[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13122-13135]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. CON. RES. 21, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 
                      BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 409, I call up 
the conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
21) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
Government for fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary 
levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). Pursuant to House Resolution 
409, the conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
May 16, 2007, at page 12655.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This budget resolution which we present today did not come easily. It 
comes from months of hard work, hearings, and negotiations. The end 
product is a good budget, not perfect, I will admit. Not complete but 
worthy of support. Indeed, it requires our support if we do not want 
the process to fail again, as it did last year when no concurrent 
resolution was passed and only two of 11 appropriation bills were 
enacted.
  This budget moves us to balance over the next 5 years. Along the way, 
it posts smaller deficits than the President's budget. It adheres to 
the pay-as-you-go principle and contains no new mandatory spending that 
is not paid for, and it funds ``program integrity initiatives'' to root 
out wasteful spending, fraud, and tax evasion.
  Within this framework, our budget does more for veterans' health 
care, more for children's health care, and more for education. Here in 
a nutshell are the basics of this budget:
  This budget comes to balance in 5 years and runs a surplus of $41 
billion in the year 2012. Contrast that with the President's budget, 
which remains always in deficit. This budget allocates $954 billion to 
discretionary spending, or about $75 billion more than this year, of 
which about $50 billion is for national defense. This total includes 
$450 billion for nondefense discretionary, or about $23 billion more 
than this year.
  This budget not only abides by the PAYGO principles, it extends them, 
establishing a Senate PAYGO rule and calling for statutory PAYGO as 
well.
  The concurrent resolution before us, like the House resolution, sets 
defense spending at levels the President requested, though it targets 
resources to the troops and conventional forces. It provides more for 
homeland security than the administration requested, and it funds the 
recommendations of the
9/11 Commission. So it is strong on defense, internal and external.
  This budget does all of the above, and I would emphasize this, it 
does all of the above without raising taxes. The tax cuts enacted in 
2001 and 2003 all remain in force, unaffected in any way by this 
resolution. As originally written and enacted, most of the tax cuts 
expire on December 31, 2010. In our budget resolution, we separated out 
the

[[Page 13123]]

middle income tax cuts and made it the policy of our resolution to 
extend those tax cuts when they expire.

                              {time}  1415

  In this concurrent resolution, we go even further. We install a 
trigger that facilitates the extension of these tax cuts so long as the 
House waives its PAYGO rule and so long as the tax cuts extended do not 
exceed 80 percent of the surplus projected by OMB for the year 2012.
  This budget's basic objective is to get back to balance. That is the 
bottom line. In such a budget, we can't have everything we want, but we 
do believe that some promises should be kept above all others, for 
example, the promises we've made to our veterans. This resolution 
increases funding for veterans health care in 2008 by $6.7 billion, 
18.3 percent above the current year.
  We also do not believe that children's health care and education 
should be sidetracked while we seek to work out ways to balance the 
budget. This budget accommodates an increase of $50 billion to expand 
the Childrens Health Insurance Program, so-called SCHIP, and cover 
millions of uninsured children. This budget also provides $4.6 billion 
over current services for education, job training and employment 
services. That includes more money for No Child Left Behind, for 
special education and student loans.
  Lacking any other arguments, our friends from across the aisle, our 
Republican adversaries, will claim that this budget resolution raises 
taxes, as they have repeatedly and wrongly. Let me answer that claim 
emphatically. This budget does not raise taxes by one penny. Period. 
Not by one penny.
  On the contrary, the 2008 budget resolution accommodates the 
extension of the middle income tax cuts, pays for a 1-year patch to 
prevent the AMT from coming down on middle income taxpayers, and calls 
for reform of the AMT, consistent with PAYGO principles, to save middle 
income taxpayers from this stealthy tax.
  This budget is fiscally sound, a solid framework, is balanced from 
the top line to the bottom, and I urge support for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to start off by congratulating Chairman Spratt and the 
majority staff on the Budget Committee for reaching this point in the 
budget process. This is not easy. And they are to be commended for 
getting the budget up to this point.
  I have long believed that the budget resolution is an important 
statement of congressional policy and a critical act of governing. So 
in a sense, I am glad to see this conference report here today. And the 
gentleman from South Carolina deserves credit for that.
  That said, the choices in this budget, or some would argue, the 
complete lack thereof, represents an enormous missed opportunity, an 
enormous missed bipartisan opportunity.
  The Democrats' fiscal year 2008 budget sets off a vicious cycle, Mr. 
Speaker. Higher taxes fuel higher spending and greater spending demand. 
In order to meet this appetite for greater spending, we are going to 
have to raise taxes again and again and again. Let's take a look at how 
this will work.
  First, the linchpin of this budget, and numbers do not lie, check 
with the Congressional Budget Office, its only one binding fiscal 
policy is the same one that Democrats have been bringing to the floor 
time and again, ``raise taxes.'' This budget will raise taxes on the 
American economy and American workers by at least $217 billion. That is 
the second largest tax increase in American history. And to be clear, 
their $217 billion tax increase is just an opening bid. It will last 
only until the majority can raise the ante.
  As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the House Democrats wanted and 
included in their budget a $400 billion tax increase. That would have 
been the largest in history. But the Senate made it clear by a vote of 
97-1 that they would not accept the House's number. So from this 
conference report, it would initially appear that the House Democrats 
receded to the Senate's smaller tax number, the smaller tax increase, 
that's according to the CBO, that is, until you take a closer look at 
some of the procedures and gimmicks included in this report.
  First let's look at the trigger. There is this so-called tax trigger. 
In short, this trigger will provide the majority with an immense 
loophole allowing them to renege on their promise to protect certain 
high-profile tax benefits, and they can do it without leaving any 
fingerprints because it would all be automatic. All the Democrats have 
to do, believe it or not, is spend too much money, and that will set 
off the trigger and raise those taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, they are saying in this budget they want to extend 
marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit and the 10 percent 
bracket. But if they spend too much money, guess what happens 
automatically? Those tax cuts go away.
  Then there is the $190 billion worth of unfunded spending increases 
promised in this budget's 23 reserve funds. If they actually deliver on 
these promised 23 wish list reserve funds, that's another tax hike.
  Mr. Speaker, even their version of PAYGO, which they touted as proof 
of their commitment to fiscal discipline, is just a means to make it 
easier to raise taxes. What happens if they raise mandatory spending, 
Mr. Speaker? You guessed it. They have to raise taxes to pay for it.
  So again, this $217 billion tax hike is just the starting bid. You 
can expect them to draw from that well again and again and again. Why 
is this a problem? Why do we have this huge difference of opinion, 
difference in philosophy of ideology of economic doctrines? Because the 
enormous tax increases will threaten the economic and fiscal progress 
our Nation has made these past several years.
  As I have said many times before, the tax decreases, the tax cuts we 
passed in 2001 and 2003 have turned this economy around, it brought us 
out of recession. It improved job growth, GDP growth. It lowered the 
unemployment rate. Business investment and the entire market rebounded. 
And all that growth has led to surging revenues coming into the Federal 
Treasury. Three years of double digit revenue growth at these lower tax 
rates. The tax hikes contained in this budget threaten to reverse all 
of this.
  And think of the impact this tax hike will have on the small 
businesses that it hits. Our small businesses, who are already paying 
the second highest tax burden in the industrialized world, will be told 
that they are just not paying enough. In this increasingly global 
economy, where these companies are struggling to compete with China and 
India, imposing an even larger tax burden will be crushing. It will 
severely threaten our ability to compete, and let alone lead, in the 
global economy.
  So what will taxpayers get in return for sending Congress ever higher 
cuts of their paychecks? Better working, more efficient, less wasteful 
spending? No. The majority doesn't even pretend they are going to 
control spending.
  There is no control on the existing trajectory of spending we have in 
this budget. We are only 5 months into this Congress, and at every 
opportunity the new majority has chosen the path of higher spending. 
They increased discretionary spending by $6 billion in the omnibus, 
another $20 billion or so of extraneous spending in the supplemental, 
and now they're increasing nondefense discretionary appropriations next 
year by another $23 billion.
  For all we've heard about how the Democrats had to clean up the mess 
the Republicans gave them, their only response to this seems to be 
spend more and tax more. This formula has never worked for getting 
control of the budget in the past, and it won't work now. It's also the 
reverse of what's going on in the rest of the world. Across Europe, 
governments are moving away from their welfare state, big government 
tax policies and toward more market-oriented policies. For instance, 
the latest, most clear example. But here in the States, where we should 
be leading the tide toward free

[[Page 13124]]

markets, Democrats are taking us in the other direction.
  Finally, I think the biggest failure of this budget is not what it 
does do, it's what it doesn't do. This budget does nothing to reform 
entitlement programs, to extend their solvency. We had a parade of 
witnesses from the left and from the right, Democrat witnesses, 
Republican witnesses, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the OMB 
Director, the CBO Director, all come to us and say, you've got to get a 
handle on entitlements. You have to reform the entitlement programs to 
make them more solvent, to stop this enormous unfunded liability that 
is hitting American taxpayers.
  Even with the Democrats' $400 billion tax increase, they had in the 
House-passed version, that would quickly outpace revenues, entitlements 
would swamp us.
  So Mr. Speaker, even if we hit a temporary balanced budget, as this 
might achieve, it will be temporary because you can't raise taxes 
enough again and again to outpace the trajectory of entitlement 
spending growth. We will go back into deficits because this budget does 
nothing to control spending.
  So why have the Democrats failed to even address this dire situation? 
Because as Senate Budget Chairman Senator Conrad told 60 Minutes, 
``It's always easier not to. It's always easier to defer, to kick the 
can down the road, to avoid making choices.'' ``You know, you get into 
trouble in politics when you make choices.'' I appreciate that 
sentiment, but we all know that is not what budgeting is about. 
Budgeting is about making choices even when they're tough, even when 
they are not politically popular because that is what we came here to 
do.
  In closing, I believe this budget fails to make any real choices, let 
alone the right ones. It will impose on American families and 
businesses at least the second largest tax increase in American 
history, if not the largest, add immense new government spending, and 
put off critical entitlement reforms for at least another 5 years. Our 
House Republican budget proved we can balance the budget without 
raising taxes and stop the rate on Social Security.
  It is my genuine hope that the House will vote today to change this 
dangerous course and send the Democrat budget back to the drawing 
board.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the majority leader, let 
me set the record straight with respect to revenue flows.
  If you look in the Congressional Budget Office projections of 
revenues in the budget, you will see that for the period 2008 through 
2012, cumulative revenues are projected to be $15.3 trillion. If you 
subtract 176 for that to account for the agreement we've made with the 
Senate, which will facilitate the adoption and extension of the middle 
income tax cuts adopted between 2001 and 2003, then our number for 
total revenues, according to CBO is $14.828 trillion. The President's 
budget, total revenues are $14.826 trillion. We are $14.828 trillion, 
the President is $14.826 trillion; $2 billion difference. This is the 
biggest tax increase in history? Give me a break.
  And how about the Republican's own revenue stream. You start from the 
same baseline. They have to use CBO numbers too. $15.3 trillion. Deduct 
from that $447 billion, which they have in tax cuts during that period 
of time, the baseline number for them becomes $14.556 trillion. That is 
a difference of $272 billion over 5 years, less than $50 billion a year 
over that period of time. This is absurd. This has gone on and on and 
on, as the speeches claim, and we will refute it every time it's raised 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the 
distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  As my friend from Wisconsin has heard me say so often, I am at once 
amused, and at the same time deeply disappointed because I have watched 
an unending series of young, earnest, very bright Republican leaders 
stand on this floor or stand in the OMB or in the White House, led by 
David Stockman, and then John Kasich, then Jim Nussle, and now Paul 
Ryan, all very able representatives who served in this body, who come 
before us and assert, with a certitude that is unflappable, that they 
have the answer to bringing economic well-being to America.
  During that 26 years that I have observed those serious, I believe, 
conscientious young men make that representation, without fail they 
have presented budgets that have put this country, without exception, 
every year of their budgets $4.1 trillion further in debt. And then 
they said in 1993, when we adopted an economic program sent down by 
President Clinton, ``this is going to destroy our country.'' They 
called it the largest tax increase in history. They were, of course, 
not telling the truth. That was not the fact.
  In fact, the largest tax increase that has occurred in this country 
since I have been in Congress, in terms of real dollars, was the Dole-
Reagan tax increase in the early 1980s.
  So I come before this House to say I hope the American people will 
understand that the representation we have just heard has been made 
over and over and over again. And the results of the policies promoted 
by that rhetoric have been unending and inevitable large deficits. In 
fact, of course, the revenues are substantially below, as the gentleman 
knows, the projections that were made.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, today the Members of this House can proudly vote for a 
budget conference report that addresses our Nation's critical needs on 
national security, education, health care, the environment and many 
other areas, while also making a 180-degree turn away from the most 
reckless fiscal policies in the history of our Nation.
  My young friend from Wisconsin knows well that spending over the last 
6 years was twice the rate of spending in terms of percentage increase 
under the Clinton years. Twice. Of course, the Republicans controlled 
the House, the Senate and the presidency, and spending was at twice the 
rate of growth that it was during the Clinton years.
  I urge every Member of this House, on both sides of the aisle, to 
vote for this responsible Democratic budget conference report. It will 
be a change from the past, because we will adopt a budget, and I say 
you are probably even going to adopt appropriations bills, unlike last 
year.
  First and foremost, this Democratic budget provides robust defense 
spending levels, because our national security is our highest priority. 
This budget provides more homeland security funding than the Bush 
administration requested. It funds the 9/11 Commission recommendations, 
and it increases funding for veterans health care and services by $6.7 
billion.
  We talk about supporting our troops. If we support our troops, we 
need to honor our veterans, and we need to honor our veterans with more 
than just talk. We need to make sure that their health care is 
provided. This budget does that. In fact, this budget is $3.6 billion 
more than the President requested. Of course, he requested that before 
Walter Reed, before the long lines, before the American public was 
aware of how underfunded veterans health care is.
  Furthermore, after 6 years of fiscal irresponsibility, this budget 
will bring our budget back into balance in 2012. President Reagan, 
President Bush I and the 7 years of Bush II, never one balanced budget 
year in those 19 years. During the Clinton administration, 4, half of 
the budget years had surpluses.
  Now, the great falsehood, the great deceit, the great 
misrepresentation perpetrated by many of our friends on the other side 
of the aisle is that the budget somehow raises taxes. That is simply 
and absolutely untrue.
  Now, the Republicans pride themselves on not raising taxes. They 
simply borrow money from the Chinese, the Japanese, the Saudis, the 
Germans. In fact, they borrowed over $1.2 trillion over the last 6\1/2\ 
years to fund their spending increases.
  It is somewhat humorous, I think, that our Republican friends are 
claiming that this budget raises taxes by failing to extend cuts that 
the Republicans themselves designed to expire in

[[Page 13125]]

2010. By their logic, last year, when the Republicans still controlled 
both Chambers of this Congress and chose not to extend the taxes, in 
your budget proposal, remember that, my friends on the other side of 
the aisle, you did not suggest extending these tax cuts. It is 
ridiculous.
  Don't take it from me, just listen to the Hamilton Project at the 
Brookings Institution, which yesterday stated, ``The budget conference 
report would not raise taxes. If anything, the budget resolution 
assumes that Congress will cut taxes.''
  This is true. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the budget accommodates the 
extension of middle income tax cuts, as the chairman has said, and 
provides immediate relief for middle income taxpayers affected by the 
Alternative Minimum Tax. We want to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax. In 
fact we want to fix it by giving 81 million Americans a tax cut.
  In addition, this budget increases funding for Head Start, LIHEAP, 
accommodates a $50 billion increase to cover millions of uninsured 
children, and rejects the administration's harmful cuts to 
environmental programs.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, for our friends on the other side to complain 
that this budget provides for an increase in the debt ceiling strains 
credibility. The rule that is in this bill was in your budgets 
repeatedly.
  In just 6 years, this administration and Republican Congress turned a 
projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion into an over $3 trillion 
deficit, an $8.6 trillion turnaround to the red side of the budget on 
your watch when you controlled all of the levers of this House. And you 
raised the debt ceiling 4 years in a row.
  The new Democratic majorities in this Congress have inherited a 
fiscal debacle that today, through this conference report, we can begin 
to address and make right. This is a budget that we can be proud of, 
and it stands in stark contrast to the extraordinarily irresponsible 
policies of the last 6 years.
  I urge all of my colleagues, vote for fiscal responsibility and a 
brighter future for our children and for our country. Vote for this 
Democratic budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to yield to my friend from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification. I 
think the gentleman said that our budget did not extend the tax cuts. 
It did. In fact, it extended all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. I just 
wanted to state that for the record. That is all.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I don't have it in front 
of me, but what your budget did was you assumed that the tax cuts were 
going to be extended. You did not extend them in your budget legally, 
which you could have done under the rules. You claim you didn't do it 
initially because of the rules in the Senate. I think that is accurate.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Well, I can go back into that, but I think we 
have belabored the point.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his work, I thank 
him for yielding me the time, and I urge a yes vote on this 
responsible, effective budget for our country.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply 
to ask a rhetorical question, if the Democrats chose to extend some of 
the tax cuts in this budget and therefore not all of the others, how is 
this not a tax increase?
  If the Senate said that the Democrat House budget raised taxes and 
they didn't want to raise them as much and they forced the conference 
to negotiate to keep some of the tax cuts at bay, how is this not a tax 
increase? If they are saying they are preserving some of the tax cuts, 
then by definition they are raising the other taxes.
  You can't have it both ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a young, earnest, conscientious 
Republican leader, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the young ranking member for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, unlike the majority leader, protocol does not allow me 
unlimited time to rebut his numerous inaccuracies, but let me lay out 
this fact first: The Democratic budget that we will vote on this 
evening raises taxes. And if you don't believe it, just wait until your 
tax bill comes due in a couple of years when you are asked to pay more 
then than you are today. And you will be asked to pay the largest tax 
increase in American history.
  The marriage penalty will be back. The death tax, back. The bracket 
creep, back. Small businesses paying more than Fortune 100 companies. 
It will crimp the economy that is robust and strong and creating a 
record Dow as we speak.
  The majority leader said national security is their highest priority. 
If it is your highest and first priority, why are we now in May with 
troops running out of funds, running out of resources, and a President 
begging for a supplemental for men and women who are in harm's way, if 
national security is your highest priority?
  If you care to honor the veterans, then in addition to paying for 
veterans health care, in addition to dealing with veterans retirement, 
why are you not similarly honoring those veterans by reforming 
entitlements, so that when those young veterans come back, that every 
think tank in this town is in agreement that Social Security and 
Medicare will be bankrupt before those young veterans are eligible to 
receive those promised benefits, and you do nothing about it.
  Why don't you honor those young veterans, why don't you honor those 
future generations, those first year teachers, this spring's graduates 
from high schools and colleges, why don't you honor them by dealing 
with the crisis that our country faces in Social Security, Medicare and 
Medicaid consuming the Federal budget? It already makes up over half of 
Federal expenditures.
  This budget raises taxes, skyrockets the spending and does nothing to 
deal with the generational crisis we face in entitlements. I urge you 
to defeat this irresponsible document.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gene Green) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference 
committee report and thank both the chairman and the Budget Committee 
for their good work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report 
accompanying the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. This budget 
resolution represents a return to fiscal soundness for our country, 
which has operated without a budget resolution in 3 of the last 5 
years. This budget will help our country emerge from a sea of red ink 
and put us on a path toward a budget surplus in the next 5 years, with 
a $41 billion surplus projected for 2012.
  Key to the fiscal responsibility in this budget is the inclusion of 
critical budget enforcement provisions known as PAYGO. This budget 
extends to the Senate the PAYGO rules adopted earlier this year in the 
House, which ensure that any future tax cuts or increases in mandatory 
spending are offset elsewhere in the budget. This budget hews to that 
principle and does not include any new mandatory spending that is not 
offset.
  Mr. Speaker, I also applaud our House and Senate Budget Committee 
Chairmen for their attention to the domestic needs of this country and 
the resources this budget dedicates for health care programs and 
research that have suffered in previous budgets. The conference report 
provides a reserve fund of up to $50 billion for the reauthorization of 
the State Children's Health Insurance Program. As a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, which is working to reauthorize the 
SCHIP program, I want to make sure the program is available to the 6 
million American children who are currently eligible but not enrolled 
in the program. The reserve fund in this budget will allow us to expand 
the program for these children while also maintaining fiscal discipline 
under PAYGO.
  On the discretionary side, the budget resolution includes an 
additional $20 billion over last year's level for health programs. In 
years past, worthy health care programs like trauma systems funding, 
Emergency Medical Services for Children, Health Centers and NIH 
research funding have been forced to compete for funding that was not 
sufficient to meet our health care needs. This budget recognizes the 
importance of adequately funding domestic priorities

[[Page 13126]]

like health care and education programs that are true investments in 
our country's future.
  I thank our House conferees for their work on this budget resolution 
and congratulate them on this truly balanced budget, in terms of both 
the deficit and the needs of the American people.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, how remarkable and 
refreshing this budget is. Finally a budget that ends the Republican 
commitment to endless seas of red ink and deficit spending. Finally a 
budget that ends the Republicans' commitment to squandering the $5 
trillion that they inherited from the Clinton administration.
  But more remarkable about this budget is it takes us in a new 
direction. It takes us in a direction where once again we see ourselves 
as a country and a national government investing in young people in 
this country, investing in their education, investing in the effort to 
make college more affordable for families and students who have to 
borrow money. That is what this budget does.
  With a $9 billion increase over and above the President's budget, for 
the first time we are able to change the trendlines from reducing the 
expenditure on behalf of students with disabilities, on behalf of the 
elementary and secondary education of America's students, on behalf of 
job training. That is what this money does. This is an investment in 
the future of our young people. This is an investment in the 
elementary-secondary education system of young people in this country. 
This is an investment in reducing the cost of college.
  That is a markedly different direction than we have been going over 
the last 6 years, where we just headed headlong into seas of red ink, 
where it overwhelmed everything else the government was about to do, 
where it started taking its toll on the education budgets of this 
country, where we denied the opportunities for people to have an 
affordable student loan, where we now see in excess of a quarter of a 
million young people deciding they won't be able to borrow the money, 
they won't be able to pay it back, and so they have decided maybe they 
will have to postpone or defer a college education permanently.
  This budget also gives us the opportunity to address in a 
comprehensive fashion the reducing of the cost of college, to remake 
the student loan program, to get rid of these mindless, endless 
subsidies that the previous budgets have contained for the lenders, 
subsidies that fueled the corruption that we have seen in the program.
  This is a remarkably refreshing, exciting budget for this country, 
for its young people and for its future.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I 
thank him for his work on this budget.
  I rise in opposition to the second largest tax hike in American 
history. This agreement before us includes a tax hike of at least $217 
billion by fiscal year 2012. Worse yet, the budget includes a troubling 
tax hike trigger that would automatically raise taxes even higher if 
surpluses do not materialize due to unrestrained Federal spending, a 
habit I don't expect Congressional Democrats will break any time soon.
  This agreement also includes a reconciliation instruction for the 
Education and Labor Committee. I have supported reconciliation as a 
means to reduce the deficit in the past, in just the last Congress in 
fact. But clearly deficit reduction is not a priority in this budget. 
The fact that our committee is the only panel with this instruction 
reflects this. Instead, I am afraid this instruction might leave the 
door open for the majority to abuse the process in order to give 
Washington bureaucrats a greater stranglehold on student loans than 
ever before through a greater emphasis on the government-run direct 
loan program.
  Let me be clear: I stand ready to strengthen Federal student aid 
programs by promoting competition among and within the loan programs 
while providing additional funds for low income students to attend 
college. This is just what we did through reconciliation in the last 
Congress.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I won't stand idly by while the majority 
attempts to drive a stake through the heart of the market-based loan 
program. This would be terrible news for students and taxpayers alike, 
and I will do all I can to fight against it.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we have come together and 
finally agree on a fiscally responsible budget. And I am proud of the 
work that we have done to address our most urgent priorities as a 
Congress and as a Nation.
  Last year, the previous majority failed to pass a budget and in the 
process left us without the framework to pass critical appropriations 
bills. In 1998, 2002, 2004, we also went without a budget resolution. 
We have to do better, and that begins today. We have a responsibility 
in this Congress to do our jobs and to put our Nation back on track.
  At last we are beginning to get our House in order with a real 
commitment to spend our tax dollars wisely and with fiscal 
responsibility, finally honoring our long-standing commitments and 
making a modest investment in our future. By balancing our budget and 
even providing for a slight $41 billion surplus by the year 2012 
without raising taxes, this plan reflects our priorities and takes our 
Nation in a new direction.
  Today we have a budget that makes an investment in children and 
families for the first time in 6 years. We have a budget that expands 
SCHIP, the hugely successful children's health insurance program to 
give kids without coverage the attention and care that they need.
  We have a budget that ensures new resources for No Child Left Behind 
to make student achievement a reality, and a new commitment for Pell 
Grants to make college education more affordable.
  We have a budget that honors our veterans with the resources our VA 
facilities need to handle increased patient load, and provide the care 
our servicemembers deserve.
  We face great challenges, challenges that the Federal Government has 
the ability, the capacity, the resources and the moral obligation to 
help us meet. Let us embrace that obligation, create real opportunity 
today, and give people the tools they need to grow and to thrive 
tomorrow.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to conference report S. Con. Res. 21, the Democratic 
congressional budget for 2008.
  By not addressing the Bush tax cuts, the Democratic budget resolution 
conference report calls for at least a $217 billion tax hike, the 
second highest in American history.
  This budget resolution also includes a trigger which would 
automatically turn the tax increase into the largest in American 
history.
  Mr. Speaker, the government spends too much money. We have serious 
challenges facing this Nation and spending more money is not a 
solution. The conference report increases non-defense appropriations by 
$22 billion above 2007, and $21 billion above the President's request.
  It fails to maintain emergency funds included in last year's budget 
resolution. Also, emergency spending is loosely defined in this budget 
resolution and does not prevent future abuses in emergency supplemental 
appropriations.
  The conference report has 23 reserve funds which include the promise 
of more than $190 billion in additional spending which I can only 
assume will be paid by additional taxes.
  The House Budget Committee listened to many testimonies from budget

[[Page 13127]]

experts, indicating our Nation was facing a fiscal crisis when it comes 
to entitlement spending; yet the conference report does nothing to 
address this issue. We cannot simply raise taxes and hope our 
entitlement problems will solve themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I hoped at least some of the commonsense solutions put 
forth in the Republican substitute would have been settled, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I 
first want to recognize the leadership of Chairman Spratt. It is under 
his leadership that we have a budget before us that is both responsible 
and attentive to America's priorities. It reaches balance in 5 years, 
and it does so without raising taxes, and it meets our obligations 
while making important investments in America's future.
  First, it provides for our national defense. It targets resources to 
the most urgent military and security concerns, including 
implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
  Second, our budget honors our commitment to our servicemen and women. 
It provides funding that will enable the Veterans Administration to 
provide for the increasing needs of our veterans.
  Third, our budget recognizes the priorities of hardworking Americans. 
It provides tax relief to middle-income families by fixing the AMT, 
extending lower tax rates, and continuing the earned income and child 
tax credits. And it expands SCHIP to provide health coverage to 7 
million uninsured children in this country of middle-income families.
  Fourth, our budget enhances our Nation's economic competitiveness and 
makes key investments to ensure that our future workforce has the 
education and skills needed to compete in the global economy.
  Our budget is fiscally disciplined. It ends the unsustainable borrow-
and-spend policies of the last 6 years, and it balances the budget in 5 
years, setting us on a course to pay down our debt while meeting our 
Nation's obligations.
  We should all be proud of this budget. It is a new direction, and it 
is the right direction for America.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I recently served on the Budget Committee 
for 8 years, during which time we had the only four balanced budgets in 
recent history. I am sad to see, however, that today's budget envisions 
what could amount to the largest tax increase in American history to 
pay for higher spending.
  The budget would increase discretionary spending at roughly three 
times the inflationary rate while failing to achieve real savings for 
taxpayers. Taxes will grow by at least $217 billion as pro-growth tax 
relief is allowed to expire. Even the child tax credit and marriage 
penalty relief may not be extended. I urge Members to reject this 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
conference report. We can be proud that this budget finally produces a 
vision for our future that reflects our hopes and dreams and the 
promise of economic prosperity and security in the years ahead.
  I commend my distinguished chairman and his staff for their hard 
work, which has resulted in a balanced budget within 5 years, and 
restoration of middle-class priorities to the budget process. While 
restoring fiscal responsibility, we also raise funding for veterans, 
for health care, and for education.
  This budget contains reconciliation instructions regarding education 
expenditures. I believe we have the opportunity to use these 
instructions to the benefit of students and their families. This budget 
guarantees that increasing college access and affordability are 
paramount goals of our majority, and prove that we have followed 
through on our promise to set a new direction for America.
  As our chairman has said repeatedly, if you can't budget, you can't 
govern. With this budget conference report today, we demonstrate our 
commitment to govern.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to one issue in this 
budget, and that is the tax trigger. I believe this is a ruse to hide 
behind a tax increase.
  I know my colleagues on the other side will argue it is not a tax 
increase, but I can assure you that American families in 2010 whose 
financial circumstances are similar in 2011, will pay more in taxes in 
2011 than they pay in 2010. Call that what you may, but I believe it is 
a tax increase.
  It is a ruse, Mr. Speaker, because it is built on a foundation of 
brittle clay. One of the pillars of the foundation is that spending 
will be restrained. This Democratic majority can spend their way to a 
point where these tax cuts won't be triggered.
  They have already shown a great penchant for spending, a wanton 
disregard for fiscal restraint. There is $6 billion extra in the 
omnibus bill, $20 billion extra on the supplemental that is yet to 
pass, and another $23 billion of new spending in this bill. So they 
will spend their way.
  The other thing it is built on the good graces of the Secretary of 
the Treasury and the director of OMB, both of whom have to agree that 
the tax cuts can in fact go forward.
  I believe this is a ruse to hide behind the fact that American 
families will pay more taxes in 2011 and 2012 than they do in 2010 
because rates will go up. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, last November, American voters sent a very 
clear message that they wanted to change the status quo in Washington. 
That is exactly what this budget does.
  It represents a positive change that reflects the solid values of 
American families. To begin with, this budget puts the higher priority 
on national defense and homeland security because we understand that 
defending our Nation and families is the Federal Government's first 
responsibility.
  We match the President's defense budget, and invest even more to make 
our airlines, seaports and communities safer from terrorist attacks. 
This budget, importantly, honors America's veterans by providing for 
the largest single increase in VA health care services in the 77-year 
history of the Veterans Administration, a $6 billion increase, and our 
veterans deserve every dollar of that commitment.
  Why did we do this? Because we understand that we cannot have a 
strong and secure America unless we keep our promises to our servicemen 
and women and veterans who have defended America.
  Make no mistake, a vote against this budget is a vote against the 
most significant increase in veterans health care in VA history. A vote 
against this budget is a vote against hiring hundreds of new VA claim 
processors who are needed to reduce the huge backlog of combat-wounded 
American veterans who are having to wait far too long to get their 
earned benefits approved.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say I have heard some partisan criticism, let's 
call it, of this bill. Let me point out the source of that criticism is 
from the same Members of Congress who wrote partisan budgets for the 
last 6 years, the 6 years of budgets that took this Nation and the 
largest surpluses in American history to turn them into the largest 
deficits in American history. These are the same folks who in 3 of the 
last 5 years couldn't even pass a budget resolution through the House 
and Senate.
  We are putting America on a new course, the right course for our 
country and for our veterans.

[[Page 13128]]


  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), a member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to 
this debate and listening to the arguments on the Democratic side of 
the aisle, and I am waiting for David Copperfield to show up as a 
member of their Budget Committee because what they are doing is magic. 
They are over here bragging about all of the additional money they are 
spending. And bragging, which they are, and bragging that they are 
balancing the budget, which they say they are, but then saying they are 
not raising taxes. Which they are.
  This budget contains over $200 billion in tax increases. That is 
about $1,000 for every taxpayer in America. And oddly enough, isn't it 
strange that it also contains about $200 billion in additional spending 
over the President's proposed budget.
  So they want to raise Americans' taxes by $1,000 a taxpayer so they 
can spend it on new spending. Make no mistake about it, a vote for this 
budget is a vote for at least the second largest tax increase in 
American history, if not the largest.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the defense spending in this budget is 
much, much, much higher than I would like. But I rise today in support 
of this conference report and the very good work of Chairman Spratt, of 
his committee, and his staff.

                              {time}  1500

  Thanks go to Chairman Spratt and the conferees for including my 
language in this bill to steer more defense dollars to military 
personnel for their health care, including Walter Reed and TRICARE, and 
away from outdated, misguided, and unneeded weapons systems that are 
still being built to fight the threat of the Soviet Union, to protect 
against the Cold War.
  This budget also takes on waste at the Pentagon, insisting that DOD 
presses ahead in implementing over 1,300 unaddressed suggestions from 
the GAO to reduce waste, fraud and abuse.
  Mr. Speaker, whenever any Member of this Congress has to stand on the 
floor and defend what they did in years past, you know it's pretty sure 
that they made some big mistakes. This budget is a big step in 
correcting the fiscal mess that the Democratic majority inherited, and 
I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
when my friends from the other side of the aisle do something that I 
think is laudatory, I want to laud them for it.
  They have taken a budget that contained the single largest tax 
increase in American history and turned it into a budget that has the 
second largest tax increase in American history, but before I get too 
effusive with my praise, they have something in there called a trigger 
which tells the American people that somehow, if you can prevent us 
from spending all of your money, maybe, maybe you can get a little of 
it back. So I suspect, Mr. Speaker, we are again looking at the single 
largest tax increase in American history.
  Now, speaker after speaker on the other side get up and tell us, oh, 
we're balancing the budget, we're increasing spending that they call 
investments, but no, no, no, we're not raising taxes. Mr. Speaker, this 
is Orwellian double-speak. The numbers don't add up. I have got a 5-
year-old daughter who can perform better math than that, and she's not 
very good at it. You can't balance the budget, increase spending and 
then claim you're not raising taxes. It's shameful.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an easy conclusion that the Americans should 
draw. If they believe that the growth of the Federal budget is more 
important than the growth of their family budget, they should support 
this Democrat budget. And if they can sleep well at night knowing that 
this budget is going to double the taxes of their children and 
grandchildren, they should embrace that budget. But if they want 
freedom and opportunity for the next generation, reject this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), the distinguished chairman of our caucus.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague from South 
Carolina for his leadership and, most importantly, his leadership 
because the Democrats promised in November that we're going to bring a 
new direction and new priorities to Washington.
  We've accomplished in 6 months what my colleagues have failed to do 
in 6 years and that is produce a budget that produces a surplus.
  Let me say what a surplus is since you've had such a recognition of 
not being able to produce one. Surpluses are the fact when the 
government puts its fiscal house in order and matches up its needs with 
the American people and produces a surplus, because your financial 
legacy is $4 trillion of new debt.
  When it comes to economic policy, the one thing that can be said 
about the Republicans' fiscal mess is that we will forever be in your 
debt. That is the one thing that's for sure. $4 trillion in 6-years, 
the largest increase in the Nation's debt in the shortest period of 
time is your legacy, and I don't think you've quite gotten the 
recognition for what you've done to America, left it nothing but red 
ink.
  This budget is not only in balance, but it's in balance with our 
values, our values that ensures that 8 million children who do not have 
health care but parents work full-time, they will get health care; in 
balance with our values to make sure that we're not subsidizing the 
financial industry by making sure that middle class parents have the 
financial resources to send their kids to college; making sure that 
when it comes to our veterans that in fact we are rewarding our 
veterans who have fought for this country and say the proper 
recognition for their service to America, that they get taken care of. 
And every step of the way, this budget is not only in balance fiscally 
but is in balance with our values.
  The entire legacy in 6 years of the Republican stewardship was one of 
$400 trillion of debt left for the Americans to clean up that mess, and 
we have produced in 6 months a budget that's balanced, and at the end 
of the process also creates a surplus.
  There are different and stark choices. President Kennedy once said, 
To govern is to choose. We've made the choices to make sure that middle 
class families get a tax cut, kids get health care, veterans get the 
respect and the resources that they need to move on with their life, 
and our families who know that an education and a college education in 
an era like this where you earn what you learn, that a middle class 
family does not need a second mortgage or a third job to send their 
kids to college.
  I commend my colleagues for this new direction budget, a budget that 
is in balance and is also in balance with our values.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds simply 
to say that's correct, the majority did make choices. They chose to 
raise taxes, they chose to raise spending, and they chose to violate 
their own PAYGO rules.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, to borrow an old 
cliche, the more things change, the more they remain the same.
  The speaker who spoke a little while ago from the Democrats said that 
the Democrats in just 6 months have achieved what the Republicans did 
not do in 6 years. That's true.
  In 6 months they've achieved increasing the taxes on the American 
people, the second largest tax increase in the history of this country. 
Again, $217 billion in additional taxes. Mr. Speaker, that's going to 
hit everybody, middle income families, low income earners,

[[Page 13129]]

families with children, small businesses. Every American who pays 
Federal taxes is going to get a huge tax increase.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people do not deserve a $217 billion tax 
increase to fund more bureaucracy and more bureaucrats in Washington, 
D.C. If you think that there are not enough bureaucracy, enough 
bureaucrats in D.C., vote for this budget. If you think the American 
people deserve a tax cut, reject this high spending, highly 
irresponsible tax raising budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina, the 
chairman, for producing an excellent budget for which every Member 
should vote.
  Responsible people do not pay their bills by borrowing from their 
children. Responsible people analyze what they can afford, spend only 
that and save what they can.
  For too long, this Congress has labored under a culture of 
irresponsibility: focus on the next election, spend what you want to, 
hand out tax cuts to your supporters, and let someone else worry about 
it down the line.
  This budget ends that culture of irresponsibility, and it stands for 
one clear principle over and over again. We will not run this 
government on borrowed money, period. We wish to double the number of 
children covered by the children's health insurance program and we 
will. But when we do so, we will pay for it without borrowing more 
money.
  Most of us absolutely are committed to extending the tax breaks for 
middle class families that help them survive, but when we do so, we 
will do so without borrowing more money from the Chinese, from the 
Germans, and from our grandchildren.
  The easy thing to do around here is to spend more, tax less and 
borrow more. What it gets you is higher mortgage rates, higher car loan 
rates, more unemployment, more debt and no explanation whatsoever to 
the next generation in this country.
  Today marks a turning point away from the culture of 
irresponsibility, toward a culture of responsibility for the future of 
people of this country.
  I urge both Republican and Democratic Members to vote ``yes'' on this 
budget.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, given the stated concerns about 
borrowing by the majority, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). The gentleman may state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that 
pursuant to rule XXVII of the rules of the House, upon adoption of the 
conference report by both the House and the Senate, the Clerk of the 
House will be instructed to prepare a joint resolution adjusting the 
public debt limit; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Am I further correct, that by operation of 
rule XXVII, upon adoption of this conference report by both the House 
and the Senate, this joint resolution adjusting the debt limit will be 
considered as passed by the House and transmitted to the Senate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will there be a separate vote in the House on 
passing this joint resolution adjusting upwards the debt limit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not by operation of rule XXVII.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, by operation of this rule, will 
the vote by which the conference report is passed by the House be 
considered the vote on passage of the joint resolution adjusting the 
debt limit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have just learned is that if a Member votes for 
this conference report, and it is adopted by the Senate, then they will 
be recorded as having voted for the joint resolution raising the public 
debt limit to $9.815 trillion, an increase in the public debt of 
borrowing of $850 billion. If a Member votes against this conference 
report, and it is adopted by the Senate, then they will not be recorded 
as having voted to increase the debt limit or borrowing by $850 
billion.
  So it's very clear that the passage of this budget increases 
borrowing by $850 billion and that is, in fact, the effect of this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the Chair how much time 
is left and who has the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) has 8 minutes left and will have the right to close. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  We can't have this debate without having a few charts on the floor, 
and it always bears reminding what's happened over the last 6 years 
because it is truly a fiscal phenomenon.
  When President Bush came to office in 2001, he had an advantage that 
few Presidents in recent history have enjoyed, a budget in surplus. I'm 
talking big-time surplus, $5.6 trillion by his estimate, over the next 
10 years, $5.6 trillion. That was the year 2001. In the previous year, 
a Clinton year, we ran a surplus of $236 billion.
  By the year 2004, under the stewardship of this administration and 
this Congress, because Republicans controlled the House, controlled the 
Senate and controlled the White House, under their stewardship, the 
$5.6 trillion surplus was converted to a $2.8 trillion deficit, 
enormous swing of $8 trillion in the wrong direction, and that $236 
billion surplus in the year 2004 became a deficit of $412 billion.
  Incredible, but that is what we have had for the last 6 years. That's 
the record over the last 6 years which cannot be denied. Here it is 
right here.
  As a consequence of the deficits that have been run, this simple 
little chart that I bring down here again and again, because it bears 
reminding everybody what's happened over the last 6 years, shows that 
when Bush came into office we had a debt of $5.7 trillion. The debt 
today is over $8 trillion, $8.8 trillion. That means there's been an 
increase in the national debt of $3.1 trillion, and if we continue upon 
the fiscal path that this administration has taken, by the time they 
leave office the debt of the United States will be $90.6 trillion.
  Look at the accumulation of debt over this 8-year period of time. 
We've never seen anything like it. These are the people who would 
criticize what we are doing.

                              {time}  1515

  Now, there has been a lot of talk about tax increases. Let me show 
you this little chart here, because it shows graphically, and 
emphatically, something called debt service. The increase in the 
interest on the national debt that has to be paid, talk about 
entitlement reform, this is the one true entitlement. It's obligatory, 
it has to be paid. Interest on the national debt has increased from 
about $156 billion a couple of years ago to $256 billion, and it's on 
its way north to $300 billion in a short period of time. This is a debt 
tax.
  Yes, you may have cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, but, because you have 
borrowed to make up for the loss of revenues and added to the debt of 
the United States, you, we, our children and their children, will be 
paying this debt for years to come, and compare this huge mountain of 
debt service, interest on the national debt, to other priorities.
  Education, the light blue block; veterans health care, the green 
block;

[[Page 13130]]

Homeland Security, the blue block, all of them are dwarfed by interest 
on the national debt. So here is the debt tax that you have left us 
owing, left our children owing, left generations to come owing.
  This is the debt tax that will have to be paid because it simply 
cannot be cut. That's what we are struggling with today because of the 
fiscal management of this government over the last 6 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I want to thank Mr. Ryan.
  There is a group of Democrats here who came to be fiscal 
conservatives. They call themselves the Blue Dogs. They have a budget 
reform plan, a good budget reform plan. Point 7 of the Blue Dogs 12-
point budget reform plan calls for not hiding votes on the debt limit 
increase.
  Yet a vote for this conference report is a vote to automatically 
raise, without a separate vote, the national debt by $850 billion. 
Where are the Blue Dogs today? They are not here on the floor talking 
for this. Where will they be when we have this vote?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our 
distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we will be talking about this budget for a long time. 
Everybody has their own view of this, but you can't have your own view 
of the facts. One of my good friends got up a minute ago and talked 
about the size of the deficit.
  This budget is going to add $850 billion this year to the deficit. I 
think that's almost $1 trillion, though I am sure people who are 
listening to this here in the Chamber and anywhere else are confused 
now by all these numbers they are hearing. This budget, without a 
single other vote, adds to the national debt.
  It raises the debt ceiling. In spite of the many Members in this 
Chamber who ran for office saying they would never try to hide this 
vote on the debt, that's exactly what this vote does today.
  Entitlement reform, one of my other friends said, we hadn't passed a 
budget. Well, my friend, you can't have entitlement reform unless you 
pass a budget. You can't have reconciliation.
  We cut the growth of the entitlement spending $40 billion in the last 
Congress. By definition, to do that, we had to have a budget. So 
somebody who suggested we hadn't had a budget also was the person who 
had some explanation as to why this budget doesn't do entitlement 
reform.
  In fact, then we even make entitlement reform somehow the interest on 
the national debt. The programs that are growing out of control are the 
programs that this budget refuses to address.
  Then the very interesting topic of tax cuts, tax policies in 2001 and 
2003 that have produced record levels of income to the Federal 
Government; 2005, 14.5 percent more income than 2004; 2006, 11.8 
percent, more income than 2005. These tax cuts grew the economy. That 
grew Federal income. If you raise the wrong taxes, you will reduce 
Federal income.
  This whole budget debate, our friends in the majority have said, 
there is no tax increase in this budget. But suddenly, in the budget 
report, we are told that, well, we have accepted the Senate levels of 
tax increases, so we are only raising tax revenue by $217 billion for 
sure instead of $400 billion.
  This is a huge tax increase. It doesn't deal with entitlements. It 
raises, without a vote, the national debt ceiling. I urge a ``no'' vote 
on this budget. Let's get a blueprint that really works for the future.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman, 
the gentleman from South Carolina, is he the last speaker on their 
side? You are reserving the right to close?
  Mr. SPRATT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished chief minority whip from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the ranking member, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, you know, when I sit here in 
almost astonishment and thinking, it's the fact that even though we are 
witnessing the massive tax hikes that are embedded in the Democrat 
budget, in fact, the largest tax increase in American history, what the 
majority's budget fails to do, it fails to stop the raid on Social 
Security.
  In the year 2012, the Social Security fund will be running a surplus 
of $99 billion. As we know, the Federal Government has experience and 
has collected more in Social Security taxes than it pays out in 
benefits since 1984. Instead of using this money to shore up Social 
Security, instead of using it to do something to honor the contract 
that this government has made with the seniors, the Democrat budget 
spends that cash surplus on other programs.
  What is astonishing is the fact that this very House, last week, in a 
vote on the Republican motion to recommit to stop the raid on Social 
Security, this House, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, supported 
the end of that raid. But here we have the Democrat budget that goes 
back on that word represented by the bipartisan vote and starts again 
with the raid on Social Security surplus.
  In contrast, the Republican budget that was offered several weeks ago 
does just the opposite, and, in fact, uses the surplus that will exist 
in 2012 to begin to shore up the Social Security system and to improve 
and enhance the vitality of that program for today's seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote on this conference 
budget report.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let's just be really clear. You are hearing this debate 
about taxes. Nowhere is the difference between the two parties ever 
clear than it is right now. We brought a budget to the floor that not 
only did not raise taxes, it kept taxes low, and it reduced spending, 
and it balanced the budget, and it finally stopped the raid of the 
Social Security Trust Fund.
  That's what we proposed. We are not in the majority. Our view did not 
prevail. The Democrat budget did prevail. What did that budget do? It 
passed the largest tax increase in American history. That's not what we 
say, that's what the Congressional Budget Office says, our 
scorekeepers.
  So what did they do in conference? They decided to accede to the 
Senate and have a slightly smaller tax increase. They started off with 
the red line, largest tax increase in American history as measured by 
the Congressional Budget Office. No matter what you say, the numbers in 
the budget just don't lie.
  Then they said, let's have a trigger. If we don't spend too much 
money, and if the surplus is big enough in 2010, then maybe some 
taxpayers could get some tax relief, and we won't raise all of their 
taxes. We will extend the marriage penalty and the child tax credit, 10 
percent bracket, but will all the other tax increases occur? So we will 
have the second highest tax increase in American history.
  That's what their proposal does. They simply cannot have it both 
ways. They cannot say there is no tax increase in this budget and then 
say we are preserving some of the tax cuts and not others. You can't 
have it both ways.
  Here is what this budget does. It puts us on a vicious cycle of 
taxing and spending. They start off by spending $24 billion, next year, 
brand new spending.

[[Page 13131]]

  Then they have a $217 billion tax increase. Then they have 23 reserve 
funds, 23 wish lists, which equal $190 billion in new spending. Then 
they have no entitlement reforms, which means our entitlement programs 
are going to grow and grow and grow at unsustainable rates. Guess what, 
$190 billion in wish lists, 23 new wish lists of spending. What do they 
get? If they get the spending, they get another $190 billion tax 
increase to pay for it, a vicious cycle of new spending.
  The trigger tax says we would like to give some people some tax 
relief, but if we continue to whet our appetite, taxpayers won't get 
it. All this trigger says is it puts the taxpayer at the back of the 
line and the government and spending at the front of line. We have a 
different core set of values.
  We believe the money that people make is their money, not the 
government's money. If you are making money, working hard and paying 
taxes, that's your money, not ours. We have a different set of beliefs. 
They believe the opposite. They believe that more and more and more 
money ought to come out of workers' paychecks. They believe that they 
can spend your money better than you can.
  That is not what we believe. The reason that we don't believe it is 
because if you have more money in your paycheck, you have more for 
yourself and more freedom for your family, we know, by golly, the 
American economy grows. We succeed. We improve in the global economy.
  We created 7 million new jobs since this last run of tax cuts. We 
increased revenues to the Federal Government from these lower tax 
raises, 3 years in a row, double digit revenue growth. Let's not turn 
that recipe upside down. Let's not ruin a good thing.
  Defeat this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time 
to the distinguished minority leader, Mr. Boehner.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, here we go again, a 
higher spending, higher taxes, and people don't think there is a 
difference between the two major political parties. One only has to 
look at what's happened so far this year. We have the continuing 
resolution that was passed in February, there was $6 billion worth of 
excess spending in it.
  Now we have got an emergency supplemental to fund our troops in 
Afghanistan and Iraq that has another $22 billion worth of excess 
spending in it. If you look at the discretionary spending levels in 
this budget for this next fiscal year, we have another $22 billion 
worth of additional spending that's outlined.
  Now if that's not bad enough, we are only 4\1/2\ months into this 
calendar year, and my friends across the aisle have authorized an 
additional $62.5 billion of additional spending. How much spending and 
how many taxes do we want to impose on the American people?
  We all know that the tax cuts of 2001 and the tax cuts of 2003 have 
led us to one of the most robust economies that we have seen in our 
history. Why? Because we lowered tax rates, we gave people reasons to 
invest in our economy. Jobs were created, 5 million new jobs were 
created, more people were earning money, raising their families, paying 
their bills, and, guess what else they are doing? They are also paying 
more in taxes.

                              {time}  1530

  That is why revenues to the Federal Government over the last 3 years 
have increased at over 12 percent per year. They are likely to do the 
same again this year if we don't impose upon this economy the largest 
tax increase in American history. It is coming. There is $200 billion 
worth of tax increases needed to fill this hole. There is this reserve 
fund, all these promises: If we can raise taxes somewhere, we will give 
you this extra spending. And so we are going to see the largest tax 
increase in our Nation's history once again.
  I was listening to this debate earlier in my office and I began to 
ask myself, what is the essence of this? Let me go back to the 1970s.
  I grew up in a household with 11 brothers and sisters; my dad owned a 
bar, and we were Democrats, all of us. And I remember starting a new 
business in 1975; I remember paying taxes. I remember not owing many 
taxes because I was starting a new business. But in 1978, as my small 
business was beginning to grow, the top tax rate in our country was 70 
percent. That means 70 cents out of every dollar over that minimum, 
which was about $75,000, 70 cents of every dollar I got to give to the 
Federal Government. That is when I began to realize that maybe I wasn't 
a Democrat any longer.
  Here I was trying to grow a small business; I was a subchapter S, so 
everything that my business made, I had to pay taxes on personally. 
That meant I could only leave 30 cents of every dollar in my business 
to help make it grow. And even under those tax rates that were 
suffocating, I was able to succeed.
  But let's think about the last 25 years. When Ronald Reagan got 
elected in 1980, in 1981 in a bipartisan way we started a process of 
lowering tax rates. Over the last 25 years, by and large we have 
lowered tax rates dozens of times, only a couple of bumps, a couple 
increases along the way. The result of all of that over the last 25 
years has been a growing economy. Better jobs in America, more jobs in 
America, and more revenues to the Federal Government. It is a 
prescription that has worked.
  Look again at the 2003 and the 2001 tax cuts. We reduced tax rates, 
and the result was more investment, more jobs, and more revenue to the 
Federal Government.
  Now, at some point there is a point of diminishing returns, but I 
will suggest to all of you that we are nowhere close to it yet.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I became a Republican and I came to Congress 
because I thought that we paid too much in taxes and that government 
was too big. The heart and core of who I am and why I am here is to 
fight for a smaller, less costly, more accountable government here in 
Washington, D.C. This budget represents every reason that I decided to 
become a Republican, and every reason I decided to come to Washington 
and to do something about it.
  The big difference is simple right here. My friends across the aisle 
believe that government knows best what to do with the American 
people's money. More of my colleagues on my side believe that the money 
that the American people earn is theirs, and that they can make better 
decisions on behalf of themselves and their family and their future if 
we allow them to keep more of the hard-earned money that they make.
  I can't just sit back and be quiet about higher taxes and higher 
spending. This is the largest tax increase in American history. This 
will in fact disinvest money from our economy, will put people out of 
work, and put us on a path to higher deficits.
  And if the largest tax increase in American history isn't the saddest 
part of this bill, I will tell you what it is: No entitlement reform.
  There is an economic tsunami coming at us; it is Social Security, it 
is Medicare, and it is Medicaid. And while Republicans over the last 
years have made several attempts and made some changes, and I would 
argue not nearly as many changes as we should have, there is no 
entitlement reform in this bill. That means that the amount of debt 
that will build up over the next 5 years, as outlined in this budget, 
will far surpass the debt that accumulated over the last 5 years.
  You all know what is happening. There is not a Member in this Chamber 
that doesn't understand that if we don't deal with entitlement our kids 
and our grandkids can never afford the benefits that we have promised 
ourselves. We can look the other way, we can act like it doesn't exist, 
but we have made promises to ourselves as baby boomers that our kids 
and grandkids can't afford. And yet, we see the tsunami coming at us, 
we can measure it; we can measure the speed and the size of it, and yet 
we do nothing about it.
  My colleagues, this is not the direction that I believe we should go 
in. I

[[Page 13132]]

would ask all my colleagues to stand up and do the right thing and to 
say ``no'' to this budget resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good budget. I would be the first to say it is 
not a perfect budget, but I would be the first to argue that it is 
worthy of our support.
  Indeed, I think it requires our support if we don't want to see the 
budget process fail abjectly once again, as it did last year under 
Republican control when no concurrent budget resolution was ever 
enacted, passed, and only two of 11 appropriation bills were passed.
  The bottom line, this budget moves us to balance over the next 5 
years. Along the way, it posts smaller deficits than the President 
proposes, it adheres to the pay-as-you-go principle, which is the rule 
of this House, contains no new mandatory spending that is not paid for, 
and it funds five program integrity initiatives to root out wasteful 
spending and fraud and tax evasion.
  Within this framework, it does more for veterans health care, far 
more, more for children's health care, far more, and more for 
education, lots more.
  Here in a nutshell are the basics of the budget: This budget runs to 
surplus of $41 billion in the year 2012. Contrast that with the 
President's budget which is always in deficit. This budget not only 
abides by pay-as-you-go principles, it enhances them by establishing a 
new Senate PAYGO rule and calling for reinstatement of the statutory 
PAYGO rule as well. This budget does all of the above, I will say this 
emphatically one last time, does all of the above without raising 
taxes.
  The tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 remain in full force 
and effect, unaffected in any way by this budget resolution. As enacted 
and originally written, most of these tax cuts expire on December 31, 
2010, and that has nothing to do with our budget resolution.
  But in our budget resolution, we identified all of the middle income 
tax cuts, many of which we supported at the time passed, and we made it 
the policy of our resolution to extend these tax cuts when they expire.
  In this concurrent resolution, we go even further. We install a 
trigger that will facilitate the extension of these tax cuts so long 
as, number one, the House waives PAYGO; and, number two, the tax cuts 
extended do not exceed 80 percent of the surplus projected by OMB by 
the year 2012.
  This concurrent resolution in other respects sets defense spending 
levels that the President requested. Why is spending so high? It 
contains $145 billion in supplemental expenditures.
  And let me say one thing about the argument one of the leaders of the 
other party made on the House floor just a few minutes ago about the 
amount of debt that is being added to the national debt. What we are 
talking about is taking a big battleship and turning it around slowly. 
We have inherited the basics of this budget. Much of the spending that 
we are carrying forward was dictated over the last 6 years. The same 
for the revenue flow of the budget we are undertaking. It is going to 
take time to turn this big battleship around. But as we do, the best we 
can do is, number one, have a concurrent budget resolution with the 
binding effect of budget law for the first time in a long time; and, 
secondly, this concurrent resolution which will put us back on the path 
to a balanced budget.
  For those for whom a balanced budget is something of a moral 
imperative because of the debt we are leaving our children, the right 
vote today, the only vote today is the vote for this budget resolution, 
and I commend it to every Member of this House, Democrat and 
Republican, and urge their support.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. After years of 
rising deficits and draconian Republican budgets, the vote on the 
Budget Conference Report finally puts us on the right course. The 
Democratic budget will take America in a new direction by funding 
national priorities such as health care services, educational programs, 
and veterans services while providing middle class tax assistance. The 
Democratic budget rejects the Administration's attempts to cut funding 
to many social programs that support American children and families 
such as State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), Pell 
grants, Medicare, and Medicaid. This forward looking budget will help 
all Americans progress towards social and economic security.
  The Democratic budget will also provide tax relief for middle-income 
workers and will extend popular tax credits such as the child tax 
credit, marriage penalty relief, and more deductions for state and 
local sales taxes.
  After our troops have defended our great country, we need to give our 
servicemen and veterans the best possible health care. The budget 
provides sufficient funds to treat traumatic injuries and improve 
health care facilities for veterans, as well as to treat the more than 
twenty-six thousand service members who have been wounded in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Funding measures to veterans healthcare is a well deserved 
and necessary expense providing $3.6 billion above the President's 
proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, many Americans have economic concerns, and are seeking 
leadership from us, the people's House, the United States Congress. 
After six years of misplaced priorities, the Democratic budget 
resolution seeks to provide services and support that are essential to 
the well-being of the American people; millions who are hard working 
tax paying citizens that deserve some well justified and reasonable 
assistance. This legislation is clearly the people's budget.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, a budget is a moral document that demonstrates 
our values and priorities. This budget Conference Report, brought to us 
by Chairman John Spratt represents values I can be proud of. This 
budget makes real investments in education, healthcare, housing and 
research and development while bringing the budget back to surplus by 
2012.
  At a time when more than ten percent of students drop out of high 
school before graduating and only four out of ten children eligible for 
Head Start are able to participate, this budget reverses the 
Administration's policy of under-investing in education for our 
children. The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding 
for the Department of Education by $1.5 billion below the 2007 enacted 
level and to eliminate 44 entire programs. It instead provides for 
substantial new investments in vital programs such as Head Start, 
special education (IDEA), Title I and other programs under the No Child 
Left Behind Act. The bill also funds an increase in Pell Grants so that 
high school students will know that if they work hard, they can go to 
college.
  The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding for the 
Community Development Block Grant program by $1.1 billion below last 
year's level, and instead provides for the first CDBG increase since 
2005. The cut advocated by the President would endanger job creation, 
economic development, and affordable housing efforts, cutting CDBGs for 
nearly 1,200 state and local governments.
  This budget rejects the President's proposal to cut Child Care 
Development Block Grants and Social Services Block Grants by $520 
million below the 2007 level. The President's budget would lead to a 
decline in valuable assistance for child care that allows many working 
parents to earn a living. The Conference Report would allow for the 
first increase in this funding since 2002.
  Further, knowing that we now have more uninsured Americans than six 
years ago, this budget blocks the President's proposed cuts to Medicare 
and Medicaid. These cuts would have made healthcare less affordable and 
accessible for millions of Americans. This budget ensures that up to 
$50 billion over the next five years will be devoted to the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) so that millions of 
uninsured children can be covered. New Jersey is a national leader in 
covering children through the SCHIP program and this additional funding 
is desperately needed to ensure our state's good work, and that of 
other states, can continue.
  This budget reverses the President's dangerous cuts to our nation's 
first responders. What sense would it make to cut the Local Law 
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program, Firefighter assistance 
grants, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, or the Community Oriented 
Policing Services (COPS) program? Our budget stands up for first 
responders and ensures that each of the programs receives appropriate 
levels of funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Spratt and the Budget Committee conferees 
for demonstrating that we can provide for our nation's defense in a 
responsible way--both fiscally and from a policy standpoint. This 
budget will provide $507 billion in Department of Defense budget 
authority, an $18 billion increase over the President's request. This 
budget also emphasizes the right priorities for meeting our security 
needs.

[[Page 13133]]

  For example, this resolution opposes TRICARE fee increases and calls 
for a substantial increase in the veterans' health care system. The 
budget resolution notes the upcoming recommendations of the President's 
Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors and other 
government investigations in connection with the Walter Reed scandal, 
and allows funds for action when those recommendations are received. To 
help protect our nation from a terrorist-sponsored nuclear attack, non-
proliferation programs such as the Cooperative Threat Reduction program 
are given greater priority and higher funding.
  This budget also helps us keep our promises to our nation's veterans. 
I'm pleased the committee has recommended increasing discretionary 
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs from $36.5 billion to 
$43.1 billion--a $6.6 billion (18.1%) increase over FY07, and a $3.5 
billion increase (8.9%) over the Administration request for FY08. This 
budget provides a far more realistic spending plan than the President's 
proposal. Our proposed increase in this area will help meet critical 
needs, including ensuring that medical inflation does not erode VA's 
ability to deliver quality health care to our veterans.
  In order to maintain American competitiveness, we must make 
substantial investments in scientific research and education. The 
budget provides funding for initiatives to educate new scientists, 
engineers, and mathematicians in the next four years, and places more 
highly-qualified teachers in math and science K-12 classrooms. It makes 
critical investments in basic research, putting us on the path to 
doubling funding for the National Science Foundation, and bolstering 
investments in research and development throughout the budget.
  America's dependence on oil endangers our environment, our national 
security, and our economy. A sustained investment in research and 
development is crucial to creating cutting-edge technologies that allow 
us to develop clean, sustainable energy alternatives and capitalize on 
America's vast renewable natural resources. The budget provides 
increased funding for basic and applied energy research.
  For the first time in 6 years, the Budget Resolution reflects a real 
commitment to protecting our most valuable natural resources by 
providing needed funding for our National Parks, the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, and the national wildlife refuge system. H. Con. 
Res. 99 provides a total of $31.4 billion for environmental programs, 
which is $2.6 billion more than the President's request. I have been an 
advocate for the Land and Water Conservation Fund since I came to 
Congress eight years ago and I am pleased that we are finally at a 
place where the budget includes adequate funding for both the state-
side grant program and the federal program. LWCF and the Forest Legacy 
program have done tremendous work in states across the country, 
including New Jersey, to protect open space, restore wetlands, and 
conserve forests lands. In the face of mounting evidence on the 
perilous state of our environment, it continues to amaze me why 
President Bush continues to turn a blind eye to our growing needs in 
this area. Finally, we have a budget that realizes how important this 
investment is to preserving our natural resources and promoting 
conservation.
  This budget achieves all of these objectives and investments without 
an increase in taxes. The budget would accommodate immediate relief for 
the tens of millions of middle income households who would otherwise be 
subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), while supporting the 
efforts of the Committee on Ways and Means to achieve permanent, 
revenue-neutral AMT reform. Unless the AMT is reformed, 19 million 
additional families will have to pay higher taxes in 2007. The budget 
would also accommodate extension of other middle-income tax relief 
provisions, consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go principle that include: 
the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent bracket, 
and the deduction for state and local sales taxes.
  The past 6 years of fiscal irresponsibility have caused America's 
national debt to increase by 50 percent, an amount of nearly $9 
trillion, or $29,000 for every American. Our ability to invest in the 
Nation's shared priorities is constrained by the cost of the debt run 
up over the last 6 years, when the administration and its partners in 
previous Congresses turned the largest surplus in American history into 
a record debt. About 75 percent of America's new debt has been borrowed 
from foreign creditors such as China, making our fiscal integrity a 
matter of national security. Over the last 6 years, President Bush has 
borrowed more money from foreign nations than the previous 42 U.S. 
Presidents combined.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget reflects values that we can all be proud of. 
It meets the basic needs of Americans, invests in priorities important 
to our future while putting us on the path to fiscal responsibility. I 
ask my colleagues to vote for the Budget Conference Report.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report 
because it will begin the process of changing our budgetary course. 
While it is not identical to the version passed by the House earlier 
this year, like that resolution it is clearly preferable to budgets 
adopted by the House in previous years.
  For the 6 years before the convening of this 110th Congress, the 
administration and the Republican leadership insisted on speeding ahead 
with misguided fiscal and economic policies. Ignoring all warning 
lights, they plowed ahead, taking us from projections of surpluses to 
the reality budgets deep in deficit and heaping higher the mountain of 
debt that our children will have to repay.
  Many of us said it was urgent to stop persisting in that error and 
voted for alternatives, including those proposed by the Blue Dog 
Caucus.
  But year after year our Republican colleagues insisted on taking 
their marching orders from the White House, moving in lockstep to 
endorse the Bush administration's insistence that its economic and 
fiscal policies must continue without change.
  I admired their discipline, but I could not support their insistence 
on driving us deeper into the swamp of fiscal irresponsibility that has 
left a debt burden of more than $30,000 for a typical middle-income 
family of four in Colorado.
  But that was then--and now, in this new Congress under new 
management, by passing this conference report we can begin to undo the 
damage they have done. The conference report is better in its fiscal 
responsibility and in its priorities.
  It follows the tough ``pay as you go'' budget rules to begin to 
reverse the budget deficits and to put us onto the path to a balanced 
budget. And under this plan, by 2012, domestic discretionary funding 
would fall to the lowest level, as a share of the economy, in at least 
a half century while spending as a percentage of GDP will be lower in 
2012 than it has been in any budget adopted under President Bush--1 
percent lower than it will be this year and lower than it has been in 
any year since 2001.
  Despite assertion by its critics, the conference report does not 
include any tax increases. To the contrary, it supports tax relief that 
would benefit the middle class--including extension of the child tax 
credit, 10 percent bracket, and marriage penalty relief--and provides 
for estate tax reform.
  And it provides for immediate Alternative Minimum Tax relief, 
preventing more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from being hit 
by the tax. This is important because while in 2004 only 32,000 
Colorado families were subject to the AMT, if nothing is done, this 
year that number will rise to 234,000 families in Colorado and hundreds 
of thousands more in other States.
  At the same time, it takes steps to crack down on wasteful or 
fraudulent spending in Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment 
Insurance programs and it supports actions to collect unpaid taxes as 
well as providing additional resources to reduce claims backlogs in the 
Veterans Administration, Social Security Administration, and other 
agencies.
  Further, it directs House committees to identify wasteful and lower 
priority spending that can be cut. As a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, I am particularly glad to note that the conference report is 
also realistic and responsible about the need to maintain our national 
defense and honor our promises to our troops and veterans.
  In addition to meeting the needs of the active-duty force, it allows 
for increasing funding for veterans' health care and services by $6.7 
billion above the 2007 enacted level, and $3.6 billion above the 
President's budget.
  This is a priority for me, because it will help ensure that the 
427,957 veterans in Colorado receive care worthy of their sacrifice. It 
is also critical for the 17,419 Coloradans, who have served their 
country in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001, many of whom will 
need VA health care services.
  It also provides more funding for urgent homeland security needs and 
to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. In doing so, it 
rejects cuts to vital first responder and terrorism prevention programs 
that would happen if we adopted the President's budget for fiscal 2008.
  Like the House-passed version, it recognizes the importance of 
research, development, and education in keeping our economy strong and 
our country secure. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee 
and chairman of its Subcommittee on Space

[[Page 13134]]

and Aeronautics, I am particularly supportive of it for that reason--
and as one of the Chairs of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 
Caucus, I welcome its support for research and development of renewable 
and alternative energy technologies.
  As for education, the conference report allows for substantially more 
funding for helping Colorado's public elementary, middle and high 
schools educate the 768,600 children now enrolled, with more resources 
to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, special education and Head 
Start. By contrast, if we followed the President's budget, 31,296 
Colorado children would not receive promised help in reading and math 
and the Head Start program--which serves 9,820 Colorado children--would 
be cut by 1.5 percent below the 2007 level.
  These investments to a growing economy for America's families are 
needed because, according to the Census Bureau, family income in 
Colorado has dropped by $4,041 since 2000, while health care and energy 
prices are climbing. But still more is needed.
  So, I am glad that the conference report provides for increasing 
funding for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--to help 
cover the 176,230 of Colorado's children who do not have health 
insurance. And because it is so important for Colorado's ranchers, 
farmers, and rural communities, I strongly support the part of the 
conference report that supports policies to strengthen the farm bill's 
economic benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Bush Administration does not 
like this conference report. After all, it rejects the Administration's 
misguided priorities. But it's disappointing that so many of our 
Republican colleagues still are so willing to unquestioningly follow 
the President's lead. And, while I suppose it's to be expected, it's 
particularly unfortunate that they have decided to attack this 
conference report by resorting to recycling the old, tired and false 
claim that it is ``the largest tax increase in history.''
  But the facts are otherwise. The conference report does not affect 
the top-heavy tax cuts the Bush administration and the Republican 
leadership pushed through since 2001--they remain in place as they 
stand, which means they will not expire for 4 years.
  I did not vote for all of those tax cuts, but I did support some that 
are most important for middle-income Coloradans. So, I am glad that the 
conference report provides for extensions of those in 2011, including 
an extension of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 
ten percent individual income tax bracket. And when the rest of the tax 
cuts come up for reconsideration, Congress can and should consider 
whether to extend them, as they are now or in modified form.
  I support that approach, which is quite different from the 
alternative approach that would have been taken by the Republican 
alternative that the House rightly rejected earlier this year. It would 
have insisted on locking in all of the Bush tax cuts--the ones I did 
not support as well as those I did--and would have put top priority on 
making them all permanent.
  I did like some things in the Republican alternative--including a 
constitutionally-sound line-item veto similar to my Stimulating 
Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (``SLICE'') legislation--but overall 
I thought it was not a responsible approach and I could not support it, 
just as I could not support the other alternatives debated in the 
House.
  Regarding one of those alternatives, in reviewing the formal record 
of rollcall 209, the vote on the Kilpatrick substitute, I found I am 
recorded as having voted ``yes.'' However, I had intended to vote 
``no,'' and my recollection is that I did vote ``no.''
  Unlike all those alternatives, and like the resolution passed by the 
House, this conference report is well balanced in its combination of 
fiscal responsibility and refocusing priorities. I will support it and 
I urge its approval by the House.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this budget, 
which significantly raises taxes on the American people. The Conference 
Report represents an enormous tax increase on hard-working American 
families--families that cannot afford to send more of their money for 
politicians and bureaucrats to spend.
  My staff analyzed the original House budget resolution and determined 
that it would cost an average family on Staten Island or Brooklyn 
nearly $4,000 more a year in Federal taxes. My friends across the aisle 
hail this resolution because they say it raises taxes less than the 
budget Resolution--as if that is an achievement to be proud of. The 
simple truth is that this Budget still raises taxes when we should 
instead be working to reduce them.
  In fact, the reduced tax increase is only achieved if certain 
triggers are hit--triggers that are based on projected surpluses. But 
you don't need a degree in economics to know that surpluses will only 
be hit by restraining spending, which this Resolution most certainly 
does not do.
  How are we supposed to have a surplus large enough to avoid raising 
taxes when this Resolution does nothing to reign in spending--and also 
includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending without proper 
offsets? The math does not add up.
  I cannot support a budget resolution that will ultimately cost 
families on Staten Island and Brooklyn $4,000 more every year in 
Federal taxes or a New York City Police Officer $1,300 more, a New York 
City public school teacher $1,500 more, and a New York City Firefighter 
$2,000 more.
  The other side claims to support a ``Pay As You Go'' system when, in 
reality, this budget Resolution amounts to ``Buy Now, Pay $400 Billion 
More in Taxes Later.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote against what is one of the largest tax 
increases--if not the largest tax increase--in American history.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of S. Con. Res. 21, a 
budget resolution designed and drafted by Democrats to end over a 
decade of Republican fiscal irresponsibility.
  One of the best results of the Democrats gaining the majority in the 
Congress is the fact that we can realign the priorities of the Federal 
government. Instead of Republican tax cuts for the richest 1 percent, 
we can put those same resources into health care for our children and 
veterans. Instead of driving our Nation deeper and deeper into debt, we 
can put us back on track towards a balanced budget.
  Twelve years of Republican budgets have left our fiscal house in 
shambles. We are nearly $9 trillion in debt, and if Republicans had 
their way, we would never end the deficit. However, the Democratic 
budget resolution is a good first step towards ending the sea of red 
ink on our budget. Within the next 5 years, we will have balanced the 
budget, while at the same time providing necessary services to those 
who need them most.
  This budget resolution incorporates the pay-as-you-go rule that the 
Democrats passed as one of our first acts in the majority. The rule is 
simple. Any additional funds we spend, or any taxes that we cut, have 
to be paid for with cuts in other areas.
  The budget resolution finally fulfills some of the promises we made 
to our military veterans. This legislation includes a $6.6 billion 
increase in veterans spending, which is the largest increase in 
history. The Congress has failed to meet our obligations for over a 
decade in providing necessary services to our veterans, and this budget 
aims to correct some of this neglect.
  In addition, this budget also provides $50 billion over 5 years 
towards children's health care. The State Children's Health Insurance 
Program (SCHIP) has been extremely successful in improving access to 
healthcare for children whose parents earn too much money to qualify 
for Medicaid, but not enough to purchase private health insurance. Two-
thirds of all uninsured children in this nation are actually eligible 
but not enrolled in SCHIP. With this budget, we can significantly 
improve health care coverage to millions more children across the 
country.
  This budget resolution will also help protect our Nation from its 
enemies. The 9/11 recommendations, most of which have been ignored by 
the Republican Congress, can be implemented under this budget 
framework. We have also included additional funding for homeland 
security in order to better ensure the safety of our citizens.
  It is no great secret that the Administration has severely 
underfunded schools across the nation with the No Child Left Behind 
Act. This is another program we intend to fix with our budget 
resolution. In this budget, we have included $9.5 billion over what the 
President requested for fiscal year 2008. This necessary funding will 
help stop the decline in our Nation's education system.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not have nearly enough time to speak about all the 
benefits of this budget resolution. Programs such as Head Start, 
LIHEAP, Social Security and Medicare all benefit. Residents of New 
Orleans and Mississippi benefit from the money to rebuild after 
Katrina. Higher education students will benefit from increased Pell 
Grants and we avoid cutting other student aid programs such as Perkins 
loans and special opportunity block grants, which was proposed in the 
President's failed budget plan.
  I am strongly supportive of this Democratic budget resolution. This 
bill will go a long way towards putting our fiscal house in order, 
without relying on the massive middle class tax increase that the 
President's budget relies upon. I would urge all of my colleagues to 
support this budget resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.

[[Page 13135]]

  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 209, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 377]

                               YEAS--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--209

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baird
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Harman
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (KY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Shays
     Stark

                              {time}  1601

  Mr. GOHMERT and Mrs. BACHMANN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________