200 billion in additional spending
over the President's proposed budget.
So they want to raise Americans' taxes by $1,000 a taxpayer so they
can spend it on new spending. Make no mistake about it, a vote for this
budget is a vote for at least the second largest tax increase in
American history, if not the largest.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the defense spending in this budget is
much, much, much higher than I would like. But I rise today in support
of this conference report and the very good work of Chairman Spratt, of
his committee, and his staff.
{time} 1500
Thanks go to Chairman Spratt and the conferees for including my
language in this bill to steer more defense dollars to military
personnel for their health care, including Walter Reed and TRICARE, and
away from outdated, misguided, and unneeded weapons systems that are
still being built to fight the threat of the Soviet Union, to protect
against the Cold War.
This budget also takes on waste at the Pentagon, insisting that DOD
presses ahead in implementing over 1,300 unaddressed suggestions from
the GAO to reduce waste, fraud and abuse.
Mr. Speaker, whenever any Member of this Congress has to stand on the
floor and defend what they did in years past, you know it's pretty sure
that they made some big mistakes. This budget is a big step in
correcting the fiscal mess that the Democratic majority inherited, and
I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
when my friends from the other side of the aisle do something that I
think is laudatory, I want to laud them for it.
They have taken a budget that contained the single largest tax
increase in American history and turned it into a budget that has the
second largest tax increase in American history, but before I get too
effusive with my praise, they have something in there called a trigger
which tells the American people that somehow, if you can prevent us
from spending all of your money, maybe, maybe you can get a little of
it back. So I suspect, Mr. Speaker, we are again looking at the single
largest tax increase in American history.
Now, speaker after speaker on the other side get up and tell us, oh,
we're balancing the budget, we're increasing spending that they call
investments, but no, no, no, we're not raising taxes. Mr. Speaker, this
is Orwellian double-speak. The numbers don't add up. I have got a 5-
year-old daughter who can perform better math than that, and she's not
very good at it. You can't balance the budget, increase spending and
then claim you're not raising taxes. It's shameful.
Mr. Speaker, this is an easy conclusion that the Americans should
draw. If they believe that the growth of the Federal budget is more
important than the growth of their family budget, they should support
this Democrat budget. And if they can sleep well at night knowing that
this budget is going to double the taxes of their children and
grandchildren, they should embrace that budget. But if they want
freedom and opportunity for the next generation, reject this budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), the distinguished chairman of our caucus.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague from South
Carolina for his leadership and, most importantly, his leadership
because the Democrats promised in November that we're going to bring a
new direction and new priorities to Washington.
We've accomplished in 6 months what my colleagues have failed to do
in 6 years and that is produce a budget that produces a surplus.
Let me say what a surplus is since you've had such a recognition of
not being able to produce one. Surpluses are the fact when the
government puts its fiscal house in order and matches up its needs with
the American people and produces a surplus, because your financial
legacy is $4 trillion of new debt.
When it comes to economic policy, the one thing that can be said
about the Republicans' fiscal mess is that we will forever be in your
debt. That is the one thing that's for sure. $4 trillion in 6-years,
the largest increase in the Nation's debt in the shortest period of
time is your legacy, and I don't think you've quite gotten the
recognition for what you've done to America, left it nothing but red
ink.
This budget is not only in balance, but it's in balance with our
values, our values that ensures that 8 million children who do not have
health care but parents work full-time, they will get health care; in
balance with our values to make sure that we're not subsidizing the
financial industry by making sure that middle class parents have the
financial resources to send their kids to college; making sure that
when it comes to our veterans that in fact we are rewarding our
veterans who have fought for this country and say the proper
recognition for their service to America, that they get taken care of.
And every step of the way, this budget is not only in balance fiscally
but is in balance with our values.
The entire legacy in 6 years of the Republican stewardship was one of
$400 trillion of debt left for the Americans to clean up that mess, and
we have produced in 6 months a budget that's balanced, and at the end
of the process also creates a surplus.
There are different and stark choices. President Kennedy once said,
To govern is to choose. We've made the choices to make sure that middle
class families get a tax cut, kids get health care, veterans get the
respect and the resources that they need to move on with their life,
and our families who know that an education and a college education in
an era like this where you earn what you learn, that a middle class
family does not need a second mortgage or a third job to send their
kids to college.
I commend my colleagues for this new direction budget, a budget that
is in balance and is also in balance with our values.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds simply
to say that's correct, the majority did make choices. They chose to
raise taxes, they chose to raise spending, and they chose to violate
their own PAYGO rules.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, to borrow an old
cliche, the more things change, the more they remain the same.
The speaker who spoke a little while ago from the Democrats said that
the Democrats in just 6 months have achieved what the Republicans did
not do in 6 years. That's true.
In 6 months they've achieved increasing the taxes on the American
people, the second largest tax increase in the history of this country.
Again, $217 billion in additional taxes. Mr. Speaker, that's going to
hit everybody, middle income families, low income earners, families
with children, small businesses. Every American who pays Federal taxes
is going to get a huge tax increase.
Mr. Speaker, the American people do not deserve a $217 billion tax
increase
[[Page H5368]]
to fund more bureaucracy and more bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. If
you think that there are not enough bureaucracy, enough bureaucrats in
D.C., vote for this budget. If you think the American people deserve a
tax cut, reject this high spending, highly irresponsible tax raising
budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina, the
chairman, for producing an excellent budget for which every Member
should vote.
Responsible people do not pay their bills by borrowing from their
children. Responsible people analyze what they can afford, spend only
that and save what they can.
For too long, this Congress has labored under a culture of
irresponsibility: focus on the next election, spend what you want to,
hand out tax cuts to your supporters, and let someone else worry about
it down the line.
This budget ends that culture of irresponsibility, and it stands for
one clear principle over and over again. We will not run this
government on borrowed money, period. We wish to double the number of
children covered by the children's health insurance program and we
will. But when we do so, we will pay for it without borrowing more
money.
Most of us absolutely are committed to extending the tax breaks for
middle class families that help them survive, but when we do so, we
will do so without borrowing more money from the Chinese, from the
Germans, and from our grandchildren.
The easy thing to do around here is to spend more, tax less and
borrow more. What it gets you is higher mortgage rates, higher car loan
rates, more unemployment, more debt and no explanation whatsoever to
the next generation in this country.
Today marks a turning point away from the culture of
irresponsibility, toward a culture of responsibility for the future of
people of this country.
I urge both Republican and Democratic Members to vote ``yes'' on this
budget.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, given the stated concerns about
borrowing by the majority, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). The gentleman may state his
inquiry.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that
pursuant to rule XXVII of the rules of the House, upon adoption of the
conference report by both the House and the Senate, the Clerk of the
House will be instructed to prepare a joint resolution adjusting the
public debt limit; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Am I further correct, that by operation of
rule XXVII, upon adoption of this conference report by both the House
and the Senate, this joint resolution adjusting the debt limit will be
considered as passed by the House and transmitted to the Senate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will there be a separate vote in the House on
passing this joint resolution adjusting upwards the debt limit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not by operation of rule XXVII.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, by operation of this rule, will
the vote by which the conference report is passed by the House be
considered the vote on passage of the joint resolution adjusting the
debt limit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, what we have just learned is that if a Member votes for
this conference report, and it is adopted by the Senate, then they will
be recorded as having voted for the joint resolution raising the public
debt limit to $9.815 trillion, an increase in the public debt of
borrowing of $850 billion. If a Member votes against this conference
report, and it is adopted by the Senate, then they will not be recorded
as having voted to increase the debt limit or borrowing by $850
billion.
So it's very clear that the passage of this budget increases
borrowing by $850 billion and that is, in fact, the effect of this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the Chair how much time
is left and who has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) has 8 minutes left and will have the right to close. The
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
We can't have this debate without having a few charts on the floor,
and it always bears reminding what's happened over the last 6 years
because it is truly a fiscal phenomenon.
When President Bush came to office in 2001, he had an advantage that
few Presidents in recent history have enjoyed, a budget in surplus. I'm
talking big-time surplus, $5.6 trillion by his estimate, over the next
10 years, $5.6 trillion. That was the year 2001. In the previous year,
a Clinton year, we ran a surplus of $236 billion.
By the year 2004, under the stewardship of this administration and
this Congress, because Republicans controlled the House, controlled the
Senate and controlled the White House, under their stewardship, the
$5.6 trillion surplus was converted to a $2.8 trillion deficit,
enormous swing of $8 trillion in the wrong direction, and that $236
billion surplus in the year 2004 became a deficit of $412 billion.
Incredible, but that is what we have had for the last 6 years. That's
the record over the last 6 years which cannot be denied. Here it is
right here.
As a consequence of the deficits that have been run, this simple
little chart that I bring down here again and again, because it bears
reminding everybody what's happened over the last 6 years, shows that
when Bush came into office we had a debt of $5.7 trillion. The debt
today is over $8 trillion, $8.8 trillion. That means there's been an
increase in the national debt of $3.1 trillion, and if we continue upon
the fiscal path that this administration has taken, by the time they
leave office the debt of the United States will be $90.6 trillion.
Look at the accumulation of debt over this 8-year period of time.
We've never seen anything like it. These are the people who would
criticize what we are doing.
{time} 1515
Now, there has been a lot of talk about tax increases. Let me show
you this little chart here, because it shows graphically, and
emphatically, something called debt service. The increase in the
interest on the national debt that has to be paid, talk about
entitlement reform, this is the one true entitlement. It's obligatory,
it has to be paid. Interest on the national debt has increased from
about $156 billion a couple of years ago to $256 billion, and it's on
its way north to $300 billion in a short period of time. This is a debt
tax.
Yes, you may have cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, but, because you have
borrowed to make up for the loss of revenues and added to the debt of
the United States, you, we, our children and their children, will be
paying this debt for years to come, and compare this huge mountain of
debt service, interest on the national debt, to other priorities.
Education, the light blue block; veterans health care, the green
block; Homeland Security, the blue block, all of them are dwarfed by
interest on the national debt. So here is the debt tax that you have
left us owing, left our children owing, left generations to come owing.
This is the debt tax that will have to be paid because it simply
cannot be cut. That's what we are struggling with today because of the
fiscal management of this government over the last 6 years.
[[Page H5369]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I want to thank Mr. Ryan.
There is a group of Democrats here who came to be fiscal
conservatives. They call themselves the Blue Dogs. They have a budget
reform plan, a good budget reform plan. Point 7 of the Blue Dogs 12-
point budget reform plan calls for not hiding votes on the debt limit
increase.
Yet a vote for this conference report is a vote to automatically
raise, without a separate vote, the national debt by $850 billion.
Where are the Blue Dogs today? They are not here on the floor talking
for this. Where will they be when we have this vote?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our
distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we will be talking about this budget for a long time.
Everybody has their own view of this, but you can't have your own view
of the facts. One of my good friends got up a minute ago and talked
about the size of the deficit.
This budget is going to add $850 billion this year to the deficit. I
think that's almost $1 trillion, though I am sure people who are
listening to this here in the Chamber and anywhere else are confused
now by all these numbers they are hearing. This budget, without a
single other vote, adds to the national debt.
It raises the debt ceiling. In spite of the many Members in this
Chamber who ran for office saying they would never try to hide this
vote on the debt, that's exactly what this vote does today.
Entitlement reform, one of my other friends said, we hadn't passed a
budget. Well, my friend, you can't have entitlement reform unless you
pass a budget. You can't have reconciliation.
We cut the growth of the entitlement spending $40 billion in the last
Congress. By definition, to do that, we had to have a budget. So
somebody who suggested we hadn't had a budget also was the person who
had some explanation as to why this budget doesn't do entitlement
reform.
In fact, then we even make entitlement reform somehow the interest on
the national debt. The programs that are growing out of control are the
programs that this budget refuses to address.
Then the very interesting topic of tax cuts, tax policies in 2001 and
2003 that have produced record levels of income to the Federal
Government; 2005, 14.5 percent more income than 2004; 2006, 11.8
percent, more income than 2005. These tax cuts grew the economy. That
grew Federal income. If you raise the wrong taxes, you will reduce
Federal income.
This whole budget debate, our friends in the majority have said,
there is no tax increase in this budget. But suddenly, in the budget
report, we are told that, well, we have accepted the Senate levels of
tax increases, so we are only raising tax revenue by $217 billion for
sure instead of $400 billion.
This is a huge tax increase. It doesn't deal with entitlements. It
raises, without a vote, the national debt ceiling. I urge a ``no'' vote
on this budget. Let's get a blueprint that really works for the future.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman,
the gentleman from South Carolina, is he the last speaker on their
side? You are reserving the right to close?
Mr. SPRATT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is
remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished chief minority whip from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the ranking member, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, you know, when I sit here in
almost astonishment and thinking, it's the fact that even though we are
witnessing the massive tax hikes that are embedded in the Democrat
budget, in fact, the largest tax increase in American history, what the
majority's budget fails to do, it fails to stop the raid on Social
Security.
In the year 2012, the Social Security fund will be running a surplus
of $99 billion. As we know, the Federal Government has experience and
has collected more in Social Security taxes than it pays out in
benefits since 1984. Instead of using this money to shore up Social
Security, instead of using it to do something to honor the contract
that this government has made with the seniors, the Democrat budget
spends that cash surplus on other programs.
What is astonishing is the fact that this very House, last week, in a
vote on the Republican motion to recommit to stop the raid on Social
Security, this House, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, supported
the end of that raid. But here we have the Democrat budget that goes
back on that word represented by the bipartisan vote and starts again
with the raid on Social Security surplus.
In contrast, the Republican budget that was offered several weeks ago
does just the opposite, and, in fact, uses the surplus that will exist
in 2012 to begin to shore up the Social Security system and to improve
and enhance the vitality of that program for today's seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote on this conference
budget report.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, let's just be really clear. You are hearing this debate
about taxes. Nowhere is the difference between the two parties ever
clear than it is right now. We brought a budget to the floor that not
only did not raise taxes, it kept taxes low, and it reduced spending,
and it balanced the budget, and it finally stopped the raid of the
Social Security Trust Fund.
That's what we proposed. We are not in the majority. Our view did not
prevail. The Democrat budget did prevail. What did that budget do? It
passed the largest tax increase in American history. That's not what we
say, that's what the Congressional Budget Office says, our
scorekeepers.
So what did they do in conference? They decided to accede to the
Senate and have a slightly smaller tax increase. They started off with
the red line, largest tax increase in American history as measured by
the Congressional Budget Office. No matter what you say, the numbers in
the budget just don't lie.
Then they said, let's have a trigger. If we don't spend too much
money, and if the surplus is big enough in 2010, then maybe some
taxpayers could get some tax relief, and we won't raise all of their
taxes. We will extend the marriage penalty and the child tax credit, 10
percent bracket, but will all the other tax increases occur? So we will
have the second highest tax increase in American history.
That's what their proposal does. They simply cannot have it both
ways. They cannot say there is no tax increase in this budget and then
say we are preserving some of the tax cuts and not others. You can't
have it both ways.
Here is what this budget does. It puts us on a vicious cycle of
taxing and spending. They start off by spending $24 billion, next year,
brand new spending.
Then they have a $217 billion tax increase. Then they have 23 reserve
funds, 23 wish lists, which equal $190 billion in new spending. Then
they have no entitlement reforms, which means our entitlement programs
are going to grow and grow and grow at unsustainable rates. Guess what,
$190 billion in wish lists, 23 new wish lists of spending. What do they
get? If they get the spending, they get another $190 billion tax
increase to pay for it, a vicious cycle of new spending.
The trigger tax says we would like to give some people some tax
relief, but if we continue to whet our appetite, taxpayers won't get
it. All this trigger says is it puts the taxpayer at the back of the
line and the government and spending at the front of line. We have a
different core set of values.
[[Page H5370]]
We believe the money that people make is their money, not the
government's money. If you are making money, working hard and paying
taxes, that's your money, not ours. We have a different set of beliefs.
They believe the opposite. They believe that more and more and more
money ought to come out of workers' paychecks. They believe that they
can spend your money better than you can.
That is not what we believe. The reason that we don't believe it is
because if you have more money in your paycheck, you have more for
yourself and more freedom for your family, we know, by golly, the
American economy grows. We succeed. We improve in the global economy.
We created 7 million new jobs since this last run of tax cuts. We
increased revenues to the Federal Government from these lower tax
raises, 3 years in a row, double digit revenue growth. Let's not turn
that recipe upside down. Let's not ruin a good thing.
Defeat this budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time
to the distinguished minority leader, Mr. Boehner.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, here we go again, a
higher spending, higher taxes, and people don't think there is a
difference between the two major political parties. One only has to
look at what's happened so far this year. We have the continuing
resolution that was passed in February, there was $6 billion worth of
excess spending in it.
Now we have got an emergency supplemental to fund our troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq that has another $22 billion worth of excess
spending in it. If you look at the discretionary spending levels in
this budget for this next fiscal year, we have another $22 billion
worth of additional spending that's outlined.
Now if that's not bad enough, we are only 4\1/2\ months into this
calendar year, and my friends across the aisle have authorized an
additional $62.5 billion of additional spending. How much spending and
how many taxes do we want to impose on the American people?
We all know that the tax cuts of 2001 and the tax cuts of 2003 have
led us to one of the most robust economies that we have seen in our
history. Why? Because we lowered tax rates, we gave people reasons to
invest in our economy. Jobs were created, 5 million new jobs were
created, more people were earning money, raising their families, paying
their bills, and, guess what else they are doing? They are also paying
more in taxes.
{time} 1530
That is why revenues to the Federal Government over the last 3 years
have increased at over 12 percent per year. They are likely to do the
same again this year if we don't impose upon this economy the largest
tax increase in American history. It is coming. There is $200 billion
worth of tax increases needed to fill this hole. There is this reserve
fund, all these promises: If we can raise taxes somewhere, we will give
you this extra spending. And so we are going to see the largest tax
increase in our Nation's history once again.
I was listening to this debate earlier in my office and I began to
ask myself, what is the essence of this? Let me go back to the 1970s.
I grew up in a household with 11 brothers and sisters; my dad owned a
bar, and we were Democrats, all of us. And I remember starting a new
business in 1975; I remember paying taxes. I remember not owing many
taxes because I was starting a new business. But in 1978, as my small
business was beginning to grow, the top tax rate in our country was 70
percent. That means 70 cents out of every dollar over that minimum,
which was about $75,000, 70 cents of every dollar I got to give to the
Federal Government. That is when I began to realize that maybe I wasn't
a Democrat any longer.
Here I was trying to grow a small business; I was a subchapter S, so
everything that my business made, I had to pay taxes on personally.
That meant I could only leave 30 cents of every dollar in my business
to help make it grow. And even under those tax rates that were
suffocating, I was able to succeed.
But let's think about the last 25 years. When Ronald Reagan got
elected in 1980, in 1981 in a bipartisan way we started a process of
lowering tax rates. Over the last 25 years, by and large we have
lowered tax rates dozens of times, only a couple of bumps, a couple
increases along the way. The result of all of that over the last 25
years has been a growing economy. Better jobs in America, more jobs in
America, and more revenues to the Federal Government. It is a
prescription that has worked.
Look again at the 2003 and the 2001 tax cuts. We reduced tax rates,
and the result was more investment, more jobs, and more revenue to the
Federal Government.
Now, at some point there is a point of diminishing returns, but I
will suggest to all of you that we are nowhere close to it yet.
Ladies and gentlemen, I became a Republican and I came to Congress
because I thought that we paid too much in taxes and that government
was too big. The heart and core of who I am and why I am here is to
fight for a smaller, less costly, more accountable government here in
Washington, D.C. This budget represents every reason that I decided to
become a Republican, and every reason I decided to come to Washington
and to do something about it.
The big difference is simple right here. My friends across the aisle
believe that government knows best what to do with the American
people's money. More of my colleagues on my side believe that the money
that the American people earn is theirs, and that they can make better
decisions on behalf of themselves and their family and their future if
we allow them to keep more of the hard-earned money that they make.
I can't just sit back and be quiet about higher taxes and higher
spending. This is the largest tax increase in American history. This
will in fact disinvest money from our economy, will put people out of
work, and put us on a path to higher deficits.
And if the largest tax increase in American history isn't the saddest
part of this bill, I will tell you what it is: No entitlement reform.
There is an economic tsunami coming at us; it is Social Security, it
is Medicare, and it is Medicaid. And while Republicans over the last
years have made several attempts and made some changes, and I would
argue not nearly as many changes as we should have, there is no
entitlement reform in this bill. That means that the amount of debt
that will build up over the next 5 years, as outlined in this budget,
will far surpass the debt that accumulated over the last 5 years.
You all know what is happening. There is not a Member in this Chamber
that doesn't understand that if we don't deal with entitlement our kids
and our grandkids can never afford the benefits that we have promised
ourselves. We can look the other way, we can act like it doesn't exist,
but we have made promises to ourselves as baby boomers that our kids
and grandkids can't afford. And yet, we see the tsunami coming at us,
we can measure it; we can measure the speed and the size of it, and yet
we do nothing about it.
My colleagues, this is not the direction that I believe we should go
in. I would ask all my colleagues to stand up and do the right thing
and to say ``no'' to this budget resolution.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good budget. I would be the first to say it is
not a perfect budget, but I would be the first to argue that it is
worthy of our support.
Indeed, I think it requires our support if we don't want to see the
budget process fail abjectly once again, as it did last year under
Republican control when no concurrent budget resolution was ever
enacted, passed, and only two of 11 appropriation bills were passed.
The bottom line, this budget moves us to balance over the next 5
years. Along the way, it posts smaller deficits than the President
proposes, it adheres to the pay-as-you-go principle, which is the rule
of this House, contains no new mandatory spending that is not paid for,
and it funds five program integrity initiatives to root out wasteful
spending and fraud and tax evasion.
Within this framework, it does more for veterans health care, far
more, more for children's health care, far
[[Page H5371]]
more, and more for education, lots more.
Here in a nutshell are the basics of the budget: This budget runs to
surplus of $41 billion in the year 2012. Contrast that with the
President's budget which is always in deficit. This budget not only
abides by pay-as-you-go principles, it enhances them by establishing a
new Senate PAYGO rule and calling for reinstatement of the statutory
PAYGO rule as well. This budget does all of the above, I will say this
emphatically one last time, does all of the above without raising
taxes.
The tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 remain in full force
and effect, unaffected in any way by this budget resolution. As enacted
and originally written, most of these tax cuts expire on December 31,
2010, and that has nothing to do with our budget resolution.
But in our budget resolution, we identified all of the middle income
tax cuts, many of which we supported at the time passed, and we made it
the policy of our resolution to extend these tax cuts when they expire.
In this concurrent resolution, we go even further. We install a
trigger that will facilitate the extension of these tax cuts so long
as, number one, the House waives PAYGO; and, number two, the tax cuts
extended do not exceed 80 percent of the surplus projected by OMB by
the year 2012.
This concurrent resolution in other respects sets defense spending
levels that the President requested. Why is spending so high? It
contains $145 billion in supplemental expenditures.
And let me say one thing about the argument one of the leaders of the
other party made on the House floor just a few minutes ago about the
amount of debt that is being added to the national debt. What we are
talking about is taking a big battleship and turning it around slowly.
We have inherited the basics of this budget. Much of the spending that
we are carrying forward was dictated over the last 6 years. The same
for the revenue flow of the budget we are undertaking. It is going to
take time to turn this big battleship around. But as we do, the best we
can do is, number one, have a concurrent budget resolution with the
binding effect of budget law for the first time in a long time; and,
secondly, this concurrent resolution which will put us back on the path
to a balanced budget.
For those for whom a balanced budget is something of a moral
imperative because of the debt we are leaving our children, the right
vote today, the only vote today is the vote for this budget resolution,
and I commend it to every Member of this House, Democrat and
Republican, and urge their support.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. After years of
rising deficits and draconian Republican budgets, the vote on the
Budget Conference Report finally puts us on the right course. The
Democratic budget will take America in a new direction by funding
national priorities such as health care services, educational programs,
and veterans services while providing middle class tax assistance. The
Democratic budget rejects the Administration's attempts to cut funding
to many social programs that support American children and families
such as State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), Pell
grants, Medicare, and Medicaid. This forward looking budget will help
all Americans progress towards social and economic security.
The Democratic budget will also provide tax relief for middle-income
workers and will extend popular tax credits such as the child tax
credit, marriage penalty relief, and more deductions for state and
local sales taxes.
After our troops have defended our great country, we need to give our
servicemen and veterans the best possible health care. The budget
provides sufficient funds to treat traumatic injuries and improve
health care facilities for veterans, as well as to treat the more than
twenty-six thousand service members who have been wounded in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Funding measures to veterans healthcare is a well deserved
and necessary expense providing $3.6 billion above the President's
proposal.
Mr. Speaker, many Americans have economic concerns, and are seeking
leadership from us, the people's House, the United States Congress.
After six years of misplaced priorities, the Democratic budget
resolution seeks to provide services and support that are essential to
the well-being of the American people; millions who are hard working
tax paying citizens that deserve some well justified and reasonable
assistance. This legislation is clearly the people's budget.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, a budget is a moral document that demonstrates
our values and priorities. This budget Conference Report, brought to us
by Chairman John Spratt represents values I can be proud of. This
budget makes real investments in education, healthcare, housing and
research and development while bringing the budget back to surplus by
2012.
At a time when more than ten percent of students drop out of high
school before graduating and only four out of ten children eligible for
Head Start are able to participate, this budget reverses the
Administration's policy of under-investing in education for our
children. The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding
for the Department of Education by $1.5 billion below the 2007 enacted
level and to eliminate 44 entire programs. It instead provides for
substantial new investments in vital programs such as Head Start,
special education (IDEA), Title I and other programs under the No Child
Left Behind Act. The bill also funds an increase in Pell Grants so that
high school students will know that if they work hard, they can go to
college.
The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding for the
Community Development Block Grant program by $1.1 billion below last
year's level, and instead provides for the first CDBG increase since
2005. The cut advocated by the President would endanger job creation,
economic development, and affordable housing efforts, cutting CDBGs for
nearly 1,200 state and local governments.
This budget rejects the President's proposal to cut Child Care
Development Block Grants and Social Services Block Grants by $520
million below the 2007 level. The President's budget would lead to a
decline in valuable assistance for child care that allows many working
parents to earn a living. The Conference Report would allow for the
first increase in this funding since 2002.
Further, knowing that we now have more uninsured Americans than six
years ago, this budget blocks the President's proposed cuts to Medicare
and Medicaid. These cuts would have made healthcare less affordable and
accessible for millions of Americans. This budget ensures that up to
$50 billion over the next five years will be devoted to the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) so that millions of
uninsured children can be covered. New Jersey is a national leader in
covering children through the SCHIP program and this additional funding
is desperately needed to ensure our state's good work, and that of
other states, can continue.
This budget reverses the President's dangerous cuts to our nation's
first responders. What sense would it make to cut the Local Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program, Firefighter assistance
grants, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, or the Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) program? Our budget stands up for first
responders and ensures that each of the programs receives appropriate
levels of funding.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Spratt and the Budget Committee conferees
for demonstrating that we can provide for our nation's defense in a
responsible way--both fiscally and from a policy standpoint. This
budget will provide $507 billion in Department of Defense budget
authority, an $18 billion increase over the President's request. This
budget also emphasizes the right priorities for meeting our security
needs.
For example, this resolution opposes TRICARE fee increases and calls
for a substantial increase in the veterans' health care system. The
budget resolution notes the upcoming recommendations of the President's
Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors and other
government investigations in connection with the Walter Reed scandal,
and allows funds for action when those recommendations are received. To
help protect our nation from a terrorist-sponsored nuclear attack, non-
proliferation programs such as the Cooperative Threat Reduction program
are given greater priority and higher funding.
This budget also helps us keep our promises to our nation's veterans.
I'm pleased the committee has recommended increasing discretionary
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs from $36.5 billion to
$43.1 billion--a $6.6 billion (18.1%) increase over FY07, and a $3.5
billion increase (8.9%) over the Administration request for FY08. This
budget provides a far more realistic spending plan than the President's
proposal. Our proposed increase in this area will help meet critical
needs, including ensuring that medical inflation does not erode VA's
ability to deliver quality health care to our veterans.
In order to maintain American competitiveness, we must make
substantial investments in scientific research and education. The
budget provides funding for initiatives to educate new scientists,
engineers, and mathematicians in the next four years, and places more
highly-qualified teachers in math and science K-12 classrooms. It makes
critical investments in basic research, putting us on the
[[Page H5372]]
path to doubling funding for the National Science Foundation, and
bolstering investments in research and development throughout the
budget.
America's dependence on oil endangers our environment, our national
security, and our economy. A sustained investment in research and
development is crucial to creating cutting-edge technologies that allow
us to develop clean, sustainable energy alternatives and capitalize on
America's vast renewable natural resources. The budget provides
increased funding for basic and applied energy research.
For the first time in 6 years, the Budget Resolution reflects a real
commitment to protecting our most valuable natural resources by
providing needed funding for our National Parks, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and the national wildlife refuge system. H. Con.
Res. 99 provides a total of $31.4 billion for environmental programs,
which is $2.6 billion more than the President's request. I have been an
advocate for the Land and Water Conservation Fund since I came to
Congress eight years ago and I am pleased that we are finally at a
place where the budget includes adequate funding for both the state-
side grant program and the federal program. LWCF and the Forest Legacy
program have done tremendous work in states across the country,
including New Jersey, to protect open space, restore wetlands, and
conserve forests lands. In the face of mounting evidence on the
perilous state of our environment, it continues to amaze me why
President Bush continues to turn a blind eye to our growing needs in
this area. Finally, we have a budget that realizes how important this
investment is to preserving our natural resources and promoting
conservation.
This budget achieves all of these objectives and investments without
an increase in taxes. The budget would accommodate immediate relief for
the tens of millions of middle income households who would otherwise be
subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), while supporting the
efforts of the Committee on Ways and Means to achieve permanent,
revenue-neutral AMT reform. Unless the AMT is reformed, 19 million
additional families will have to pay higher taxes in 2007. The budget
would also accommodate extension of other middle-income tax relief
provisions, consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go principle that include:
the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent bracket,
and the deduction for state and local sales taxes.
The past 6 years of fiscal irresponsibility have caused America's
national debt to increase by 50 percent, an amount of nearly $9
trillion, or $29,000 for every American. Our ability to invest in the
Nation's shared priorities is constrained by the cost of the debt run
up over the last 6 years, when the administration and its partners in
previous Congresses turned the largest surplus in American history into
a record debt. About 75 percent of America's new debt has been borrowed
from foreign creditors such as China, making our fiscal integrity a
matter of national security. Over the last 6 years, President Bush has
borrowed more money from foreign nations than the previous 42 U.S.
Presidents combined.
Mr. Speaker, this budget reflects values that we can all be proud of.
It meets the basic needs of Americans, invests in priorities important
to our future while putting us on the path to fiscal responsibility. I
ask my colleagues to vote for the Budget Conference Report.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report
because it will begin the process of changing our budgetary course.
While it is not identical to the version passed by the House earlier
this year, like that resolution it is clearly preferable to budgets
adopted by the House in previous years.
For the 6 years before the convening of this 110th Congress, the
administration and the Republican leadership insisted on speeding ahead
with misguided fiscal and economic policies. Ignoring all warning
lights, they plowed ahead, taking us from projections of surpluses to
the reality budgets deep in deficit and heaping higher the mountain of
debt that our children will have to repay.
Many of us said it was urgent to stop persisting in that error and
voted for alternatives, including those proposed by the Blue Dog
Caucus.
But year after year our Republican colleagues insisted on taking
their marching orders from the White House, moving in lockstep to
endorse the Bush administration's insistence that its economic and
fiscal policies must continue without change.
I admired their discipline, but I could not support their insistence
on driving us deeper into the swamp of fiscal irresponsibility that has
left a debt burden of more than $30,000 for a typical middle-income
family of four in Colorado.
But that was then--and now, in this new Congress under new
management, by passing this conference report we can begin to undo the
damage they have done. The conference report is better in its fiscal
responsibility and in its priorities.
It follows the tough ``pay as you go'' budget rules to begin to
reverse the budget deficits and to put us onto the path to a balanced
budget. And under this plan, by 2012, domestic discretionary funding
would fall to the lowest level, as a share of the economy, in at least
a half century while spending as a percentage of GDP will be lower in
2012 than it has been in any budget adopted under President Bush--1
percent lower than it will be this year and lower than it has been in
any year since 2001.
Despite assertion by its critics, the conference report does not
include any tax increases. To the contrary, it supports tax relief that
would benefit the middle class--including extension of the child tax
credit, 10 percent bracket, and marriage penalty relief--and provides
for estate tax reform.
And it provides for immediate Alternative Minimum Tax relief,
preventing more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from being hit
by the tax. This is important because while in 2004 only 32,000
Colorado families were subject to the AMT, if nothing is done, this
year that number will rise to 234,000 families in Colorado and hundreds
of thousands more in other States.
At the same time, it takes steps to crack down on wasteful or
fraudulent spending in Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment
Insurance programs and it supports actions to collect unpaid taxes as
well as providing additional resources to reduce claims backlogs in the
Veterans Administration, Social Security Administration, and other
agencies.
Further, it directs House committees to identify wasteful and lower
priority spending that can be cut. As a member of the Armed Services
Committee, I am particularly glad to note that the conference report is
also realistic and responsible about the need to maintain our national
defense and honor our promises to our troops and veterans.
In addition to meeting the needs of the active-duty force, it allows
for increasing funding for veterans' health care and services by $6.7
billion above the 2007 enacted level, and $3.6 billion above the
President's budget.
This is a priority for me, because it will help ensure that the
427,957 veterans in Colorado receive care worthy of their sacrifice. It
is also critical for the 17,419 Coloradans, who have served their
country in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001, many of whom will
need VA health care services.
It also provides more funding for urgent homeland security needs and
to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. In doing so, it
rejects cuts to vital first responder and terrorism prevention programs
that would happen if we adopted the President's budget for fiscal 2008.
Like the House-passed version, it recognizes the importance of
research, development, and education in keeping our economy strong and
our country secure. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee
and chairman of its Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I am
particularly supportive of it for that reason--and as one of the Chairs
of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I welcome its
support for research and development of renewable and alternative
energy technologies.
As for education, the conference report allows for substantially more
funding for helping Colorado's public elementary, middle and high
schools educate the 768,600 children now enrolled, with more resources
to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, special education and Head
Start. By contrast, if we followed the President's budget, 31,296
Colorado children would not receive promised help in reading and math
and the Head Start program--which serves 9,820 Colorado children--would
be cut by 1.5 percent below the 2007 level.
These investments to a growing economy for America's families are
needed because, according to the Census Bureau, family income in
Colorado has dropped by $4,041 since 2000, while health care and energy
prices are climbing. But still more is needed.
So, I am glad that the conference report provides for increasing
funding for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--to help
cover the 176,230 of Colorado's children who do not have health
insurance. And because it is so important for Colorado's ranchers,
farmers, and rural communities, I strongly support the part of the
conference report that supports policies to strengthen the farm bill's
economic benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Bush Administration does not
like this conference report. After all, it rejects the Administration's
misguided priorities. But it's disappointing that so many of our
Republican colleagues still are so willing to unquestioningly follow
the President's lead. And, while I suppose it's to be expected, it's
particularly unfortunate that they have decided to attack this
conference report by resorting to recycling the old, tired and false
claim that it is ``the largest tax increase in history.''
But the facts are otherwise. The conference report does not affect
the top-heavy tax cuts
[[Page H5373]]
the Bush administration and the Republican leadership pushed through
since 2001--they remain in place as they stand, which means they will
not expire for 4 years.
I did not vote for all of those tax cuts, but I did support some that
are most important for middle-income Coloradans. So, I am glad that the
conference report provides for extensions of those in 2011, including
an extension of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the
ten percent individual income tax bracket. And when the rest of the tax
cuts come up for reconsideration, Congress can and should consider
whether to extend them, as they are now or in modified form.
I support that approach, which is quite different from the
alternative approach that would have been taken by the Republican
alternative that the House rightly rejected earlier this year. It would
have insisted on locking in all of the Bush tax cuts--the ones I did
not support as well as those I did--and would have put top priority on
making them all permanent.
I did like some things in the Republican alternative--including a
constitutionally-sound line-item veto similar to my Stimulating
Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (``SLICE'') legislation--but overall
I thought it was not a responsible approach and I could not support it,
just as I could not support the other alternatives debated in the
House.
Regarding one of those alternatives, in reviewing the formal record
of rollcall 209, the vote on the Kilpatrick substitute, I found I am
recorded as having voted ``yes.'' However, I had intended to vote
``no,'' and my recollection is that I did vote ``no.''
Unlike all those alternatives, and like the resolution passed by the
House, this conference report is well balanced in its combination of
fiscal responsibility and refocusing priorities. I will support it and
I urge its approval by the House.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this budget,
which significantly raises taxes on the American people. The Conference
Report represents an enormous tax increase on hard-working American
families--families that cannot afford to send more of their money for
politicians and bureaucrats to spend.
My staff analyzed the original House budget resolution and determined
that it would cost an average family on Staten Island or Brooklyn
nearly $4,000 more a year in Federal taxes. My friends across the aisle
hail this resolution because they say it raises taxes less than the
budget Resolution--as if that is an achievement to be proud of. The
simple truth is that this Budget still raises taxes when we should
instead be working to reduce them.
In fact, the reduced tax increase is only achieved if certain
triggers are hit--triggers that are based on projected surpluses. But
you don't need a degree in economics to know that surpluses will only
be hit by restraining spending, which this Resolution most certainly
does not do.
How are we supposed to have a surplus large enough to avoid raising
taxes when this Resolution does nothing to reign in spending--and also
includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending without proper
offsets? The math does not add up.
I cannot support a budget resolution that will ultimately cost
families on Staten Island and Brooklyn $4,000 more every year in
Federal taxes or a New York City Police Officer $1,300 more, a New York
City public school teacher $1,500 more, and a New York City Firefighter
$2,000 more.
The other side claims to support a ``Pay As You Go'' system when, in
reality, this budget Resolution amounts to ``Buy Now, Pay $400 Billion
More in Taxes Later.''
I urge my colleagues to vote against what is one of the largest tax
increases--if not the largest tax increase--in American history.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214,
nays 209, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 377]
YEAS--214
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--209
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Baird
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Harman
Jones (OH)
Lewis (KY)
McMorris Rodgers
Shays
Stark
{time} 1601
Mr. GOHMERT and Mrs. BACHMANN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H5374]]
____________________