[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 55 (Wednesday, April 1, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H4257-H4262]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 85, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                   ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 305 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 305

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 85) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2010 and including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2009 and 2011 through 2014. The first 
     reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. 
     All points of order against consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution are waived. General debate shall not exceed four 
     hours, with three hours confined to the congressional budget 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget and one hour 
     on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided 
     and controlled by Representative Maloney of New York and 
     Representative Brady of Texas or their designees. After 
     general debate the Committee of the Whole shall rise without 
     motion. No further consideration of the concurrent resolution 
     shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of 
     the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 305 provides for general debate on H. Con. 
Res. 85, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2010. Madam Speaker, I 
am honored to stand here today to introduce the fiscal year 2010 House 
budget resolution.
  I want to thank my friend, the Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, 
for all of his incredible work on this budget. He is smart, he is fair, 
and no one cares more about these issues.
  I also want to thank our ranking member, Paul Ryan. Even though I 
often disagree with him, I admire his intellect and his dedication to 
his principles. I thought we had a spirited, substantive debate in the 
Budget Committee, and I am sure we will have more of the same here on 
the House floor.
  I also would like to thank the staff of the Budget Committee, 
Democrat and Republican, for their tireless effort and their commitment 
to public service.
  Madam Speaker, the budget before us today represents a clean break 
from the past. For the last 8 years, President Bush flat out mismanaged 
the Federal budget. How? By enacting huge tax cuts for the wealthiest 
Americans that led to skyrocketing deficits, by spending hundreds of 
billions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without paying 
for them, and by refusing to invest in the American people.
  In November, the American people said ``enough,'' and they voted for 
change. They voted for new direction. And that is what this budget is 
all about. We are not only turning the page on the last 8 years, we are 
writing a whole new book, and our budget cuts the deficit by more than 
half by 2013. It cuts taxes for middle-income families by $1.5 
trillion. It creates jobs by investing in health care, clean energy, 
and education.
  Now, let me briefly outline those three areas: Fiscal discipline, 
middle-class tax cuts, and investments in the American people.
  As I said, our budget will cut the deficit by more than half in 2013. 
In order to get us back on a fiscally sustainable path, the budget 
provides a realistic assessment of our fiscal outlook.
  Unlike the Bush administration, we actually budget for the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan instead of hiding them under, quote, emergency 
spending categories. We budget for natural disasters that inevitably 
will occur.
  Our budget cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Let me repeat 
that, Madam Speaker, because we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric 
from the other side about taxes. The Democratic budget, the Obama 
budget cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans. It provides immediate 
relief from the alternative

[[Page H4258]]

minimum tax, it eliminates the estate tax in nearly all the States, and 
works to close corporate tax loopholes.
  You see, all of us believe in altering the Tax Code. We believe that 
we should reduce the tax burden on the middle class and those trying to 
get into the middle class. We believe that corporations shouldn't be 
allowed to shirk their responsibility by hiding their profits in 
offshore tax havens. The other side believes we should reduce taxes for 
the very wealthiest. It is a simple difference of philosophy. And, most 
importantly, this budget actually invests in the American people.
  What a welcome change from the past 8 years. We invest in health care 
reform, not just to improve health care quality and improve coverage, 
but to reduce the crushing burden of health care costs on American 
businesses. Everybody likes to talk about health care reform. This 
budget, the Democratic budget, the Obama budget actually gets it done.
  We invest in clean energy in order to create jobs, improve the 
environment, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We invest in 
renewable energy and energy efficiency. Everybody likes to talk about 
energy independence, but this budget actually gets it done.
  We invest in education to reclaim our place as the best educated 
workforce in the world. We work to expand early childhood education and 
to make college more affordable. Everybody likes to talk about 
improving education, but this budget actually gets it done.
  So that is what we could do, and that is what we do. As for my 
Republican friends, it is more of the same. Last week, they made a big 
to-do when they introduced their own ``budget.'' In fact, it wasn't 
much of a budget at all, given the fact that it didn't include any 
numbers. What it did include was lots of empty rhetoric and a belief in 
massive tax cuts for the wealthiest.
  Madam Speaker, the American people have seen this movie before, and 
they gave it two thumbs down. I know it is April Fool's Day, but don't 
be fooled by my Republican friends.
  My Republican friends will talk a lot about the difference in 
economic growth estimates between the Office of Management and Budget 
and the Congressional Budget Office, but here is the thing: There will 
be no growth unless we invest in the American people. There will be no 
growth unless we get a handle on these deficits. There will be no 
growth as long as health care costs and inadequate education and 
dependence on foreign oil keeps us down.
  I know that change is hard. I know my Republican friends want to 
cling desperately to the failed policies of the past. But the good news 
is that despite all the nasty press releases and television ads and 
talk radio attacks on the President, the American people still, by 
overwhelming margins, support President Obama's vision for America. 
That is why this budget is so very important.
  We are presenting a budget, Madam Speaker, with a conscience. It is a 
budget that believes in the American spirit, and it is a budget that 
fulfills the promises that President Obama made to the American people.
  We are at a crucial moment, Madam Speaker. Our country can meet its 
potential. Our children can have a better future. But in order to make 
that happen, we need a change. We need to move in a bold, innovative, 
new direction. We need to pass this budget. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in support of this rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very 
good friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, it is interesting that we begin this April Fool's Day 
with the budget debate. You know, we have some very, very serious 
economic challenges here, and the sad thing from my perspective is the 
fact that this budget, which was just described by my friend as the 
Democratic-Obama budget, is not a joke.
  The thing that is so incredibly ironic is that 45 seconds ago my 
friend just said we must get a handle on these deficits. ``We must get 
a handle on these deficits,'' is what my friend has just said, and yet 
this budget, this Democratic-Obama budget of which my friend is so 
proud in fact over the next 5 years doubles the national debt and over 
the next 10 years triples the national debt.
  We all concur on this notion of trying to get deficits under control. 
It is a very high priority. Everyone says this. What we need to do is 
we need to work to rein in government spending rather than trying to 
bring about this transformation, this transformation in an economic 
downturn which dramatically expands the size and scope and reach of the 
Federal Government.
  Madam Speaker, as every parent or small business owner knows, a 
budget is about choices. Often, it is about very hard choices that need 
to be made. During times of economic hardship or uncertainty, those 
choices get even harder, and that is clearly where we are today.
  When we look at our expenses for the coming month or year, we have a 
number of factors that have to be taken into consideration as a family, 
as a small business person.
  There are expenses that are absolutely mandatory, mortgage payments 
or meeting a small business payroll. There are expenses that are 
essential but can be reduced with greater flexibility and frugality, 
like the grocery bill. There are expenses for luxury items that are 
simply not affordable any longer. And then, Madam Speaker, there are 
those expenses that are important and worthy and useful, but just 
aren't possible when funds are tight. These choices are clearly the 
very hardest. We want to buy the kids a new laptop for college or build 
a new addition onto the house, but we know that the money just isn't 
there right now. So we tighten our belts, figure out a way to spend our 
money more wisely, and save for the things that are most important.
  This is how America's families and businesses are dealing with the 
economic difficulties that we all face today. If only the Democratic 
leadership and this budget that my friend touts as the Democratic-Obama 
budget would do the same. They could learn a lot from the American 
people, Madam Speaker.
  The Democratic budget before us today recklessly abandons any 
semblance of responsible decisionmaking. It spends as though the money 
is just flowing in, and it raises taxes as though American businesses 
and families have endless cash to spare. But we know all too painfully 
well that this is far from the case. Ask anyone out there. It is time 
for the Democratic majority to wake up to our economic reality.

                              {time}  1045

  This is not the time to raise taxes on small businesses and working 
families. They like to claim that their tax hikes will only hit the 
super-rich. They are wrong. Their income tax hikes will hit the small 
businesses that are the backbone of our economy. And their cap-and-
trade program, the great source of revenues, which is really a cap-and-
tax program, will raise taxes on every single household in America. 
Families will get slapped with new energy taxes of up to $3,100 a year. 
Every time our constituents flip on a light switch or turn on the 
microwave or drive the kids to school, they will feel the pain of the 
Democratic tax plan.
  This is also not the time to recklessly add hundreds of billions of 
dollars in new spending that our Nation cannot come close to affording. 
Republicans aren't advocating extreme austerity, but we are advocating 
a little common sense. We must own up to the hard choices that are a 
fact of life for the American people and should be a fact of life for 
their representatives here in this institution as well. After all, this 
is not our money. This is money that belongs to the hardworking people 
here in the United States of America.
  We must be realistic about which expenses are mandatory, which leave 
room for greater flexibility, frugality and efficiency, which spending 
items are luxuries and which are worthwhile but simply not affordable 
at this time, just like the American people must do. We have to use the 
same kind of prudence when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars as 
people are as they face the challenges of today's economy.

[[Page H4259]]

  Instead, what this budget does is shirk all responsibility for our 
tax dollars and bury the American people under a mountain of debt that 
won't be paid for generations. This is not just an issue of deficits. 
It's an issue of deficits so catastrophically huge that they threaten 
to put our recovery off for years to come and permanently saddle all of 
us with staggering amounts of debt.
  In this year alone, the deficit, Madam Speaker, will be $2 trillion, 
that is trillion with a ``T.'' I know in this age of constant $100 
billion bailouts, we have forgotten just how much money that is. 
Everyone has their illustrations of how to visualize $1 trillion. And I 
know that it seems a little gimmicky, but it is important to understand 
what we are talking about when we refer to $1 trillion. And let's 
remember that the deficit for this year under this budget is $2 
trillion.
  If we were to spend $1 million a day, a day, $1 million a day, it 
would take 5,475 years to spend our deficit for this year alone. Not 
our national debt as a whole, just the part, just the part that would 
accumulate this year. In other words, it would take until the year 7484 
to spend our deficit if we were spending $1 million a day. Or put 
another way, we would have to go back to the 35th century B.C., the 
35th century B.C., to spend the money by the year 2009, back to the 
rise of the early Bronze Age in order to spend $2 trillion at that rate 
of $1 million a day.
  Now that's an awful lot of debt, Madam Speaker. That is an 
astronomical amount of debt. And that is what this budget leaves us 
with. It taxes recklessly, spends wildly and borrows almost too much 
for us to even comprehend.
  Now I have talked a lot about hard choices. Now I want to say 
something about false choices. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle seem to want the American people to face a 
false choice, the choice between their very dangerous budget and the 
status quo. They like to think that they can convince our constituents 
that their disastrous budget is the only option out there.
  But, Madam Speaker, we clearly have an alternative. There is a 
commonsense way. Republicans, contrary to what our friends said about 
the lack of numbers in our budget, we have our budget. It was submitted 
by the 10 a.m. deadline to the Rules Committee. It is an alternative 
budget that will not tax small businesses and working families and will 
not balloon the deficit to untenable proportions. It is true that it 
will not entirely eliminate the deficit. That might not be possible 
during these very, very tough times. But it does own up to the hard 
choices that responsible legislators must make. It does accept our 
tough economic reality and it does exercise common sense and 
accountability in the spending of taxpayer dollars. And it does not 
punish the small businesses and working families who are already 
struggling with new burdensome taxes. Now, Madam Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues not to be drawn into the false choice that has been provided 
by the Democratic majority.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to point out for my colleagues 
one important fact that I think we need to keep in mind. When President 
Bush became President of the United States, he inherited a record 
surplus of $5.6 trillion over 10 years. He left us with a record 
deficit of $5.8 trillion, with double the national debt and triple the 
amount held by foreign countries. We were left with flat wages and the 
smallest rate of job growth in three-quarters of a century. We tried it 
the gentleman's way. And it failed. People do not want the status quo. 
They do not want the same old same old.
  There is a general understanding amongst the American people that in 
order for us to be able to reduce our deficit and pay down our debt, we 
need to grow this economy. And you cannot grow this economy unless you 
invest in the American people and unless you invest in the economy.
  I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  And let me respond to his very thoughtful comments with a couple of 
points. First and foremost, we need to remember that it was a 
Republican Congress that got us back on the road of fiscal 
responsibility leading up to what President Bush did, in fact, inherit. 
And I'm not going to stand here as an apologist for spending that did 
take place. But we have to remember that most of the spending that took 
place dealt with the aftermath of September 11, 2001, when we saw 
dramatic increases in defense and homeland security spending. And in 
the last 3 years, there were actually real spending cuts that took 
place in every other appropriation bill at that time. And so the issue 
of economic growth----
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that, and I would 
point to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that went mostly to the wealthy 
that bankrupted this Nation.
  The fact of the matter is the gentleman's party controlled Congress 
for many years. His party controlled the White House for many years. 
And jointly, they have driven this economy into a ditch. I think there 
are philosophical differences here. And I think one of the major 
differences is that we believe that in order to be able to pay down the 
debt, we need to grow this economy. And to grow this economy in these 
difficult times means investing in our people and everything from 
education to health care to environmental technologies.
  The Republican budget is really the same old same old, more tax cuts 
for the wealthy, and basically, an indifference towards some of the 
Nation's most pressing problems. You cannot rebuild roads and bridges 
for nothing. We can't just simply constantly put the burden of 
education, the cost of education, and special education in particular, 
on the backs of our cities and towns. There needs to be an 
understanding that in order to get this economy back up and running, we 
are going to need to invest. And that is what the Democratic budget 
does.
  I stand before you proud to defend this budget, proud of the fact 
that we have a budget that has a conscience, proud of the fact that 
when this gets enacted, we are going to have a blueprint for this 
country that I believe will not only put us back on the road to 
economic recovery but will allow us to pay down our deficits and our 
debt.
  As I said in my opening statement, the House budget slashes the 
deficit by nearly two-thirds over the next 4 years, from $1.7 trillion 
or 12.3 percent of gross domestic product in 2009 to $586 billion, or 
3.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2013.
  I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume, and I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Clearly, I think we have a problem of maybe talking past each other. 
We all concur with the notion of getting the economy back on track. The 
question is do we grow the economy by growing the size, scope and reach 
of government? And that is what my colleague is arguing that we should 
do, that we should get the economy back on track by dramatically 
increasing the role of government. The exact opposite is the case.
  Now as my friend said, that the same old same old of what we did in 
2001-2003 with creating tax incentives for economic growth. That is, I 
believe, the single best answer to this challenge. Why? Well, remember 
what we faced in 2001. Many people thought after we had this 
unprecedented attack on the United States of America that we would see 
a huge economic downturn. We also were dealing at that point with 
corporate scandals that existed in the early part of this decade and a 
wide range of other challenges. And we had already had an economic 
slowdown. It was those policies of growth-oriented tax cuts that were 
able to see 55 months of sustained job creation and economic growth.
  We all know that over the past year we have seen serious economic 
challenges, we are in recession and the American people are hurting. We 
also believe that we need to have priorities established like dealing 
with the issue, as my friend has correctly said, of building roads and 
bridges. That is what I'm saying. We are not talking about extreme 
austerity. We are talking about a commonsense approach. And we do 
embrace that.

[[Page H4260]]

  But this notion of this huge expansion which doubles the national 
debt in 5 years and triples it in 10 years is, in fact, I believe, a 
prescription for disaster.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I would inquire of my friend if he has any speakers on 
his side.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Not at this time.
  Mr. DREIER. Would my friend like to yield me the balance of the time?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I will hold on just in case.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts reserves 
his time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm very happy to yield 2 
minutes to our friend from Stillwater, Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank Mr. Dreier, the gentleman from California, for 
yielding.
  It is clear and it is true for the American people we have a very 
clear choice. It could not be more crystal clear, the future that is 
being offered to the American people by the Democrats, the future, 
Madam Speaker, that is being offered by the Republicans. And it is 
illustrated by this chart. This is the future that the Democrats have 
planned for the next generation. And I would put one word out before 
this body and before the American people: it is the word 
``compassion.'' When we look at children and when we look at the next 
generation and we think of the word ``compassion,'' what does 
compassion have to do with children when we look at this? This is the 
future for our children? Debt levels that will be so high that we are 
literally on this floor forging shackles and chains for today's 5-year-
olds, 5-year-olds who, when they come into their peak earning years, 
would be paying tax rates of 65 percent; who, if they are a business 
owner, will be paying 85 percent; who, if they are at the lowest income 
strata, will be paying income tax rates of 25 percent.
  Who, Madam Speaker, would be getting out of bed in the morning to go 
and put their capital at risk and their lives at risk working 14 hours 
a day to pay this government 85 percent of their income? And that is 
before, Madam Speaker, this budget is put into effect. Or, Madam 
Speaker, I ask the question on compassion, on compassion for today's 5-
year-olds, is the budget alternative the Republicans are putting 
forward the more compassionate budget? Is this not, in fact, the budget 
that gives hope for America's 5-year-olds and opportunity for America's 
5-year-olds? Where they could, instead of paying a tax rate that would 
be 85 percent or 50 percent, see their tax rate, in fact, lowered, so 
the United States would no longer be the country of punishing debt 
burden but the country of opportunity for today's 5-year-olds.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentlelady talks about compassion. I 
don't see a lot of compassion in the Republican budget. In fact, I 
haven't seen a lot of compassion in the Republican policies over the 
last 8 years. We are living in a country where there are 36 million 
Americans who are hungry, millions of whom are children. Where is the 
compassion? Where is the response? We have kids going to schools that 
are falling apart, where the heat works in the summer but doesn't work 
in the winter. Where is the compassion to make sure that our kids get 
the education that they deserve? We have a world where the environment 
is becoming the key issue, the issue of global climate change. We are 
giving our kids that kind of world? Where is the compassion there? If 
you want compassion, it is in the Democratic budget, which is not only 
compassionate but is fiscally responsible and will give our kids the 
kind of future they deserve.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume to say that this is incredibly ironic. Again, we're here on 
April Fool's Day, and I wondered if the statement that was just 
propounded by my friend was, in fact, an April Fool's statement.
  He continues to use the line, ``We're tired of the same old same 
old.'' Well, the arguments that I just heard from my friend are the 
quintessential same old same old: Republicans don't care about 
children, about senior citizens, about the homeless. That is absolutely 
preposterous. We care, and we truly are compassionate because we want 
to ensure every American opportunity, and those who are hurt the most, 
those who can't take care of themselves, we clearly want to do 
everything that we possibly can to assist them. And to argue to the 
contrary is the standard class warfare, ``us versus them'' argument 
which is the epitome of same old same old.
  And with that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my 
good friend from Cherryville, North Carolina, Mr. McHenry.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking Republican on the 
Rules Committee for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this fundamentally 
flawed Democrat budget, which taxes too much, spends too much, borrows 
too much. And we simply cannot tax, spend and borrow our way back to 
prosperity.
  This budget raises taxes at an unprecedented level, and it raises 
taxes to the tune of $1.4 trillion, the largest tax increase in 
American history. It raises taxes, which we all know, we all know that 
raising taxes will only deepen and prolong this recession and hurt 
economic growth and growth of jobs.
  This budget compiles a national debt larger than the total amount of 
debt accumulated by the Federal Government from 1789 until just this 
year. It will take generations to pay off this debt, and it will 
require even bigger tax increases in the near future to pay off this 
debt. And no Democrat has yet explained what happens when China stops 
bankrolling our debt or, worse, calls in the loans.
  This is an unfortunate plan, and it's the wrong direction for 
America. We must cut, save and incentivize our way to economic growth. 
That is the way we create jobs. That's the way we get ourselves out of 
this recession. That's the way that American families can grow and 
prosper.
  We must provide tax relief to help working families and small 
businesses create jobs. That's the way it occurs. That's the way it 
should be. And that's what our Republican budget alternative will do. 
Economic growth, not government spending, will restore prosperity for 
all Americans.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman who 
just spoke that we've tried it his way and his way failed. Our economy 
is in the worst shape it has been in my lifetime, probably in the worst 
shape since the Great Depression. The policies that they have pursued 
for the last 8 years have failed. The American people, in the election 
in November, made it very clear they want to move in a different 
direction.
  The budget that we are presenting here today, that the Democrats are 
proudly presenting here today, not only turns the page, but writes a 
whole new book on the way this country should move forward. We're going 
to tackle the big problems of global warming and of health care. We're 
going to deal with health care once and for all, and not only in a way 
that provides people with the quality care that they deserve and they 
are entitled to, but also helps control costs. We have ignored these 
big problems for far too long.
  So I stand before you again, Madam Speaker, proud to say that the 
Democratic budget, the budget that has been inspired by President 
Obama, is the right budget for this country. And there is a clear 
choice. I mean, I think we could agree on one thing, that there is a 
very clear choice. We can either go the way the Republicans want us to 
go or the way the Democrats want us to go. And I think we have tried 
the Republican way, and it has failed.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of my friend if he has any 
other speakers at all.
  Mr. McGOVERN. No, I'm it.
  Mr. DREIER. If not, I'm prepared to close if the gentleman will be 
the closing speaker after I speak then.
  Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I will 
say that if my friend would like to interject any points during my 
remarks, I certainly would be more than happy to yield to him if he'd 
like to ask me any questions as I proceed.
  As I look at last fall's election, the mantra, ``A change we can 
believe in'' was something that got a great deal of

[[Page H4261]]

attention. Well, Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend, I encourage 
him to change the talking points that he has provided because they are, 
in fact, the same tired old talking points that we've received for 
many, many, many years. Blame the Republicans for whatever difficulty 
we face. Don't work together in a bipartisan way for a constructive 
solution, which is exactly what we want to do.
  I agree with my friend that we need to grow the economy to bring the 
debt down. We have this area of agreement. We all talk about and decry 
deficit spending, and we want to pursue this quest of trying to 
diminish that debt burden imposed on future generations. The question 
is, how do we do it?
  Well, I'll tell you what the rest of the world has learned and what 
the United States of America has learned. What we have learned is that 
increasing taxes and spending and the reach of the Federal Government 
does not grow the economy. So if we can work together in a bipartisan 
way to do what my friend says we want to accomplish, and that is, 
growing the economy, so that we can reduce the debt, then let's 
recognize what it is that works.
  And I think it's also important to note that, as my friend continues 
to point the finger at President Bush, he left office in January, I 
will say. And it's also important to remember that my friend and his 
colleagues have been in charge of taxing and spending for over 2 years 
now since they have had the majority. And so I think that it's a bit of 
a stretch for us to continue down this road of class warfare, us versus 
them, saying that Republicans don't care. It is crazy.
  We know that the budget that's before us, as we've all been saying, 
taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much. And we know 
that, as the rest of the world has found, that it is a prescription for 
disaster.
  Now, I hesitate, but I am going to proceed with quoting the President 
of the Czech Republic, Mr. Topolanek, who made it very clear, from the 
experience that they've had with the expansion and the reach of 
government, that he does not believe that that is, in fact, the answer 
for the future.
  I met a year ago, a little over a year ago with the President of 
Peru, who had been President in the 1980s in Peru. And he embraced the 
very, very hard-left, Big Government policies. He's President today, 
and he said that the worst 5 years in modern Peruvian history were when 
he was President in the 1980s. He learned from that experience that 
dramatically increasing the size and scope and reach of government, 
increasing the tax and excessive regulatory burden has failed. The rest 
of the world has learned that it has failed.
  And now, for this new majority to try and bring about a complete 
transformation of government with this budget that does, in fact, 
double the national debt in 5 years, and triple the national debt over 
the next 10 years, is a prescription for failure.
  We have come forward, Madam Speaker, with a very positive, pro-growth 
budget. We focus on growing the economy, number one, and realizing 
that, as my friend has said, growing the economy can help bring the 
debt down. But we also know that one of the other ways to grow the 
economy is to diminish the reach of government.
  And so we, over the next 2 days, are going to have a very clear 
choice that is put before us, as Members, and the American people. And 
I believe that an overwhelming majority of Democrats, Republicans and 
Independents in the United States of America believe that a dramatic 
expansion of government is not the answer, and allowing people to keep 
more of their own hard-earned dollars is, in fact, a better 
prescription to do what we all want to do, and that is to get our 
economy back on track.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me reiterate that we find ourselves 
in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We find 
ourselves in this position in large part because of the very reckless 
policies of the last 8 years, policies that have been championed by 
President Bush and by the Republicans when they were in the majority.
  And I want to commend the Republicans for actually introducing a 
budget alternative to the Rules Committee because, up until just today, 
what they handed out was a brochure with not a lot of numbers in it, a 
lot of criticism of Democrats. But I look forward to----
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that that 
outline that my friend has is very similar to the package that was 
presented by the President. And if you look at Page 3 of the Democratic 
budget that we had last week, it did not have any numbers on it either. 
This budget proposal was submitted at 10 this morning. It does, in 
fact, have these numbers.
  And I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, what they did last week was produce 
a document that was basically a political piece that had no numbers in 
it and was basically an attack on the President and on the Democratic 
budget.
  Now, we have been able to take a cursory look at some of the things 
that are in the Republican budget alternative, and if you would note--
--
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield very briefly for a question?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman for a question.
  Mr. DREIER. Is the gentleman trying to argue that we have not 
submitted a budget with real alternatives and simply provided a 
political statement?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am saying that I am glad that the gentleman, the 
Republicans have submitted a budget to the Rules Committee today----
  Mr. DREIER. Good. Thank you.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Because up until today we had a political brochure.
  But anyway, a cursory look at what they presented, there are some 
substantial cuts in some very essential programs. They're talking about 
a $38.5 billion cut in agriculture. Well, what are they going to cut? 
Are they going to cut food stamps and nutrition programs to people who 
are suffering and struggling during these terrible economic times?
  A $22.7 billion cut to education and labor. Are they going to cut 
schools more? Are we going to cut money for special education?
  I mean, there are some significant programs that will have to be cut 
as a result of what they're proposing.
  Energy and Commerce, a $666.1 billion cut. What are they going to 
cut, Medicare and Medicaid?
  Billions of dollars in Financial Services. Where are the cuts going 
to come from? Housing for low-income people? Is that the idea of what a 
compassionate budget is about?
  Ways and Means, billions and billions of dollars of cuts for the Ways 
and Means Committee, again, going into Medicare, you know, programs 
that help vulnerable senior citizens.
  Madam Speaker, I think people are tired of the same old same old. And 
let me tell you what the old way was. The old way was to ignore health 
care. That's why we have such a mess with health care today.
  The old way was to ignore education. That's why we have so many 
schools that are crumbling. That's why we're understaffed in terms of 
our teachers. That's why schools don't have the technology that they 
all should have.
  The old way is to give tax breaks to millionaires. The old way was to 
continue to rely on foreign oil.
  The budget that the Democrats are proudly presenting today puts us in 
a very new direction, in a direction that I think the American people 
are excited about. That is what this last election was about.
  People will have their opportunity to vote for the Republican budget 
or the Democratic budget, whatever they want to do. But please know one 
thing. What they are proposing is what they have been proposing 
consistently for as long as I have been here.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a quick 
question?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  When my friend began discussing the issue of agriculture spending 
cuts, I was struck. I was just provided a document here which shows 
that actually there are $2 billion in greater cuts in agriculture 
spending in the budget that my friend has propounded than in ours. And 
I wonder if those cuts are in food stamps, this is in budget outlays, 
if those cuts are in food stamps or other nutritional programs that my 
friend

[[Page H4262]]

has said himself. And I thank my friend for yielding.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. McGOVERN. Our budget actually goes after subsidies for wealthy 
farmers, but it does not go after food stamps for the vulnerable.
  The Republican budget that has been proposed makes dramatic cuts in 
some of the most essential and valuable programs that serve the most 
vulnerable people in our country.
  Mr. DREIER. Where in our budget does it say we are going after food 
stamps?
  Mr. McGOVERN. We are faced with the worst economic crisis since the 
Great Depression, and what they propose is the same old same old. 
Enough. Enough.
  Mr. DREIER. Will my friend yield for just one second?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the Democratic budget moves us in a 
different direction, in one that, I think, the American people want us 
to move.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________