[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11427-11434]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 370

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
     Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 
     2009

[[Page 11428]]

     through 2012. The concurrent resolution shall be considered 
     as read. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 99, as 
     adopted by the House, shall be considered as adopted. All 
     points of order against the concurrent resolution, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution, as 
     amended, to final adoption without intervening motion or 
     demand for division of the question. If the Senate concurrent 
     resolution, as amended, is adopted, then it shall be in order 
     to move that the House insist on its amendment to the 
     concurrent resolution and request a conference with the 
     Senate thereon. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on that motion to adoption without intervening 
     motion.

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

                              {time}  1600

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

[[Page 11429]]

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

                              {time}  1615

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

[[Page 11430]]

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

[[Page 11431]]

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

                              {time}  1630

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

[[Page 11432]]

prosperity to America. It will give jobs to other countries. Doing 
nothing to attack the entitlement problem in this country will only 
ensure that an unprecedented mountain of debt is befallen onto our 
children and our grandchildren, and they are going to have to pay far 
higher taxes than any American has ever paid in the past.
  This, Mr. Speaker, is why I say vote against this rule and vote 
against this budget resolution, which includes and relies on the 
largest tax increase in American history and the biggest missed 
opportunity by doing nothing to reform entitlements over the next 5 
years.
  This could have been a bipartisan opportunity to fix these problems. 
Sadly, it's not.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just because my colleagues on the 
Republican side say that the Democratic budget raises taxes doesn't 
mean it's true. Let me repeat that so no one misses this point. The 
budget resolution that we are talking about does not contain a single 
tax increase. That is a fact. Sometimes facts are a stubborn thing, but 
that is the fact. And the Republican spin machine can say whatever it 
wants; but the fact of the matter is, and I repeat, this budget 
resolution does not increase any taxes.
  Secondly, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Texas was 
waxing nostalgic about the Clinton years when President Bill Clinton 
was the President of the United States and we were getting our fiscal 
house in order. But what I was talking about was what happened when 
President Bush became President and we had Republicans in the White 
House and in the Congress, and that is when we saw the skyrocketing of 
our Federal debt.
  You know, budgets do reflect the priorities of a nation. And one of 
the reasons that I think people decided to vote for change in the last 
election is because they did not appreciate the priorities that were 
put forth by the previous Republican Congresses. They did not 
appreciate our veterans being shortchanged; they did not appreciate the 
most vulnerable in our country being shortchanged. If anyone has any 
questions about whether or not we were adequately funding veterans 
health, just recall the recent scandals of Walter Reed and at so many 
other of our veteran hospitals all across the country. You know, we 
voted in this Congress to send our young men and women into war. The 
least we can do is to make sure that the necessary funding is there to 
take care of them when they return, and the Democratic budget does 
that.
  Let me also say for the record, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding all 
of the flowery language that we've heard from the other side, it is 
important to remember that in the last 6 years poverty has gotten worse 
in America. There are more people today than 6 years ago that need to 
rely on food stamps and other government programs just to get by.
  So these fiscal policies that have resulted in skyrocketing debt, 
that have resulted in foreign countries like China purchasing our debt, 
I don't know how that serves our national interest, have not produced 
this incredible economic boom that we're hearing today. And I would 
encourage my colleagues to look at the statistics, to look at the 
facts, to talk to some of the people who have gone from being in the 
middle class, who have now fallen below the poverty line. There are far 
too many people that have done that, and what we are trying to do is to 
make sure that there is opportunity for everyone.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.
  Mr. SPRATT. I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
and I mean that compliment, I return the compliment, that I 
nevertheless vigorously disagree with some of the points you just made.
  Facts are stubborn things, and the fact of the matter is that during 
the Clinton years, on average 237,000 jobs were created every month 
over an 8-year period of time. The Bush record is half that amount, if 
that. During the past month, you're leading with your left making that 
point at this point in time because during the past month job growth 
was just 88,000 jobs.
  Secondly, with respect to Medicare, we know that Medicare has to be 
dealt with, but you know as well as I that this is not the forum. We 
need a much bigger group. We need the administration involved in the 
process. It is a very difficult undertaking to make the systemic 
changes that are necessary. And before we commence those negotiations, 
we need to do what President Clinton required in 1997, everybody needs 
to put some ante on the table. Everybody's got to have some skin in 
this game to be a player in this process of trying to diminish the cost 
of the health care entitlements to the United States. It has to be 
done, but this is not the correct forum for doing it.
  The gentleman's budget resolution, I believe, cuts Medicare by $250 
billion.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. No. It increased Medicare spending. It just 
didn't increase it as fast as it is projected to grow at this time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Well, the President's budget cut Medicare by $252 billion 
over a 10-year period of time and cut Medicaid by 50 to $60 billion 
over the same 10-year period of time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. SPRATT. Those numbers are correct, are they not?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The President's numbers on the 10-year? I 
think they are probably correct; I have no reason to dispute them. But 
remember, Medicare spending goes up every year and thereon after under 
either of these budgets.
  Mr. SPRATT. Well, I can only surmise what happened to your budget 
resolution. One reason it didn't muster, besides the fact that you lost 
40 votes, as you recall, is I am sure there are certain Republicans on 
your side of the aisle who did not want to vote for those massive cuts 
emasculating Medicare and Medicaid.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The question I have for the chairman is, if 
we're not going to fix these entitlements in the budget, then where are 
we going to fix them? If we don't put it in the Federal budget, then 
how do you get it done? If you don't have reconciliation protection to 
do entitlement reform, then when are you ever going to do it?
  The 1997 bill that President Clinton passed through on a bipartisan 
basis was reconciliation.
  Mr. SPRATT. If I could reclaim my time, it takes a bigger forum than 
the Budget Committee provides. It takes more participants than just the 
Congress. Everybody has got to be a player in this game to make it 
happen in a significant way because it has got to involve, as you and I 
know, systemic change. No question about it.
  And, finally, PAYGO. We are proud of the fact that we adopted the 
PAYGO rule in 1991, and it contributed significantly to the fact that 
over a period of 8 years during the Clinton administration the bottom 
line of the budget got better every year for 8 straight years to the 
point where we had a surplus of $236 billion under the Clinton 
administration resulting in part from the Balanced Budget Act of 1993 
and 1997. $236 billion we handed over to President Bush. By the year 
2004, between 2001 and 2004, we went from a surplus of $236 billion to 
a deficit of $412 billion. That happened on your watch. The Republicans 
controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, they controlled the 
White House. There is no way you can escape responsibility for what 
happened in those circumstances.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the chairman yield for an additional 
question?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Why doesn't the gentleman's PAYGO apply to 
discretionary spending? Why doesn't the gentleman's PAYGO apply to 
current Federal spending?
  Mr. SPRATT. PAYGO is never applied to discretionary spending. It 
would be very difficult at this time to do it when every year we have 
an end run around discretionary budget with

[[Page 11433]]

the President's supplementals for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be 
very difficult to cap discretionary.
  Your party, on its watch, allowed PAYGO discretionary spending caps, 
all of those constraints in 1990, to expire and did not renew them. The 
main reason you didn't was you knew if we had a double-edge PAYGO 
applicable to tax cuts as well as mandatory increases, you would be 
unable to pass additional tax cuts as part of your agenda.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I make an entreaty to the chairman?
  Mr. SPRATT. Yes, sir.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would love to work on a bipartisan basis to 
put discretionary caps in place. I would be delighted to work with the 
chairman of the Budget Committee to put discretionary spending caps in 
place. Is that something that you would be willing to work with us on?
  Mr. SPRATT. We'll talk about it. If we've got a forum, the Budget 
Committee, once we've got this budget resolution behind us, and that is 
the order of the day, there are lots of things along those lines that 
we can explore, and we will.
  Let me conclude by saying everybody should vote for this budget 
resolution if they want to see an orderly, fiscally responsible, 
disciplined process in the next fiscal year.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a second and 
highlight the admiration that this House has for the two gentlemen who 
have just been speaking. The gentleman, Mr. Spratt, and the gentleman, 
Mr. Ryan, have conducted themselves despite tough differences, and I 
applaud both of them, in particular my good friend from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for the conduct that he has on this floor.
  Now back to the real issues.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the Republican minority is here on 
the floor of the House today opposing this bill. We are opposing this 
resolution because we do not believe that this properly talks about the 
future of this country for entitlement spending, raising taxes and not 
being responsible for the future opportunity for America to compete.
  So we, once again, continue our opposition to the process that is 
happening today, as well as the underlying legislation.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to this 
underlying resolution.
  I have listened to my chairman carefully, the gentleman from South 
Carolina, and I wish to add my respect along with that of the 
gentleman, ranking member from Wisconsin. He conducts our committee in 
a very fair-minded manner, and I appreciate and respect him for that. 
And I take him at his word when he says that he believes that he is 
putting forth on this floor a fiscally responsible budget. But, Mr. 
Speaker, there is a distinct difference in our philosophies. How you 
look the American people in the eye and impose upon them the single 
largest tax increase in American history and call that fiscally 
responsible is simply beyond me. Our chairman has a different 
definition.
  Now, I believe that what we need to do is try to help protect the 
family budget from the Federal budget. Already, Mr. Speaker, we are 
awash in Federal tax revenues. And we've heard the gentleman from South 
Carolina and many other people from this side of the aisle extol the 
virtues of their balanced budget. Okay. If they have a balanced budget, 
did they cut spending to get there? No. There is only one other option, 
and that is that they increase taxes.
  And don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Go, for example, to the 
Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought in our 
Nation. They have said that the only way the Democrat budget will 
achieve balance is they assume the tax relief goes away, and thus it 
imposes the single largest tax increase in American history.
  Now, I have heard our chairman and other people from this side of the 
aisle, different colleagues get up and say, well, we're not really 
raising taxes on the American people, we're just letting the tax relief 
expire.

                              {time}  1645

  But if you make the same paycheck last year that you made this year 
and your tax bill is higher, that is going to be a distinction that is 
lost on the American people.
  Is it letting tax relief expire if it is a tax increase? I have to 
tell you, if the people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas 
have to pay a larger tax bill, they call it a tax increase, and the 
sooner that we in this body recognize that fact, the better off America 
will be. Under the Democrat's budget resolution, the average family, 
the average family in Texas will have a $2,700 a year tax increased 
phased in over 5 years.
  Something else we need to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that every time 
you are taking money away from the American family to plus-up some 
Federal budget category, you are having to subtract from some family 
budget category; $2,700 a year is a lot of money to Texas families. How 
many families can no longer send a child to college because of the 
single largest tax increase in American history that the Democrats are 
trying to impose upon us? How many American families will not be able 
to find their American dream, to put together their savings and invest 
in that first small business because the Democrats are imposing the 
single largest tax increase in American history? How many families will 
no longer be able to afford their healthcare premiums because the 
Democrats are imposing the single largest tax increase in American 
history? $2,700 a year.
  First, the working poor under this plan would have their taxes 
increased 50 percent, from the 10 percent bracket to the 15 percent 
bracket. The child tax credit would be cut in half. The death tax would 
come up to where Uncle Sam could take as much as 55 percent of your 
estate.
  Mr. Speaker, as bad as this budget is for what it does, it is even 
worse for what it doesn't do, because I know the chairman presided over 
the hearings that I attended with the Federal Reserve Chairman, with 
the head of OMB, with the Secretary of the Treasury, with CBO, who all 
said the same thing: The single largest fiscal challenge in this Nation 
is out of control entitlement spending, and this budget is stone-cold 
silent on that number one challenge.
  As bad as the tax imposition is going to be on this generation, if we 
don't act, if we kick the can down the road, if we avoid leadership, 
the next generation will see their taxes double. There is nothing 
fiscally responsible about doubling taxes on the next generation, 
nothing fiscally responsible about taking their dreams away.
  Mr. Speaker, we must defeat this rule and defeat this budget. Again, 
Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why you would avoid dealing with the 
number one fiscal challenge in the Nation.
  I know the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, said this 
isn't the place to do it. Well, I will ask a question that was asked by 
a very famous President: If not us, who? If not now, when?
  I am curious as to what advantage we have by somehow kicking this can 
down the road to some other body or to some other bill or to some other 
institution. At least in the last two Republican Congresses, we had two 
budgets in a row from the House, from the House, that actually made 
steps toward reforming entitlement spending.
  Now, it is a huge challenge, I admit, but every year we avoid it. In 
Social Security alone, we run up an extra $400 billion of debt, of 
unfunded obligations to pass on to the next generation. And yet the 
Democrats turn their back on this once again. That is another reason to 
defeat this.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat for the record that 
section 401 of the budget resolution commits the budget to support the 
middle-class income tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003,

[[Page 11434]]

including the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent 
individual income tax bracket, estate tax reform, research and 
development tax credit, and the deduction of State and local sales 
taxes.
  Section 203 of the budget resolution clearly provides a reserve fund 
for the extension of those tax cuts so long as the legislation complies 
with the House pay-as-you-go rule.
  I would simply say to my colleagues that under their watch, that many 
middle-class taxpayers actually saw their taxes go up, because when the 
Federal Government cut essential programs to States and cities and 
towns, people saw their property taxes go through the roof.
  I think one can make an argument that people are paying far too high 
gas prices right now because of the years that were squandered under 
the Republican leadership, emboldened to the oil industry and refusing 
to invest adequately in alternative sources of energy.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that this is a good budget, and I 
would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule 
and support the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to this bill. The first 
thing this is going to do is provide for higher taxes, $392 billion 
worth of new taxes between now and 2012. Secondly, this budget 
outspends inflation. It outspends inflation moving forward that will 
increase higher than the average of 2.4 percent. It is reckless 
entitlement spending increases. It is either empty promises or tax 
increases that they have.
  Mr. Speaker, lastly, it is very obvious that there is no entitlement 
reform that will take place. They had a 5-year budget to do it. They 
had 5 years to look out and say, we are going to match our Republican 
colleagues. It is now our chance, because the Republicans tried and got 
no support from the Democrats for the last 12 years to make sure we 
could do entitlement reform. Now it is their turn. Nothing. Nada. They 
are ignoring the future. This is a bad precedent.
  We know that the Democratic party is about taxing and spending. It is 
obvious. It is there today. We will let them vote for the tax 
increases. We will continue on the Republican side to make sure that we 
are for growing the economy and cutting taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just say that I think 
there is a reason why the Republicans lost the last election, and that 
is that the people of this country were fed up with their priorities. 
They were tired of budget resolution after budget resolution that 
shortchanged our veterans, that shortchanged our schools, that 
shortchanged our environment, that shortchanged our senior citizens, 
that shortchanged health care.
  As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are more people in 
poverty today than 6 years ago. There are more people who are food 
insecure today than 6 years ago. That is not a record of accomplishment 
that I would want to brag about on the House floor.
  The budget that Mr. Spratt has brought before us achieves key 
objectives in six areas. It is fiscal responsibility, defending our 
Nation, putting our children and families first, growing our economy, 
preserving our planet, and promoting an accountable and efficient 
government.
  Mr. Speaker, we have inherited this incredible budget deficit and 
this debt from the previous majority. It is not easy to try to clean up 
this mess, but that is what the underlying budget before us tries to 
do.
  I would urge all my colleagues to vote for it. It is the right thing 
to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________