[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3874-3886]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1036 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 312.

                              {time}  1511


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) revising the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, 
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels 
for fiscal years 2010 through 2013, with Mrs. Tauscher in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 4 hours, with 3 hours confined to the 
congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on the 
subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and controlled 
by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) each will control 90 
minutes on the congressional budget.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 14 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, today we take up the budget resolution. Passing it, 
like many things in this House, is never easy, and sometimes 
contentious. But it is crucially important if we care about fiscal 
soundness and the future of our country.
  Our country faces right now a host of different challenges: the 
specter of recession, a crunch in the credit markets, rising 
unemployment, declining family income, constant inflation in the cost 
of health care, aging infrastructure, and a porous safety net. And that 
is not to mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing us close to 
$200 billion this year, and even more dearly in human lives and 
wounded.
  The President's budget for 2009 does little to turn this tide. In 
fact, the policies of the last 7 years have created some of these 
problems and compounded others. Eight short years ago, in 2000, our 
budget was in surplus, big-time surplus. In that year, we had a surplus 
of $236 billion. Having worked for years to bring the budget to this 
status, we warned the President and our colleagues across the aisle not 
to bet it all on a blue-sky forecast; but it was to no avail.
  The President's economists looked out 10 years and saw nothing but 
surpluses, $5.6 trillion in all. We worried that if these rosy 
projections didn't pan out, we would be right back where we had been, 
deep in deficit.

                              {time}  1515

  Well, the President told the country, in effect, that we could have 
it all, guns, butter and tax cuts, too, and never mind the deficits.
  I'll have to admit it looked as though we were sitting on an island 
of surpluses, but, in truth, we were surrounded by a sea of debt, of 
long-term unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, coming 
due just over the horizon.
  Seven years later, under this administration's policies, those 
surpluses are history. They're gone, vanished, replaced with record 
deficits and mounting debt.
  This one chart here which shows in tabular form the increase in the 
debt over the last 8 years, says it as simply as we can on one piece of 
paper. When the President came to office, the debt of this country was 
$5.7 trillion. When he leaves in a few months, it will probably be 
close to $10 trillion, more than $4 trillion in debt accumulation on 
the watch of the Bush administration.
  The budget we take up today is no grand solution, I'll grant you 
that, but it moves us in the right direction. It restores fiscal 
responsibility, but not to the exclusion of other values that we hold 
dear such as our children's education and their good health care. And 
that's why, right off the bat, we part company with the President's 
budget and with Mr. Ryan's substitute.
  We think Medicare is one of our country's crowning achievements, so 
we reject his cuts that would emasculate Medicare, in the President's 
budget, $556 billion over 10 years, and we reject his cuts in Medicaid, 
$118 billion over 10 years.
  The Ryan substitute over 5 years would cut Medicare by $253 billion 
by our calculation, and Medicaid by $116 billion. We can't vote for 
that.
  We would not wipe out the Social Services Block Grant or cripple the 
Community Services Block Grants as the President proposes, because we 
have seen in our own communities the roles they play. They hold up the 
safety net in an economy where it's sorely needed. And with fuel prices 
at record highs, the last thing we would slash is LIHEAP and low-income 
home weatherization. These are minimum benefits for Americans with 
maximum needs.
  Ten years ago when we first ran a surplus, we resolved in both Houses 
to use some of that surplus each year to double the resources of the 
National Institutes of Health, the NIH, over a period of 5 years. We 
reached that goal in a bipartisan way, only to backslide year by year 
in this administration. In our budget this year we stop the backsliding 
at NIH, and we restore the President's cuts at the equally important 
Centers For Disease Control.
  Our budget targets other resources to strengthen our economy and our 
society. We invest more in innovation, more in energy, more in 
infrastructure, and we provide $7.1 billion more than the President for 
education.
  To move our country one step closer to health care for all, we 
facilitate up to $50 billion to expand SCHIP, the children's health 
insurance program, consistent with PAYGO, requiring that the costs be 
fully offset. We also accommodate fiscally responsible relief from the 
alternative minimum tax in order to shelter those middle-income 
taxpayers for whom it was never intended.
  To make America safe, we fully fund defense, and we keep our promises 
to those who have fought for our defense, providing $3.6 billion above 
current services for veterans health care.
  Now Mr. Ryan puts another billion on top of that in his budget, but 
he also puts in function 920, this is budget esoterica, but he puts in 
function 920 a call for $400 billion in undistributed cuts. One of 
those cuts would likely be that apparent increase in veterans health 
care.
  Although we fix the AMT for another year, providing a tax cut of $70 
billion to middle-income Americans, our Republican colleagues will 
accuse us of raising taxes. You've already heard it. The fact is, our 
budget doesn't raise taxes by one penny. But don't take my word for it. 
Stop by the manager's table right here on the House floor and read the 
letters that we've received from groups like the Concord Coalition, or 
look at the posters that we just posted here.
  Here's what the Concord Coalition says: ``Allowing some or all of the 
tax cuts to expire would not be the result of Congress raising taxes; 
it would be the result of sunsets that were included when these tax 
cuts were originally enacted to avoid the level of fiscal scrutiny that 
PAYGO is designed to ensure.'' That's what the Concord Coalition has to 
say about our resolution.
  If you want to see more, turn to section 501 in our budget 
resolution, title 5, section 501, and we enumerate, from item A through 
H, child tax credit, marital penalty relief, the 10 percent bracket, 
estate taxes, extension of research experimentation tax credit, 
extension of the State and local sales tax deduction, extension of the 
deduction for small business expenses and it goes on. These are the tax 
cuts that we embrace and commit ourselves to seeing

[[Page 3875]]

renewed when they do eventually expire.
  We believe that tax relief can come in a deficit-neutral tax bill in 
some cases, and we offer the AMT as an example. On more than one 
occasion, high-ranking officials in the Bush administration have 
testified before our committee, and when they're asked about the AMT 
and its impact on middle-income taxpayers, they've insisted that they 
could fix the AMT with changes in the Tax Code so that there would be 
no net loss of revenues.
  For example, in February 2006 Josh Bolten was the director of OMB. He 
told our committee that the AMT could be corrected in the context of 
overall deficit-neutral tax reform, his words.
  In February 2007, his successor, Rob Portman, told the Budget 
Committee, ``Our budget assumes it will have a revenue-neutral 
correction to the AMT.''
  The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, has taken 
the same stance, but Mr. Rangel has delivered. He's put a revenue-
neutral bill on the table to kindle the debate. The Bush administration 
asserts it too has a plan, but has failed to follow through by 
disclosing any plan of its own.
  One of the first steps that we took in the 110th Congress was to 
restore the pay-as-you-go rules that had helped us in the 1990s turn 
record deficits into record surpluses. This resolution fully complies 
with the PAYGO rule.
  Partly because we've held mandatory spending in check with PAYGO and, 
at the same time, kept domestic discretionary spending close to the 
rate of inflation, this budget returns to surplus in 2012. Our bottom 
line beats the President's budget going away. Between 2009 and 2013, 
our net deficits are $262 billion. Over the same period the President's 
net deficits are $674 billion. And using CBO's latest forecast, our 
budget should be in surplus by 2012 in the amount of $178 billion. And 
from 2012 through 2018 our cumulative surplus should reach $1.4 
trillion, all told.
  Now we could have used the lion's share of those surpluses to offset 
the revenues lost to renewal of expiring tax cuts, and surpluses of 
$1.4 trillion would indeed offset a huge amount of revenues forgone. We 
chose instead to leave those decisions to a time closer to December 31, 
2010, when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. But when the time is 
right, if those surpluses materialize, they can be used to offset the 
renewal of numerous expiring tax cuts, disproving our opponents' claim 
that we don't intend to renew and extend any of the expiring cuts.
  In our resolution we also provide $940 million for program integrity, 
much of it going to the Internal Revenue Service for audits and 
compliance. The Commissioner told us not so many months ago that 
there's a huge tax gap, maybe $500 billion, between taxes owed and 
taxes paid, the so-called tax gap. If we can close that gap just a bit, 
we can raise tax revenues without raising tax rates. These funds can 
likewise be used as offsets.
  So there are many ways to look at tax cuts in the code. And what we 
are saying here is that we should use the next several years, before 
the tax cuts expire, to do all of the above so that we will have the 
revenues to renew many of these tax cuts and restructure the AMT in 
keeping with PAYGO principles. That's simply what we are proposing.
  Our budget parallels the President's budget with respect to national 
defense. It funds the basic defense budget at the levels the President 
requested for 5 years, but does not include supplemental funds beyond 
the $700 billion sought by the President. The President's budget for 
2009 does include a $70 billion item which the Pentagon calls a 
placeholder. To compare our budget to the President's budget, apples to 
apples, our resolution includes a $70 billion placeholder equal to the 
President's request for overseas deployments and activities in theaters 
that include Afghanistan and Iraq. This budget resolution is not an 
authorization bill. It's not an appropriations bill, and therefore, it 
cannot prescribe how much should be spent for these activities or 
specify where the funds should be spent. Those decisions are left to 
the authorization and appropriation process, in committee and on this 
floor. These funds, however, can be used for whatever purpose the 
Congress eventually chooses in authorizing and appropriating 
legislation.
  When we set out to do this budget, our overriding objective, Madam 
Chairman, was a balanced budget, because we're appalled at the amount 
of debt being left our children, and at our stature in the world as the 
greatest debtor nation. But we want more than arithmetic balance; we 
want our priorities balanced; we want a budget that does more for our 
children's education and their health care as well, a budget that makes 
our workers more competitive and our scientists more innovative.
  We want to revive America, restore our fiscal soundness, reclaim our 
future. This budget is just one step, but it's one step in the right 
direction.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 12\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Madam Chairman, in many ways I believe our two parties agree on many 
things. We both agree on the need to balance the budget. We agree on 
the need for solid, sustained economic growth that produces an 
abundance of good-paying American jobs. And we agree that the looming 
entitlement crisis is the greatest threat to our Nation's economic and 
budgetary future.
  But as this budget makes clear, there is a glaring disagreement on 
how best to achieve these goals, or as in the case of entitlements, 
even to address this challenge.
  Republicans believe that the best America is an America free from the 
burden of Big Government. We believe that the nucleus of our society, 
the engine of economic growth in this country, is the individual, the 
family, the entrepreneur, not the government. And we believe that the 
more the Federal Government expands demands and takes from these 
citizens, the less freedom they will have and the less opportunity to 
realize their own potential.
  Clearly, the Democrats have a much different philosophy. They believe 
that bigger government is better government, and they believe that the 
best way, the only way to meet our Nation's myriad challenges is with 
an ever larger Federal Government fueled by even higher spending, 
financed by ever higher taxes. With this budget, the Democrats have 
proven their commitment to this philosophy. And as it did last year, 
the first thing this budget does is tout a whole lot of new spending 
for, as we heard in last week's speeches and press conferences and as 
we heard today, for everyone and everything.
  But right next to this budget's much hyped new spending priorities 
and promises are somewhat less advertised big new tax hikes on American 
workers, families and small businesses, many of whom are already 
struggling to make ends meet.
  In recent months, we've seen a whole host of legitimate concerns in 
the economy. Growth and job creation are slowing, and many Americans 
are seeing their home values falling. At the same time their food, 
energy and health care bills are going up. The worst thing we could do 
to these families or the struggling economy is raise taxes. But if we 
pass this budget, that's exactly what we will be doing. Passing this 
budget means imposing on the economy and on our constituents the 
largest tax increase in American history.
  One of the most ironic things about the Democrats' tax increase is 
that it comes on the heels of this bipartisan economic stimulus plan. 
Just last month, Congress passed a stimulus package to give struggling 
families some of their tax dollars back and provide incentives for 
businesses to expand and create jobs. But before we could even get 
these checks out the door, the Democrats unveiled this budget that will 
take all that money back plus demand hundreds of billions more new 
higher taxes. Far from consistent tax policy, that's not even coherent 
tax policy. Is $600 really going to make a difference to somebody in 
Janesville, Wisconsin with a tax increase of nearly $3,000 per year 
looming on the horizon? Does a one-time check of $1,200 really make up 
for later raising taxes on that same family of four by $6,000 each and 
every year?

[[Page 3876]]

  This budget will raise marginal tax rates on all income taxpayers, 
including low-income individuals who are benefiting from the 10 percent 
bracket. This budget will slash the $1,000 per child tax credit in 
half. It will reinstate the marriage tax penalty. It will make it that 
much harder for families to pay their mortgages, pay their grocery 
bills and send their kids to college.

                              {time}  1530

  Unlike the Democrats' rhetoric would have you believe, we are not 
just talking about hurting rich people. I know a whole lot of people 
back in Wisconsin who paid taxes, who are married and who have kids who 
do not consider themselves anything close to rich. But this budget's 
tax cuts will hit every single American taxpayer, whether or not they 
checked some imaginary ``rich'' box on their tax form.
  Now, again, my friends on the other side of the aisle insist this 
isn't their plan, that they're really not going to raise your taxes. 
They've got all of these groups from the left saying that's not 
happening. But yet they keep writing those tax hikes in their budget. 
Why? Because their numbers would never work. Their budget would never 
show balance. And without those massive tax hikes, this budget 
requires, includes, assumes, mandates a $683 billion tax increase over 
just 5 years.
  First, because it exhumes the complete expiration of the 2001 and 
2003 tax laws. And because of their own PAYGO rule, just to continue 
those same laws which are already in place, they're required to offset 
those current provisions with an equal tax increase of $683 billion. So 
whatever way you cut it, you can't avoid it. It is a tax increase, a 
big one, the biggest we've ever seen.
  And second, because they're already committed, every one of those tax 
dollars, to pay for their new spending. Beyond admitting the burden 
these tax hikes will put on our constituents and the economy, this 
Congress has got to understand that we will never rid our government of 
deficits and debt by simply raising taxes.
  Our problem has never been that Americans aren't sending enough of 
their taxpayer dollars to Washington. Our problem has always been, and 
is clearly today, that Washington is spending too much money and far 
too quickly to be sustained.
  But for all of the Democrats' purported concern about the deficit, 
all they've chosen to do since they came into the majority is spend 
more and more money. This year's budget would certainly continue that 
trend. The Democrats' budget proposes to increase entitlement spending 
by untold amounts of the use of numerous reserve funds. At the same 
time, they want to increase nonsecurity discretionary spending by more 
than $22 billion over the President's request.
  But even while demanding billings and new spending, they fail to do 
anything to reduce the wasteful spending already included in these 
budgets. In fact, last year, the majority's appropriations bill 
included over 11,000 earmarks at a cost of nearly $15 billion to 
taxpayers.
  This year, the majority has already rejected Republican calls for an 
earmark moratorium or even earmark reform to reduce the wasteful, self-
serving spending. In this regard, we can expect more of the same: 
another year and another choice by the majority of pork over paychecks. 
But for all of the additional spending, the worst thing that is not in 
this budget is not what it does, but the many things it fails to do.
  First, I think it's fair to note that if we apply the Democrats' own 
standards, this budget doesn't even achieve balance. That's because 
this budget suffers from the same shortcomings that the Democrats 
criticized the President's budget for doing just weeks ago.
  This budget doesn't pay for the AMT fix and it doesn't pay for the 
war, as the chairman so eloquently criticized the Bush budget just a 
couple weeks ago. As a result, this chart shows that this budget 
doesn't really balance in 2012; instead, it remains in the red for as 
far as the eye can see.
  Finally, for the second straight year, the majority budget fails to 
include even one meaningful reform to address our entitlement crisis. 
This means that even if this budget were to balance in 2012, it would 
be quickly driven right back into deficit by these programs' current 
path of growth. By ignoring this problem, this budget ignores every one 
of the witnesses we've called before the Budget Committee who have 
warned that our largest entitlement programs, particularly Medicare and 
Medicaid and Social Security, simply cannot be sustained as currently 
structured.
  These experts have told us unequivocally that if we fail to reform 
these programs, not only will they grow themselves right into 
extinction, they will impose a crushing burden on our debt, on our 
budget, and all but eliminate our Nation's ability to compete in the 
global marketplace.
  Our Nation's chief accountant, GAO Comptroller General Walker, 
recently testified that the long-term fiscal obligation of the U.S. 
Government is $53 trillion, or about $180,000 in unfunded liability for 
every man, woman, and child in the United States. It is $180,000 per 
person. You can buy really nice homes in Wisconsin for $180,000.
  And we know that this problem, once dismissed as somewhere off in the 
future, is already upon us. On February 12 of this year, last month, 
the first baby boomer, a retired teacher from Maryland, received her 
first Social Security check. And right on her heels are over 80 million 
other baby boomers who will qualify for both Social Security and 
Medicare right after her. And just last month, the Medicare trigger was 
set off sending a clear warning shot to Congress that we must act 
immediately to get this program on a sustainable path.
  In fact, by doing nothing, by ignoring this problem for another 5 
years, the Democrats' budget will add another $14 trillion in unfunded 
liability for future generations. And this is just in the next 5 years. 
Over the long run, the problem will grow much worse than that.
  As this chart shows, by the year 2040, our three largest entitlement 
programs alone will consume 20 percent of our economy, equivalent to 
the cost of the entire Federal Government today. By this time, the 
overall size of government will consume 40 percent of our Nation's GDP, 
more than double the historic average of 18.3 percent.
  What that means in real life is my three children, who are 3, 4, and 
6 years old, by the time they are exactly my age, they will have to pay 
twice the level of taxes we pay today just to keep today's Federal 
Government afloat for them at that time. Add no new programs and take 
none away, for my three kids, when they are my age, they will have to 
bear twice the burden we bear today just to pay the bills of the 
Federal Government before they can keep any money left in their own 
paychecks.
  The only choice we would leave them would be to pay the crippling tax 
burden or simply accept the fact that their Nation can no longer afford 
health care, education, or even defense or national security. I can't 
imagine any one of us who finds that kind of future acceptable, but 
this is exactly what this budget confines them to do.
  Everyone talks about this common entitlement as our greatest 
challenge, and rightfully so, but it is also our greatest opportunity. 
Today, with this budget, we have an opportunity to save our largest 
retirement and health safety net programs from financial ruin. We can 
make these programs better, stronger, more responsive, more resilient, 
more sustainable, and more in line with the way our economy works 
today.
  And if we act now, we have the opportunity to make these reforms in a 
rational, well-thought-out way. We don't have to wait for the crisis to 
hit. But regrettably, that's exactly what the Democratic majority would 
have us do. With this budget, they are simply accepting that we are 
going to continue to pile up massive amounts of debt for our children 
and we are going to force them to pay double what we do in taxes to 
keep these programs afloat in the future.
  In closing, let me say that I have come to know and respect many of 
my

[[Page 3877]]

colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In particular, I think the 
gentleman from South Carolina is the definition of a true Southern 
gentlemen. He's a class-act man, and I don't have any doubt in my mind 
that every one of them on the other side of the aisle are just as well 
intentioned and just as concerned about our Nation's future as anyone 
is on this side of the aisle.
  Every one of us wants our Nation to remain strong, safe, prosperous, 
and free today and well into the future. Every one of us wants to pass 
on to the next generation a world that is even better than the one our 
parents gave us. By giving us these jobs, by sending us to Congress, 
that's exactly what our constituents entrusted us to do.
  With that great responsibility in mind, I will be opposing this 
budget that we are considering today. This budget misses an historic 
opportunity to put our Nation on a better path. Instead, they choose 
the path of Big Government, higher spending, higher taxes, higher debt. 
I can only hope that this Congress will choose to change its course 
before it's too late, because if we fail, we may be the first 
generation to sever that precious, fragile American legacy of leaving a 
better standard of living for future generations.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 14 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, before I talk about how this budget will 
help keep America secure, let me just respond by saying I'm glad we 
live in a country where speech is free. But when I hear my Republican 
colleagues talk about the burden of crushing debt as they try to attack 
our budget this year, I would remind the American people that these 
were the architects of $4 trillion in national debt over the last 8 
years; $4 trillion of national debt that will lead to an annual tax of 
$188 billion on my children until the day they die just to pay interest 
on the debt they created in the last 4 years with their partisan 
budgets.
  Madam Chairman, keeping America safe and secure should always be a 
top national priority. That's why, with this budget, House Democrats 
provide for a strong national defense and invest billions more on 
homeland security, veterans health care than the President's budget 
request.
  Here are 10 reasons why this budget helps keep America safe and 
secure:
  First, it increases the national defense budget by $37.5 billion over 
last year to a 7.5 percent increase, excluding costs for wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan;
  Second, this budget will improve military readiness, especially for 
the National Guard and Reserves;
  Third, we say ``no'' to the administration's ill-advised cuts of $430 
million in programs to protect Americans from the threat of nuclear 
terrorism;
  Fourth, this budget provides funds to implement the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations, such as better screening of cargo and passenger 
aircraft and ship containers coming from foreign seaports;
  Fifth, we say ``no'' to the administration's proposed billion dollars 
in cuts for first responders such as firefighters and police officers;
  Sixth, the Democratic budget rejects the administration's proposal to 
cut $705 million from the State's Homeland Security grant program;
  Seventh, we actually fund the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program, in contrast to the administration, which zeroes out this 
program which helps communities incarcerate illegal criminal aliens;
  Eighth, the Democratic budget increases veterans health care and 
benefits by $3.2 billion above the President's request. We believe our 
Nation should keep its promises to those who've kept their promise to 
serve. The fact is, with this budget, in 2 years, the Democratic-led 
Congress will have increased veterans funding by more than the 
Republican-led Congress did in 12 years;
  Ninth, the Military Officers Association of America, MOAA, applauds 
this bill for honoring our military troops and retirees by replacing 
the administration's $1.2 billion shortfall in defense health care and 
for rejecting massive fee increases to the military TRICARE health 
program;
  Tenth, and finally, the DAV, American Legion, AMVETS, Paralyzed 
Veterans of America, and numerous other veterans organizations 
respected across our land have applauded what this bill does for 
veterans. Listen to what the executive director of the Veterans for 
Foreign Wars said about the budget bill we passed last year and this 
one: It is an unparalleled commitment to veterans service and 
sacrifice.
  Madam Chairman, I think that says it well.
  At this time, I would like to recognize and yield to the chairman of 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner), who's been a tireless champion of America's veterans.
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, we have an administration that says 
support the troops, support the troops, support the troops. Then they 
give us the budget that cuts support for veterans over the next 5 
years, year by year by year, and with a modest increase for health care 
that barely covers inflation. It cut every single account in the 
veterans budget, including construction, including research, all of the 
way through. So we restore, if I'm correct, Mr. Edwards, we restore all 
of those cuts.
  And for the seventh year in a row, the President said, Let's increase 
enrollment fees. Let's double the pharmaceutical copays, and we, for 
the seventh year in a row are saying ``no.'' But not only did they 
increase the fees, they made a calculation that several hundred 
thousand veterans would not be able to pay those fees and be thrown out 
of the health care system. That, in a time of war where we got our 
troops fighting, they're going to throw veterans out of the VA health 
care system. That is disgraceful, and we said ``no'' to that.
  And I thank the gentleman for making sure that we respected these 
warriors. It's part of the cost of war to treat the veterans correctly. 
Mr. Edwards and Mr. Spratt, you provided for those veterans. The whole 
country thanks you.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, at this point, for engaging in a 
colloquy, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Altmire.)
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Chairman, I'm proud of this budget because it 
continues on the great work that we did last year after years and years 
of chronic underfunding of the veterans health care system. We added 
$13 billion in funding for the VA, which is the largest increase in the 
77-year history of the VA, and that was great work. And we are 
following that up this year by adding $4.9 billion in increased funding 
and including steady increases over each of the next 5 years.

                              {time}  1545

  This budget is true to our American veterans.
  In contrast, the President's budget, which does include a modest $1.7 
billion increase this year, it decreases funding in real dollars over 
the next 4 years, and over the 5-year period, contains a cut in 
veterans health care spending. And there are 120,000 new veterans 
entering the system this year. Is there anyone in this body that thinks 
that health care costs aren't going to go up, that the number of 
veterans isn't going to go up, people entering the VA health care 
system? And instead of following the President's lead and cutting 
veterans health care spending, we're increasing spending to the largest 
levels in history.
  It's endorsed by the VFW, the American Legion, the Vietnam Veterans 
of America, just to name a few. And this funding means that we're going 
to clear up the 500,000 case backlog that currently exists in the VA 
due to that chronic underfunding that took place over the past several 
years before we increased funding last year. It's going to make 
improvements at VA clinics, help keep up with growing populations of 
veterans, including in my home district a $180 million expansion of the 
VA health care facility.
  It's going to increase research on traumatic brain injury and 
prosthetics to help our wounded warriors and our

[[Page 3878]]

wounded veterans. It's going to help us recruit and retain the highest 
quality health care professionals to ensure that our veterans get 
nothing less than the highest quality health care available anywhere in 
the country right at our VA centers.
  So, lastly I would say to the gentleman, we have stepped up to the 
plate. We are going to support our veterans not just with our words, 
but with our actions. We're going to continue the great work we did 
last year with a $4.9 billion increase this year.
  I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for his words and his actions in 
this Congress on behalf of our Nation's veterans and veterans in your 
district.
  It is now my privilege to yield to Congresswoman Boyda, the 
gentlelady from Kansas, for purposes of a colloquy. And I want to thank 
her for working so hard on behalf of our troops, their families, and 
our veterans and their families.
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It has been 
a pleasure to work with you on behalf of our active duty military and 
the two VA hospitals that we have in the Second District of Kansas. 
It's such an important issue for so many people in my district, and 
they want to know that somebody is fighting for them.
  I would just say that it's almost laughable if it weren't so sad to 
hear the gentleman from Wisconsin talk about this debt as if for the 
last 7 years we haven't seen a tremendous increase in our national 
debt.
  I, too, am absolutely worried sick about the fact that my children 
are going to have to pay the $4 trillion of debt that we've incurred 
since they've been in the majority, or actually, in the last 7 years. 
But Mr. Chairman, let me just say that what makes me feel so good about 
this new majority and this budget that we've brought forward, in those 
years since we've seen that increase in debt that's going to be so 
devastating to us, what have we gotten for it? In 12 years, we've seen 
the debt double, and yet we only saw $16 billion go into veterans 
benefits at a time when they needed them so badly. In the last year, 
with our fiscally responsible budget, we will have added in the last 2 
years $17 billion. It's just a matter of priorities.
  We all are very concerned about the budget deficit that the 
Republicans have just escalated beyond control. You and I are working 
together to make sure that we have priorities that reflect the 
priorities of the American people. Since 2003, the backlog has 
increased by 50 percent. We have cut so much funding out. And so, thank 
God that we have put some of this money back in.
  And I know the people of Kansas want to make sure that the money they 
are sending to Washington, D.C. is used well and is used for the 
veterans that have gone out and fought so bravely for our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I am so pleased to be a strong supporter of this budget 
and a strong supporter of the veterans. It's easy, very easy to put a 
yellow ribbon on your car. And I agree with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania who just spoke, we need to have action, not just words.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlelady from Kansas for your powerful 
advocacy on behalf of our veterans and our military.
  I would now like to recognize and yield for the purpose of engaging 
in a colloquy to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney).
  Mr. CARNEY. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for the 
opportunity to engage in this colloquy. Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
  It is sort of ironic that under the previous Congresses, their idea 
of fiscal discipline was to raise the debt ceiling to $9 trillion, I 
find that interesting, while at the same time we have seen homeland 
security funding only being paid lip service to and not really being 
taken care of.
  As you know, nine out of 10 Americans live in areas that are prone to 
natural disasters, and of course we're not prepared to take care of 
them. The Coast Guard itself said that we are only 25 percent along the 
way to meeting the needs to protect our ports, that 75 percent of those 
needs have gone unmet in homeland security.
  We can fulfill the 9/11 Commission requests here, H.R. 1, take care 
of those funding priorities that make us all safer.
  The cuts to first responders I can't believe. I worked my way through 
college, actually, as a paramedic/EMT back in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It's 
unconscionable the kinds of cuts that have been done. The State 
Homeland Security grants, I just want to make a quick list here, the 
administration cut it by $705 million. The Urban Area Security 
Initiative, cut by $9 million. Fire grants, the very grants that 
protect us in the rural areas, cut by $463 million by the 
administration. The Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, zeroed out, 
eliminated entirely. The COPS program, cut by $599 million. We make 
sure we put $417 million back into the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program, the administration zeroed that out, the very program that 
enables local communities to handle undocumented criminals that they 
capture.
  Finally, the President's budget only funds $210 million of the $400 
million authorized to make sure the Coast Guard takes care of our 
ports. This is irresponsible, never mind unconscionable.
  I'm proud of this budget. This budget goes a long way towards 
protecting this country, a lot further than previous budgets.
  Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for pointing out that it takes 
budgets to defend our Nation, our communities and our families, not 
just rhetoric.
  At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rodriguez) for a colloquy. And I want to thank the gentleman for his 
year-in, year-out work on behalf of our servicemen and -women, their 
families and our veterans.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I want to personally thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 
leadership throughout the country and your efforts in providing for our 
veterans.
  I know I had the pleasure of serving on the Veterans Committee, and 
nothing was more frustrating than during the period of time that I 
served to just give nothing but lip service, and at the same time see 
the major cuts of the administration when it came to our veterans after 
having served our country. When I saw the budgets of the administration 
continuously bring forth additional fees and copayments on our veterans 
when both sides were saying that that was not appropriate, he continues 
to do that with this present budget. And if that was not enough, I know 
that he cut priority 8 veterans. And I'm glad to see that this budget 
includes that on there, so I want to personally thank you for that.
  In addition, the Democratic budget calls for advance pay and benefits 
to improve the quality of life of our troops and their families, 
including the emphasis on providing support and assistance to our 
troops and their families while they are deployed. And that is 
essential. It's unfortunate, and we cannot even comprehend how this has 
come about.
  Let me just say, this budget also calls for a $15.9 billion cut for 
the next 5 years on our soldiers, on TRICARE. As it is, the 
reimbursements on TRICARE are real low, to the point that some of our 
doctors are not going to take some of those soldiers and provide access 
to health care that they need.
  But I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman and the 
leadership on this budget effort for making sure that our troops have 
the resources that are necessary, and to make sure that our veterans, 
after they come back, have the services that they're entitled to. We 
need to push forth on making sure those polytrauma centers get built so 
that access to health care is essential.
  Thank you very much for this colloquy.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this Budget resolution. 
This budget provides for among many other elements the much needed 
resources for our country's defense needs.

[[Page 3879]]

  As you know, I represent a very large district that spans from San 
Antonio in the east to El Paso County in the west and south to the 
Mexico border. The U.S. military is very important to my district as 
evidenced by the BRAC decisions that centralize military medical 
training in San Antonio and bring soldiers from Europe back to Fort 
Bliss in El Paso. While the defense budget is important to the Nation 
as a whole, it has a particularly strong significance to my 
constituents.


                  excellent and affordable healthcare

  San Antonio is poised to be the military center of excellence for 
medical issues with the completion of the current BRAC construction.
  The President's budget calls for increases in Tri-care fees for 
military retirees under the age of 65 by $15.9 billion over five years.
  The military's own have opposed these fees as evidenced by the 
Military Offices' Association of America's rejection of the fee 
increases.
  MOAA supports the Democratic budget that avoids Tri-care fee hikes 
and places a continued emphasis on addressing problems such as those 
identified at Walter Reed Medical Center.


                               readiness

  The Commission on the Guard and Reserve issued a report on January 
30, 2008 citing a lack of readiness to respond to a catastrophic attack 
on the United States.
  A major reason for this is the Administration budget that continually 
prioritizes funding wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while leaving the 
defense of our homeland at risk.
  The Democratic Budget provides greater attention to improving 
military readiness, in particular for the National Guard and Reserve.


               additional pay and benefits to the troops

  The Democratic Budget calls for advanced pay and benefits to improve 
the quality of life of the troops and their families, including an 
emphasis on providing support and assistance to troops and their 
families while they are deployed and when they return from deployments 
to readjust to civilian life.
  This is what we owe the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who 
have so selflessly fought for our Nation's freedom.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman.
  I will conclude by saying that this is a solid budget that defends 
our Nation, supports a strong national defense, and just as 
importantly, honors in a meaningful way those who have risked their 
lives to defend our Nation, our veterans and our military retirees.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds only 
to say that this budget that's before us raises the national debt by 
$646 billion this year, the largest annual increase ever. And that's 
$14 trillion of unfunded debt to just two programs, Medicare and Social 
Security.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina, the vice ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, Mr. Barrett.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, our friends on the other side of the aisle have spent 
a great deal of time over the past few years railing against deficits 
and railing against the debt. And last year, their first time in the 
majority in over a decade, the Democrats finally got their chance to 
show their version of what a fiscally responsible Congress should 
actually look like. But all they've done since they've come into power 
is mismanage the fiscal situation.
  The key to managing and to budgeting is to set priorities, and 
everyone who has ever had a family or run a business knows this. You 
have to make difficult choices, and you can't always have everything 
you want right when you want it.
  But the Democrats have refused to set priorities. They simply want to 
spend more on everything and everyone within the reach of the Federal 
Government. And we've even seen things that they spend money on that 
the Federal Government has absolutely nothing to do with.
  And to pay for all this new spending? Well, they're simply going to 
raise taxes, this time by $683 billion. That tax hike lets them show 
balance, at least on paper, for this round of spending. But their plan 
to chase ever-higher spending with ever-higher taxes can only work for 
so long. Pretty soon, as their spending continues to spiral out of 
control without any priorities, without any effort to cut waste, and 
without any effort to reform entitlements, they're simply going to run 
out of people to pay for it all. Then what?
  Again, budgeting is about setting priorities and making decisions. 
But the decisions this budget makes, and perhaps more importantly, 
those that it fails to make, sets up a vicious cycle of tax and spend 
that neither the budget nor the American taxpayer can sustain for long.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Chairman, I will yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the ranking member.
  The Democrats' budget clearly shows, and depends on collecting, the 
largest increase in taxes in our Nation's history.
  Most tax experts agree that one of the hallmarks of good tax policy 
is consistency and stability in that code. A high degree of uncertainty 
about future tax policy makes long-term planning difficult for both 
families and businesses, and that uncertainty can have a negative 
impact on economic growth, yet this majority continues to actively 
foster that uncertainty, again producing a budget that depends on the 
collection of the largest increase in taxes in American history.
  Congress recently passed a bipartisan stimulus package that will give 
struggling families some of their tax dollars back with the hopes that 
they will spend this money and bolster our economy. But before they can 
even get these checks out the door, the Democrats have unveiled a 
budget that will take back all of that money, plus billions of dollars 
more. Do we really expect families to go out and spend money when 
they've got a host of new income taxes that will dramatically decrease 
their discretionary income hanging over their heads?
  Last year, the new Congress waited until the 11th hour to pass a 1-
year AMT patch, in effect threatening more than 20 million Americans 
with an average tax hike of $2,000. This AMT slow walk, according to 
the Treasury, has now forced 3 million taxpayers to delay filing their 
tax returns to collect child care, education, and energy credits.
  If, as the Democrats claim, they actually intend to stick to their 
PAYGO rule from now on, and as an aside, last night's ethics bill 
completely ignored the PAYGO impact, Americans can expect to see their 
tax burdens rise to a level never seen before in our Nation. But just 
whose tax bills are going to explode, and when, we're not sure.
  My point here is that, beyond the damage they will do when taxes 
actually go up in 2011, 2012 and 2013, the majority is doing a great 
disservice to American workers and businesses and our economy as a 
whole by maintaining this tax uncertainty. As a result, we have a whole 
Nation of workers and businesses with no idea of what their tax burden 
will look like in the future, let alone in this coming year. And I 
can't imagine too many folks going out and buying new refrigerators, or 
too many businesses investing, expanding and the creating new jobs 
necessary to get our economy back on track with that kind of 
uncertainty hanging over their heads.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Chairman, I would like to 
yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a member of 
the Budget Committee, Mr. Hensarling.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, for as many shortcomings as this budget has for what 
it contains, the largest single tax increase in American history 
threatening, over the next few years, an increase in family taxes of 
over $3,000 a year, an explosion of new government spending in 
bureaucracy, the largest Federal budget ever, earmarks as far as the 
eye can see, taking money out of paychecks so some Member of Congress 
can keep their paycheck, for as bad as this budget is for what it 
contains, it's even worse for what it doesn't contain.

                              {time}  1600

  There is nothing, nothing in this budget that will reform out-of-
control

[[Page 3880]]

entitlement spending. This budget, this Democrat budget, threatens the 
retirement security of future generations.
  And don't take my word for it. Go to the Social Security and Medicare 
Trustees Report. It's going broke. It is going broke. The Nation can't 
afford all of the spending that the Democrats are putting forth. 
Already these programs are threatening future generations with an 
unconscionable tax hike. We are looking at a fiscal fork in the road 
already so that future generations are either, A, going to have to have 
their taxes doubled, or there will be no Federal Government to speak of 
except Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
  Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, give us a 
few years and maybe we'll get around to doing something about it. Well, 
we don't have a few years. We don't have a few years, Mr. Chairman, 
because every single year that the Democrats choose to kick the can 
down the road, every single year they choose to ignore the problem, an 
extra $2 trillion of debt that they decry is put on our children and 
our grandchildren.
  Mr. Chairman, I got into the parent business 6 years ago. I have a 6-
year-old daughter and a 4-year-old son. I know many on that side of the 
aisle have children and grandchildren. So I'm so perplexed that they 
don't care about this problem. Every year they ignore it, it's an extra 
$8,000 of debt or taxes that are going to be placed on our children and 
our grandchildren.
  But don't take my word for it. Listen to the Federal Reserve: 
``Without early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth of 
entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened with future 
generations bearing much of the cost.''
  Comptroller General Walker: ``The rising cost of government 
entitlements are a fiscal cancer, a fiscal cancer that threatens 
catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.''
  Those aren't my words, Mr. Chairman. Those are the words of the 
Comptroller General. Those are the words of the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve.
  So right now already as the Democrats decry the current debt, do they 
not believe that Medicare is a debt of the government? Do they not 
believe Medicaid is a debt of the government? Do they not believe 
Social Security is a debt of the government? And if so, it is their 
budget, their budget that is increasing debt and heaping it upon future 
generations.
  This $8,000 a year that they are putting on future generations, 
that's enough money for every family in my district to send two 
children to Texas A&M University for 4 years. It will pay an average 
mortgage for 2 years. And yet, again, the Democrats know about this 
problem, Mr. Chairman; they just don't do anything about it.
  Now, somebody who grew up listening to a lot of rock and roll, 
there's a song that I'm very fond of called ``Ohio'' by Neil Young, and 
there's a line in that song that says, ``How can you run when you 
know?'' And that's what I ask about this budget. How can the Democrats 
run when they know what they are doing to future generations?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, the 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side 
of the aisle are fond of saying that a budget is a moral document. It 
shows what we care about. I couldn't agree more.
  The majority's bloated budget blueprint is a clear demonstration to 
families across America that the Democratic majority in Congress is 
intently focused on dipping its fingers into their pockets to take more 
and more of their hard-earned money. It shows that the Democratic 
majority will raise taxes, without hesitation, to support its addiction 
to spending. And it shows that Democrats in Congress are not interested 
in making difficult choices, setting priorities, or rooting out waste 
in government spending.
  What we are considering today is the Democrat majority's ``more, 
more, more resolution.'' More spending, more budget gimmicks, and more 
taxes.
  As my colleagues well remember, we held the line on spending last 
year thanks solely to the President and Republicans in Congress. The 
President's budget requested this year $59 billion, or a 6.3 percent 
increase, in discretionary spending over the present fiscal year. Most 
people would think $59 billion is plenty, but it's not enough for the 
``more, more, more budget.''
  We hear our Democrat colleagues pay a great deal of lip service to 
the poor. But here's what failing to extend these tax cuts in the years 
ahead will do to the poor:
  Six million low-income American families will no longer qualify for 
earned income tax credits;
  Low-income families with one or two children will no longer be 
eligible for the refundable child tax credit;
  Roughly 12 million single women with children will see their taxes 
increase by $1,100 a year.
  As disconcerting as all of this may be, the real 800-pound gorilla 
sitting in the corner of the room is the problem, and that is 
entitlement spending. Presently, mandatory spending and interest on the 
national debt consumes nearly two-thirds of the Federal budget, and it 
is rising at an alarming and unsustainable pace.
  If we ignore the 800-pound gorilla, we are walking away from the dire 
needs, desperate needs, of the American public.
  Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of 
saying that a budget is a moral document--it shows what we care about. 
I couldn't agree more.
  The majority's bloated budget blueprint is a clear demonstration to 
families across America that the Democrat majority in Congress is 
intently focused on dipping its fingers into their pockets to take more 
and more of their hard-earned money. It shows that the Democrat 
majority will raise taxes--without hesitation--to support its addiction 
to spending. And, it shows that Democrats in Congress are not 
interested in making difficult choices, setting priorities, or rooting 
out waste in government spending.
  What we are considering today is the Democrat majority's ``More, 
More, More Budget Resolution''--more spending, more budget gimmicks, 
more taxes. For the first time in history, the discretionary budget 
that is being proposed by this majority will exceed one trillion 
dollars.
  As my colleagues well remember, we held the line on spending last 
year thanks solely to the President and Republicans in Congress. In 
spite of the desire of our Democrat colleagues to spend far more, this 
Congress passed appropriations bills that totaled roughly $933 billion 
in discretionary funding.
  The President's budget requested a $59 billion, or 6.3 percent, 
increase in discretionary spending over the present fiscal year. Most 
people would think that a $59 billion increase in spending would be 
enough. But not this majority. They are proposing a whopping $82 
billion, or nine percent, increase over current year levels.
  In addition to the tens of billions of additional taxpayer funds 
they're proposing to spend next year, this majority intends to play 
budget games and increase advance appropriations by another $2 billion 
above what was provided this year.
  The notion of advance appropriations is arcane budget talk so I'll 
try to break it down into real English. The majority is committing an 
additional $2 billion in funding for next year--remember, we don't pay 
for it this year, we pay for it next year.
  My colleague from New York, Mr. Walsh, correctly pointed out during 
consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Labor/HHS bill that advance 
funding is a dangerous proposition because if Congress does not keep 
providing at least the same level of advance funding year after year, 
drastic cuts will be needed to live within the allocations each 
appropriations subcommittee receives.
  I want to address another troubling aspect of this budget proposal. 
We have heard--and will continue to hear--our friends on the other side 
of the aisle talk about how this budget cuts taxes. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. By failing to make permanent the 2001 and 2003 
tax cuts, this budget actually increases the tax burden on American 
citizens by $683 billion over the next five years.
  That's a pretty big number, but let me break this number down in a 
manner that makes sense to the average family sitting around their 
kitchen table. Under this budget, the average American family of four 
that earns

[[Page 3881]]

$50,000 per year will send an additional $2,100 to Washington in 2011.
  We hear our Democratic colleagues pay a great deal of lip service to 
the poor, but here's what failing to extend these tax cuts does to low-
income Americans: 6 million low-income Americans will no longer qualify 
for the Earned Income Tax Credit; low-income families with one or two 
children will no longer be eligible for the refundable child tax 
credit; roughly 12 million single women with children will see their 
taxes increase by $1,100 per year; and about 18 million seniors living 
on fixed incomes will be subjected to tax increases of more than $2,100 
per year.
  As disconcerting as the rampant spending is, let's not lose sight of 
the fact that this budget ignores the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the 
corner of the room--entitlement spending. Presently, mandatory spending 
and interest on the national debt consumes nearly two-thirds of the 
Federal budget and it is rising at an alarming, unsustainable pace.
  In 1990, we spent the equivalent of $893 billion of today's dollars 
on entitlement programs--mostly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. 
Today we are poised to spend $1.6 trillion on those same entitlements. 
For those who like to talk in percentages, that represents a 74 percent 
increase in inflation adjusted dollars. We ignore this sleeping giant 
at our own peril.
  So my friends, let's ask ourselves this question: who will pay for 
this budget? The simple answer is our children and our grandchildren.
  They will pay for it in the form of higher taxes because this budget 
refuses to make permanent the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 that 
spurred roughly 6 years of economic growth.
  They will pay for it in the form of reduced future prosperity because 
Government will continue to spend and spend and spend.
  They will pay for it because their Government would consume more and 
more of what they earn rather than allowing them to invest, create 
jobs, and improve their quality of life.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, this ``big government, Washington-knows-
best'' budget suggests that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington 
are better stewards of the public's money than the very families who 
send it here.
  My advice to the American taxpayer is this: Hold onto your wallet 
because the big spenders in Congress are coming to take more of what 
you can earn.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the majority's 
bloated budget resolution. It's time to put Uncle Sam on a diet.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the newest member of the Budget Committee, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, for those Americans brave enough to be watching this 
proceeding right now on TV, I'd ask them to sit down because I have 
some shocking news to share with them. And here it is: The Federal 
Government spends a lot of money.
  Big surprise; right?
  How much money are we talking here? How about $23,000 per year per 
household.
  My guess is that with the exception of our military, it's tough for 
the average American to name one thing the Federal Government does 
well.
  This budget proposes to spend more than $3.1 trillion. That, Mr. 
Chairman, is not an easy thing to do. To reach $3.1 trillion, the 
Federal Government will have to spend $100,000 a second, 6 million 
bucks a minute, over 350 million bucks an hour every day for the next 
year. Whoever thought that Senator Dirksen's line about ``a billion 
here, a billion there'' would become outdated?
  Mr. Chairman, we've heard of tax-and-spend politicians, but I believe 
it's spending that drives taxes. And reckless out-of-control spending 
has put us on a path for economic disaster.
  And don't take my word for it. Ask outgoing Comptroller General David 
Walker, who is sounding the alarm across the country about the 
unsustainable rate at which Congress is spending.
  The American people instinctively know that Congress has an 
insatiable appetite for spending. They can see it. In terms of real 
dollars, Congress has quadrupled spending over my lifetime.
  The question is, for what? Why do we need four times more Federal 
Government today than we did in 1964? It's not the military. Defense 
spending's impact on the budget has decreased by almost two-thirds in 
real dollars. This, while earmarks have skyrocketed and mandatory 
spending has grown tenfold.
  The real change has been in the mindset. Simply put, Congress has 
grown to accept the ``nanny state.'' Some Members of this body have 
grown accustomed to the numbers in this budget. But believe me, they 
are staggering to the American people, and the people of the Fourth 
District of Ohio. How staggering? What if, instead of spending $23,000 
per family, the Federal Government spent only $20,000 per family? We 
could jump-start this economy with $400 billion in tax cuts, and we 
could balance our budget virtually in 1 year.
  Mr. Chairman, the sirens are blaring. The alarms are ringing. We need 
to answer the call and put our fiscal house in order. And we can start 
by voting ``no'' on the Democrat budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to 
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago I 
stood on this floor and didn't quote rock and roll but quoted a country 
singer called Johnny Paycheck and his famous song ``Take This Job and 
Shove It.'' It was the lament of the working man imposed upon by many 
outside forces but predominantly the government's telling him what to 
do and taking his money. And here I am 25 years later, now a member of 
the Budget Committee, once again in the minority, and I hear the same 
thing from my good friends across the aisle: tax and spend, tax and 
spend, tax and spend, and pretend you're not doing it.
  Let's be very clear about this budget. You can talk about everything 
else, but I would like to talk about one thing: taxes. Taxes. I didn't 
think you would be able to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, last year we had the largest tax increase in the 
history of the United States, which means the largest tax increase in 
the history of the world, by the way. But they did themselves one 
better. This is even larger. This tax increase is $683 billion. Now, 
that's not the total tax. That's the tax increase we're talking about. 
I really thought last year we would never see that topped, but we 
almost double it this year.
  Now, what does this mean? When we were debating in the committee, I 
said, and I must apologize for this to my constituents in California, 
that if adopted and implemented, the Democratic budget would impose on 
my California constituents an increase, average tax hike, of $3,000. 
Well, I am corrected. I am corrected. It will actually give an 
increase, average tax hike, to Californians of $3,331.
  Luckily, my constituents don't live in Connecticut, because there 
they would get an average tax hike of $4,311. This is the gift that 
keeps on giving, or I guess we should say keeps on taking.
  So if you want to know if you can stand on the floor of the House and 
set a record, if you want to be the Olympic champion on steroids of 
taxes, vote for this budget. Vote for this budget.
  Now, I understand if you're an adherent of Big Government, you need 
big taxes. So if you do believe that we don't have a large enough 
government, then vote for this budget, because it will increase the 
size of the Federal Government relative to local government, relative 
to State government, relative to the average taxpayer, relative to the 
rest of the world. It will break all records. The largest single tax 
increase in the history of the world, $683 billion. Remember that 
number: $683 billion.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a 
member of the Budget Committee (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard and we know this budget has the largest 
tax increase in American history and it also doubles the deficit from 
what the last Republican budget was. But somehow the majority seems to 
want to convince us all that this is good for America.

[[Page 3882]]

  Well, in considering that, I'm reminded of this commercial I see on 
TV, this guy named Matthew Lesko. Have you seen it? He wears this funny 
suit with these symbols on it, and they film it right out here on the 
west side of the Capitol. And he clearly makes a great living. He 
publishes books to tell people how to get their hands on government 
money. He says in the commercial: ``Let Matthew Lesko be your guide to 
join the millions each year who get free money, grants, loans, giant 
contracts, and free assistance from the Federal Government.''
  Here are some of his book titles: ``Free Money for Business''; ``Free 
Money for a Better Home''; ``Free Money to Pay Your Bills''; and, my 
personal favorite, ``Free Money to Quit Your Job.''
  Now, the Democrats would have you believe that they're perpetuating 
with this budget the concept put forward in this commercial, that 
government money is free. But you know what? It's not. Because every 
dollar that the government sends out in free money to somebody is a 
dollar they took, this government took, from some American who earned 
it or that this government borrowed from some American who has yet to 
earn it but will have to pay it back, plus interest, in the future.
  The majority in this budget has refused to set priorities and, 
instead, is just spending everybody's money on everything and demanding 
more and more of that money that they would like to think of as free. 
But we all know every single dollar will eventually come from us.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank Chairman Spratt for his 
leadership and for his work on this budget. And I want to also thank 
his staff and my staff for really helping us put together I think a 
very good budget that we support.
  This is a budget that, as compared to the Bush budget, I think the 
Bush budget is really the worst that we have seen in his long line of 
bad budgets. And with the staggering $12 billion a month with regard to 
the cost of the occupation of Iraq, I think it is about $3 trillion 
being projected, this is dragging our economy further into what we are 
calling an ``Iraq recession.''
  It is particularly shameful that the administration would cut 
programs at this point in health care, in food assistance and in 
education which would help so many people who desperately need it right 
now.
  That is why I am pleased that the Democratic budget before us rejects 
those draconian cuts. And I am also pleased that this budget is really 
war neutral. In fact, as the chairman stated earlier, the $70 billion 
placeholder in this budget can be used for whatever policy the Congress 
eventually chooses in authorizing and appropriating legislation, 
including redeployment of our troops. Now, over 90 Members of Congress 
signed a letter to President Bush and said that we would not vote for 
one more dime for combat operations. Only we will vote for money to 
redeploy our young men and women and bring them home. So as we approach 
this fifth anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it is 
far past time that we act on the will of the American people by doing 
exactly that.
  So I want to thank the chairman for this budget. And I urge my 
colleagues to support this budget and to work quickly toward 
redeploying our troops, toward addressing the waste, fraud and abuse in 
the Pentagon budget and begin to bring our troops and our military 
contractors out of Iraq and refocus our efforts and our budget on the 
many domestic needs here at home, which this budget does.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I inquire how much time remains between 
the two sides.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Weiner). The gentleman from Wisconsin has 
60\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from South Carolina has 62 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will reserve.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 12\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget, which 
represents a down payment on our commitment to restore middle class 
prosperity. It offers a clear and practical approach to strengthen our 
economy in a way that helps our workforce thrive. It allows families to 
reach for that American Dream.
  Today, the Bush economy continues to weigh heavily on America's 
families and businesses. Our Republican colleagues call for fiscal 
responsibility. That call is a sham. George Bush has added more to the 
Federal debt than every single President from George Washington to 
Ronald Reagan. And at the same time, median household income has 
dropped $1,000. In the Clinton years, median income rose to $6,100. 
Poor economic growth has left nearly 1.6 million more workers 
unemployed, and long-term unemployment is up by 62 percent. There are 
over 3.3 million fewer manufacturing jobs today than at the start of 
this administration. Incomes are flat while everything else goes up, 
gas prices, food prices, the cost of health care and education.
  This is a budget that is strong. It gets us back to basics. It 
maintains fiscal discipline while making strong economic growth 
possible, benefiting all American families. It means crucial funding 
for the Democratic Innovation Agenda and reforms for our tax policy to 
reduce burdens on middle class families. It means rejecting the 
President's cuts to critical unemployment programs. Now is not the time 
to undermine already vulnerable communities. We can act to rebuild 
crumbling bridges, fix our roads, reduce congestion and make a serious 
investment in our infrastructure, paving the way for new growth and 
opportunity.
  This budget makes real investments to help workers and create jobs in 
a fiscally responsible way. It is a budget that reaches balance in 
2012. It reflects our priorities as a Nation and our belief that 
government has a commitment to its citizens to make critical 
investments in efficient and renewable energy sources, education, job 
training and health care, the foundation of a strong economy and future 
growth. It is about making our workforce more productive and making 
opportunity real. It is about staying competitive. And we share a 
mutual obligation to get it right.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that this budget resolution 
rejects the many proposed cuts in public education by the President. 
The President proposes in his budget to eliminate a total of 47 
programs. They are vocational education programs. They are programs for 
people who repair our plumbing in our homes, who build our houses, who 
build our roads, who supply the electrical work that gets done, 
programs like the Perkins Loan cancellations, Even Start, mentoring 
efforts, and the Reading is Fundamental initiative.
  The Spratt budget would also restore initiatives designed to improve 
teacher quality like Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow, Advanced 
Credentialing, and the Teacher Quality Enhancement initiative. If we 
are going to teach our children, let's have qualified people in the 
classroom. And it doesn't just automatically happen. It takes money. 
Industry will tell you that for every person they have, they spend a 
lot of money in investing in those people. And as the only former State 
school chief serving in this body, I am particularly pleased about the 
provision for education initiatives and innovations that have been 
included in the Spratt resolution.
  I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  This resolution provides greater investment in our Nation's schools, 
including school construction bonds. I have been working on this with 
Congressman Rangel for almost 10 years. We need quality places for our 
children to go to school. And there's important investments in things 
like Head Start,

[[Page 3883]]

special education for those who really have needs, and to provide more 
money to fully fund secondary education.
  The chairman's mark also provides for funding for America COMPETES 
Act. What is this? It expands math and science education at the 
secondary level. That is in high school. We can't get them in the 
universities if we can't them get them through high school. And Lord 
knows that in this economy, we need them. Education is the single most 
important investment that we can make in our future.
  I support this budget resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote for it 
and support it.
  I thank the gentlelady for this opportunity to speak.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. You are right in terms of the 
resolution and its reflection on our priorities. Nothing could be more 
important than access to education and ensuring that our schools and 
our students have the resources to succeed.
  I would now like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) 
for engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  The chairman's mark is $6.9 billion above the fiscal year 2008 
enacted level for education and $7.1 billion above the President's 
request for education. And as a member of both the Budget Committee and 
the Education Committee, I am proud of that. And I think all of our 
colleagues should be proud of that. Mr. Etheridge just talked about the 
47 programs that the President's budget cuts but that this budget 
resolution restores. I want to talk about just three of them.
  The President's budget resolution or proposal cuts $750 million out 
of the SEOG program, the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant, 
fully eliminating the program. And it also eliminates the Perkins Loan 
revolving fund another $750 million. That is $1.5 billion on an annual 
basis taken out of the student loan delivery system. And that 
completely undercuts what this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, passed 
and enacted into law this fall when we passed the College Cost 
Reduction Act. So the Congress has gone on record as saying that the 
Federal Government needs to take a larger role in supporting student 
financial aid programs. And the President is ignoring that and, in 
fact, pushing us in the opposite direction. We need to push back and 
continue to fund those programs.
  And the other is the Perkins Vocational Education program, $1.2 
billion, that the President again recommends be eliminated. These are 
job training programs. And at a time when we are hemorrhaging jobs, and 
at a time when we need to remain competitive globally, to take away job 
training programs makes absolutely no sense.
  So I am proud that the budget resolution addresses these three vital 
areas. I am hopeful we will be able to appropriate the moneys to keep 
these funds going. And I thank the chairman for his leadership on this 
and many other important issues.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I thank him for 
his commitment.
  You've said it well when you talk about investing in the next 
generation and you talk about our children being in a competitive 
marketplace and in a global economy. And what this budget does, as you 
actually stated, is it gives them the skills to compete in that 
competitive world. And again I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield now to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird) for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentlelady.
  One of the things I am most proud of about this budget, and I want to 
commend Chairman Spratt for his work on, is his emphasis on keeping 
America competitive. And I want to talk about two ways it does that.
  First of all, as my colleagues have mentioned, it fully funds the 
America COMPETES Act. It provides funding allowances to make sure that 
we have adequately trained teachers in science and mathematics to make 
sure that we have research investments.
  This morning, on the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Science 
Committee, we heard from Bill Gates, the CEO of Microsoft. Chairman 
Gates spoke about the absolutely essential importance of training the 
next generation of scientists and engineers and of funding critical 
basic research in applied sciences. If we want our economies to be 
strong, we must invest in science. This budget provides for that.
  The other side, which my colleagues have also mentioned, is career 
and technical education. I am proud to have cofounded the Career and 
Technical Education Caucus in this Congress. And I can tell you if you 
talk to business people throughout this country, they will tell you 
they desperately need trained and skilled workers. The President's 
budget would zero out the Perkins grant program, which provides 
essential resources for our career and technical education programs. 
Our Democratic budget restores that funding. If you or your child want 
a job in a highly skilled profession, career and technical education 
can provide that. Our budget makes sure those programs have the 
resources needed.
  I am proud to support this budget.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
  And I just will reiterate that I think Mr. Gates has it right, and 
you have it right. It is about an innovation agenda, innovation and 
what our future is. We can't be stuck where we are. We need to deal 
with the resources that allow us to compete in a global economy, to 
have a competitive edge and look at the technology for the future, as 
well.
  Mr. Chairman, I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer) for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy.
  It is a little frustrating to listen to our friends repudiate the 
legacy of Ronald Reagan and Dick Darman who believed in the PAYGO 
philosophy. These people feel that they cannot balance revenue and 
spending, and they don't even want to try. We heard them in our 
committee propose adjustments that would have added over $1 trillion to 
the deficit.
  This budget demonstrates the Democratic commitment to the 
environment, public health and livable communities in a fiscally 
sustainable fashion. This budget addresses the 7 years of cutting 
environmental programs and failing to address our energy needs and 
challenges of this country.
  We reject the President's cuts to these programs and begin to 
reinvest in our public lands and domestic economy. This President's 
budget severely cuts important core environmental programs at a time 
when a third of our Nation's waters don't meet water quality standards 
and 150 million people live in areas that exceed EPA's air pollution 
standards. And the President's budget would provide some of the lowest 
levels of funding for clean water and drinking water revolving funds in 
their history, hurting communities' ability to meet their water 
infrastructure needs, which the EPA of the administration has estimated 
to be over a quarter of a billion dollars.
  Finally, the President's budget cuts the USDA farm bill conservation 
programs which provide farmers with critical technical and financial 
assistance to reduce erosion, protect wildlife habitat and limit 
adverse impacts from agriculture on land and water.
  Our budget rejects those cuts to natural resources environmental 
program. This provides 10 percent more to discretionary funding than 
the President's budget.
  On the environment, over 5 years the chairman's mark is more than $26 
billion higher than the President's budget.
  This budget accommodates the legislation that the House has passed 
three times to increase tax incentives for renewable energy and 
conservation. It rejects the President's cuts to research as well as 
weatherization assistance for low-income families to cut down on energy 
bills. Instead, this bill increases funding for energy efficient and 
renewable energy programs and vehicle technologies that move our 
economies forward.

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. DeLAURO. Just to conclude, I do want to say a thank you to the 
gentleman from Oregon. The real progress

[[Page 3884]]

that we can make in this budget does require the critical long-term 
investments in our local communities in energy and in infrastructure, 
in which the gentleman has been a leader, and that is all contained in 
this budget proposed by Chairman John Spratt. I thank the gentleman, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Spratt budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a senior 
member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario 
Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Democrats' 
leadership may not want to admit that they are going to impose on our 
Nation's workers, on our taxpayers, on the small and mid-sized 
businesses of this country the largest tax increase in American 
history. But, regrettably, as this Democratic budget again proves, 
raising taxes is exactly not only what they have planned, but what they 
are doing in this budget, and it is important that taxpayers know what 
these massive tax hikes will mean to them, to you, to the American 
people. So, let's take a look at how this budget impacts the American 
people, the American family, the American taxpayer.
  A family of four with $50,000 in annual income would see a tax 
increase of over $2,100, $2,100 by 2011, as a result of this budget. 
That is a tax increase of 191 percent.
  Forty-eight million married couples. So listen up, if you are one of 
those 48 million. Chances are you are. Forty-eight million married 
couples will see their tax bills rise by an average of $3,000.
  Twelve million single women with dependents will face a tax increase 
of nearly $1,100.
  Eighteen million seniors, 18 million seniors, will see a tax increase 
of more than $2,100 by 2011.
  Twenty-seven million small business owners, who are the backbone of 
our national economy that create the jobs, will see their taxes 
increase by over $4,000.
  More than 6 million low-income taxpayers, yes, 6 million low-income 
taxpayers who previously paid no Federal income tax, because of the 
changes in the Tax Code due to the elimination of the 10 percent tax 
rate, will see a huge tax increase.
  These are just a few of the examples of what this budget does. I 
respectfully ask Members to oppose this budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), a member of the budget 
committee.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Last year our friends on the other side of the aisle declared that 
they were going to ``clean up the swamp'' and get rid of the budget and 
its rampant waste, fraud, and abuse. In December of 2005, Speaker 
Pelosi proudly said, ``The budget is a statement of national priorities 
and our values as a Nation.''
  Well, sadly, the Democrat values represented in this budget are 
waste, fraud, and abuse. It is very sad. But for my district, Mr. 
Chairman, this budget represents an average tax increase per taxpayer 
of $2,631 per year. Additional loss of income in a number of studies, 
because rising taxes will curb economic growth, an additional loss of 
$1,600. This budget is harmful to American values and American 
families.
  I asked my Democrat colleagues to justify this for me. Why must we 
raise taxes by this rate? And yet nothing. I would be happy to yield to 
my colleagues to answer that question, why rising taxes are good for 
the American people. I hear nothing. I am willing to yield, but they 
have nothing. And what for? Waste, fraud, and abuse. Rising taxes. A 
government that is so large, and yet nothing is done to reform.
  There are thousands of ways that we can eliminate this rampant growth 
of government. There are 91 programs that the administration targeted 
for elimination; 85 of them continue to be funded. In fact, half of 
them had increased funding last year under this Democratic Congress.
  But what else is egregious, if you look at a Treasury Department 
report, you will find a section called ``Unreconciled Transactions.'' 
Well, they account for $25 billion worth of taxpayer funding that they 
know it was spent, but they don't know who, what, when, where, how, or 
why it was spent. This is rather disturbing.
  We have the opportunity to right-size government, to reform 
government. When the U.S. Department of Education bureaucrats in these 
beautiful buildings down the street here, when they have an average 
wage of $93,000 a year, yet our average teacher in America only makes 
$47,000 a year, we know these values are wrong in this Democrat budget. 
I asked my Democrat colleagues to justify this. Yet nothing. I hear 
nothing.
  Mr. SPRATT. If the gentleman wants to yield, I will gladly respond to 
his question. The gentleman keeps throwing these rhetorical questions.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina controls the 
time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. McHENRY. Instead of making the government bigger, we need to 
right-size government and reform government. Rather, this Democrat 
budget represents the efficiency and effectiveness of FEMA, the 
customer service of the IRS, and the real thoughtful approach of our 
immigration policy. And they want to expand these things. We need 
immigration reform. We need to reform government. We need to make sure 
we right-size government rather than expand this and grow it, which is 
what this Democrat budget does.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Republican 
alternative budget for fiscal year 2009. Overall, the Republican budget 
is $95.6 billion, the Democratic budget is $94.6 billion, and the 
President's mark is $93.6 billion.
  Our budget will provide $49.2 billion in discretionary funding for 
veterans health care and programs. This is $2 billion above the 
administration's overall request and it is $1 billion over the 
Democrats' budget, and we do all of this without a $683 billion tax 
hike.
  Out of the $49.2 billion in discretionary, $44.2 billion is medical 
care for FY 09. The House Republicans would provide nearly $1 billion 
more than the President's request. Included in that: We have about $213 
million for mental health care; we increase $200 million more for 
improving health care to rural veterans; $150 million more on long-term 
care; $50 million more on medical care for veterans for OEF and OIF; we 
have $50 million more on dental care, which we also ought to be billing 
the Army for providing a lot of this. We also have $50 million more 
than the administration for polytrauma care and for caring for veterans 
with brain injury, i.e., traumatic or mild.
  Republicans would also provide nearly $100 million more than the 
administration's request for medical and prosthetic research. We also 
add an additional $300 million for medical facilities and nonrecurring 
maintenance.
  Mr. Chairman, to assist in the decreasing of the claims backlog and 
increased cybersecurity, we increase $200 million for the Office of 
Information Technology. Part of this money we are investing in funding 
to create rules-based adjudication systems for the veterans disability 
compensation claims.
  The alternative also includes increases over the President's level in 
all funding categories, including the Office of Inspector General, 
grants for State cemeteries and extended care facilities and the 
National Cemetery Administration, among others.
  Now, when we look at what the Democrat budget is doing, we have got a 
tax increase. This tax increase would hit middle-income veterans and 
their families, veterans who are low-income earners, and veterans who 
own small businesses. However, the Republican alternative would 
increase spending for veterans by $1 billion more than the

[[Page 3885]]

Democrat budget, and we do this without increasing taxes on veterans.
  I also would like everyone to note that I noticed, when I was back in 
my office watching the floor debate, there was a lot of waving going 
around of VSO letters. Well, the VSO letters, I think they would also 
love this Republican budget, because we increased veterans spending $1 
billion more than the Democrats.
  We also need to remember this: The very same Democrat majority this 
past year in the committee voted to cut $1 billion in veterans 
benefits. They did this on a party-line vote. They voted to cut $1 
billion of veterans benefits, from who? From wartime disabled, elderly, 
and indigent veterans. So if you want to talk about who is going to 
stand for veterans, just go look at the vote in the House Veterans' 
Affairs Committee. They cut $1 billion.
  Chet, that hurts. I know it is tough for you to defend. You didn't do 
it, and I know you will not stand for it.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a senior 
Member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my 
strong opposition to this, the largest tax increase on the American 
family in history. The average New Jersey taxpayer under this plan will 
see their tax increase by over $3,700. That is the second highest 
increase of any State in the Union under this budget. With property 
taxes in my State soaring out of control and the high cost of living in 
New Jersey, the last thing any member from the New Jersey delegation 
should want to do is to drastically increase the Federal taxes on New 
Jersey families, as the Democrat budget now does.
  What about jobs? In an independent analysis by the Heritage 
Foundation for the Fifth District that I represent, we will lose 2,000 
jobs due to this tax increase.
  So I hope that everyone who is watching this debate will pay 
attention very closely to see how their Member from their State will 
vote, because if they vote in favor of this, they will see their taxes 
go up by around four grand in the future.
  Last week, the day this budget was passed in committee, we had one of 
those late nights. It began around 10:30 in the morning; it ended a 
little after midnight. During that time, almost 30 amendments were 
tried by our side of the aisle, and almost every one of them was voted 
``no'' and defeated by the Democrat side of the aisle.
  Now, because that debate went so late in the evening, let me recap 
some of those, which I think was an intriguing debate that we had. I 
would like to go through and highlight a number of commonsense, good 
government initiatives that the Democrats voted against on every one.
  One, Democrats unanimously voted against totally repealing the AMT.
  Two, Democrats unanimously voted against all attempts to rescue 
Social Security and Medicare and make these and other programs 
sustainable for future generations.
  Third, Democrats unanimously voted against eliminating air-drop 
earmarks and dedicating $1 billion, that was just indicated, for 
veterans programs.
  Democrats also remain committed, apparently, to eliminating the 10 
percent bracket for low-income individuals and raising taxes on 
families by $500 per child and reinstating the marriage penalty and 
reimposing the death tax.
  The Democrats also unanimously voted against protecting the Social 
Security surplus. Instead, what they did, they chose to raid that fund 
simply to pay for more of their earmarks.
  Democrats also unanimously voted against strengthening PAYGO. 
Instead, they preserved gaping holes that allow them to scam the system 
with the rules that maintain the guise of fiscal responsibility.
  Democrats also unanimously voted against putting the House Members on 
record every time they vote to increase the debt.
  Even more astoundingly, Democrats unanimously voted against their own 
legislation, a leading Blue Dog reform bill that would have required 
greater transparency and accountability in the budget process. Instead, 
what do they do, as with so many other good things, they put this 
commonsense idea off to another day.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want the American people to realize 
and understand that the Democrat members of the committee unanimously 
voted against all the proposals I just mentioned. They had the chance 
to improve this legislation. They refused to do so. And I encourage all 
of my colleagues to vote against this terrible budget and the largest 
tax increase burden on the American family.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to 
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a senior 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Johnson.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the 
priorities of the Republican budget to control spending and keep taxes 
low. I commend the Budget Committee ranking member, Paul Ryan, for 
putting together a budget alternative that prevents expansion of the 
alternative minimum tax for 3 years and then achieves repeal of this 
tax system in 2013.
  This is a huge step in modernizing the Tax Code, and it will give 
Americans certainty about their tax situation. The Democrat budget only 
puts the AMT on a leash for 1 year before allowing it to ravage more 
American families.

                              {time}  1645

  Our Republican budget would also ensure that American families 
continue to be free of the stupidity of the marriage penalty and that 
families get to keep tax credits for children. Finally, our budget 
would continue to help make sure that investment in American capitalism 
and jobs will continue to thrive by allowing the tax rate on dividends 
and long-term capital gains to stay at the 15 percent rate.
  The Democrat budget would raise taxes on my constituents by $2,669. I 
don't see how we can support that. We balance the budget by 2012 by 
putting spending under control. It's important to know that total 
government spending does rise every year of the American budget, but 
there will be a lot of people claiming that we are actually cutting 
spending. Only in Washington can more spending be translated as a cut.
  We pick and choose programs to cut by millions of dollars, and there 
are spending priorities that would get more money. That's what we are 
paid to do here in the Capitol, set priorities for what's important to 
the Nation.
  Republicans in our budget take on the big issue of entitlement 
reform. I am very disappointed that the Democrat budget fails to 
seriously address the pending crisis in our country's entitlement 
programs. Congress has been warned many times that an entitlement 
reform is needed now. You would think the countless reports, 
testimonies and letters sent to Congress would get the attention of the 
majority. But if you look at their budget, you will see only the real 
action on reforming Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid is to kick 
the can down the road.
  The cost is roughly $14 trillion. By refusing to make the tough 
decisions on how to resolve the serious financial trouble these 
programs are facing, the Democrats have decided to leave those 
decisions to someone else.
  Medicare and Medicaid need real reform to stop the slippery slope 
these programs are currently on. We cannot tweak the edges and make 
small changes and expect dramatic results. We need to take a look at 
some real success stories in Medicare and Medicaid and see how we can 
apply the lessons.
  For example, independent actuaries again this year have announced 
that the projected costs for Medicare part D will be lower than 
expected. Beneficiaries have enjoyed premiums that are 40 percent lower 
than original estimates. Compare that to the fact that part B premiums 
have doubled in price over the last 6 years.

[[Page 3886]]

  The Republican budget is a better proposal. I suggest you vote for 
it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Loretta Sanchez of California) having assumed the chair, Mr. Weiner, 
Acting Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) revising the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, 
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels 
for fiscal years 2010 through 2013, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________