[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3888-3893]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). 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 further 
consideration of the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 312.

                              {time}  1730


                     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 further 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 Ms. Loretta Sanchez (Acting 
Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, 96 minutes of debate remained on the concurrent resolution.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 49\1/2\ minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has 46\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Sixty minutes remain on the subject of economic goals and policies.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 17 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman, my 
friend, Chairman Spratt, for yielding the time.
  I rise today to speak in support of the budget resolution that 
Chairman Spratt and his committee have crafted and brought to the House 
floor. Madam Chairman, in 2001, January of 2001, when this Republican 
administration came into office, and since that time, the 47-strong 
Blue Dog Coalition, fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, has been 
sounding the alarm about the terrible financial management of our 
country's resources and financial resources, and we have been calling 
for fiscal sanity in terms of how we perform our duties as a government 
and how we pay for those duties.
  Unfortunately, for the first 6 years of this administration, those 
calls fell on deaf ears of this Republican administration and in the 
Republican Congress. Since last January, a year ago, there has been a 
change in course in how this country, this government, this Congress 
does its business as it relates to managing the fiscal resources that 
our citizens here in the United States of America give to us to perform 
our community functions and our government functions.
  And so we have before us today a budget resolution which meets the 
guiding principles that the Blue Dogs have laid out over the last 2 
years in how we should manage ourselves fiscally.
  And so I am extremely delighted to be here today to support the 
budget resolution that Chairman Spratt brings and tell you that those 
guiding principles of having a balanced budget by 2012, an AMT fix 
that's paid for, abide by PAYGO rules, which is a very important tool, 
providing for the resources for the defense of our country. As a matter 
of fact, we used the President's defense number. All of those 
principles have been met in this budget, and I'm delighted to support 
that budget.
  At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Tanner) to address the budget resolution.
  Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, we have seen, as Mr. Boyd pointed out, an 
unprecedented amount of borrowing take place since 2001. No political 
leadership in this country has borrowed as much money as quickly as we 
have seen over the last 80 months or so. That's just part of the story. 
Let me tell you the other part of the story.
  This administration has borrowed more money from foreign sources than 
all 42 administrations before it put together. And apparently, some 
here on

[[Page 3889]]

the floor want to keep doing what we've been doing.
  This budget resolution is like an aircraft carrier. It takes seven 
miles to turn an aircraft carrier. This starts the turn back toward 
some degree of fiscal sanity. Let me tell you what the consequences of 
what we have witnessed are with this foreign borrowing.
  Today, because of these practices, we are borrowing. Remember, now, 
we are in war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are borrowing from foreign 
sources $505 million a day, $21 million an hour, which means we've 
borrowed probably close to $80 million since we started this debate, 
$351,000 a minute, $5,852 a second, for a total a year of $182 billion 
a year that everybody around the world is letting us have so that we 
can maintain, as some would suggest, our standard of living.
  All of you know that when you degrade your financial base to the 
extent that we have and that we are continuing to do unless we begin to 
change courses, as this budget does, this country is going to wind up 
in the trash bin of history. No country can continue to do this. You 
would be interested to know that we owe China almost half a billion 
dollars. We owe Mexico $35 billion. We owe Taiwan $38 billion. Maybe 
Taiwan will give us a loan so we can defend them against China if that 
ever occurs. We owe Switzerland $39 billion, Japan over a half a 
trillion, the UK, Brazil, Caribbean Banking. We owe Luxembourg $70 
billion, and it's going up every day to the tune of $500 million a 
year.
  This budget starts to turn back toward some degree of fiscal sanity. 
Everybody in this country knows we can't continue to do what these 
people want to continue to do without bankrupting ourselves and our 
children.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Tennessee. He's been a leader on this issue for a long time and the 
leader of the Blue Dogs.
  And at this time, I would like to recognize another one of our 
leaders from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Madam Chairman, earlier today my Blue Dog colleagues and I 
stood together to offer our official endorsement of Chairman Spratt's 
budget because it is clear that we share the common goal of eliminating 
wasteful government spending, adhering to strict PAYGO principles, and 
finally addressing the long-term fiscal challenges facing this country. 
Not only does this budget resolution begin to address our long-term 
fiscal challenges, it also includes measures that crack down on 
wasteful government spending so that no tax dollar is wasted.
  This budget continues to take steps to reverse the reckless fiscal 
policies of the past 7 years of Republican rule by incorporating strict 
PAYGO rules. It does this in two ways: First, it provides for fiscally 
responsible tax relief for 23 million middle-income Americans by 
including a fully offset fix to the alternative minimum tax; second, 
Chairman Spratt's budget resolution includes a commitment to the 
extension of the same statutory PAYGO requirements which proved 
instrumental in turning the large deficits of the early 1990s under a 
Republican into record-budget surpluses under a Democrat for the first 
time in over 40 years.
  The Blue Dogs are committed to addressing the serious long-term 
fiscal challenges facing the United States, and we should confront 
these challenges earlier rather than later so that we do not pass the 
burden of unmanageable debt on to our children and grandchildren.
  This administration, this Republican administration, has borrowed 
more money from foreigners in the past 7 years than the previous 42 
Presidents combined. It is time to restore common sense and fiscal 
discipline and accountability to our government. That's what this 
budget resolution does, and I'm pleased to stand and speak in support 
of it.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Madam Chairman, it's my privilege to recognize 
at this time one of what we call our ``Blue Puppies,'' the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise today to enter into 
this colloquy with Mr. Boyd to express my support for the House budget 
resolution for fiscal year 2009. A budget is a reflection of our 
national priorities. For far too long, the administration's priorities 
have been misplaced. In fact, the budget submitted by the President 
earlier this year makes cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and the 
environment. In addition, it taxes our veterans by requiring them to 
pay new fees for health care.
  As a result of this administration's misplaced priorities, the $5.6 
trillion projected 10-year surplus that they have inherited has been 
squandered. As a result, our children and grandchildren are confronted 
with the challenge of paying back a $9.3 trillion debt.
  This budget before us today, however, is a good budget for Florida 
and the Nation. The House budget protects our homeland by rejecting the 
President's cuts to first responder programs, reinstates funding for 
the COPS program, and that will put 247 more police on the street in 
Florida. This budget helps Florida's kids. It provides substantially 
more money for schools and education than the President's budget. It 
will allow our schools to hire the highly skilled teachers that over 
25,000 Florida children need desperately to help them grow up and 
compete in the global economy. It rejects the President's irresponsible 
new fees that he wants to put on the backs of our veterans. It 
increases health care funding to allow our Veterans Administration to 
treat the 5.8 million more patients, including 333,000 from the Iraq 
and Afghanistan wars.
  I support this budget because it is fiscally responsible, it balances 
the budget by 2012, and it adheres to all of the PAYGO rules. Finally, 
I support this budget because it protects the most vulnerable among us: 
our Nation's seniors. Specifically, the budget resolution improves 
support of housing for the elderly.
  I would like to thank Chairman Spratt for working with me to ensure 
that the Section 202 Housing for the Elderly program is adequately 
funded. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mahoney). He's been a great leader, and he's been 
successful before he got here, and he's going to be a successful Member 
of Congress.
  I will call at this time on really the fiscal conscience of this 
House of Representatives, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Madam Chairman, I'm happy to support this budget. One of 
the reasons is the extraordinary leadership of the chairman of the 
House Budget Committee, John Spratt from South Carolina. A true 
gentleman, a man of wisdom, he has done the difficult work of pulling a 
very diverse caucus together, and we appreciate his listening to Blue 
Dog concerns.
  We are proud of our role as Blue Dogs as having pulled the Democratic 
Caucus towards the middle. That's a good thing and help make the 
Democratic Party the party of fiscal responsibility in America.
  People who know me know that I am not a very partisan person. I 
admire greatly the ranking member, Mr. Ryan. I think he has done a 
great job in his conference of pulling the many diverse elements 
together. It is a tough job. My primary concern is actually the long-
term, reforming entitlement programs. Sadly, there's very little of 
that in either of the budgets. There needs to be a lot more.
  I'm championing a bill right now called H.R. 3654, the Cooper-Wolf 
bill, and I appreciate very much Chairman Spratt allowing us to have 
hearings on that measure. I'm hoping those hearings will allow this 
Congress to focus attention on the need to have an expert bipartisan 
commission that will advise the new President, because problems of this 
dimension will take Presidential leadership to help work on making sure 
that Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid are solvent for the next 
generation.
  So I'm excited about the prospect of those hearings. I think it is a 
real opportunity for this Congress to take a long-term view and to make 
sure that the next President is successful in addressing these 
problems. My friend

[[Page 3890]]

from Wisconsin knows the dimension of these things. These are not 
easily tackled, but they can and must be addressed in a prompt fashion.
  So I think that slowly but surely we are turning the ship of state 
here in the right direction. The statistics that my colleague from 
Tennessee mentioned about President George W. Bush having borrowed more 
money from foreign nations than every previous President in American 
history, that's an amazing thing. That's George Washington through Bill 
Clinton. To have borrowed more money from foreigners, all of them put 
together, is truly an astonishing fact.

                              {time}  1745

  We've got to change the course of this Nation. The American people 
are demanding change. I'm hoping that we'll get change in this 
election. And this budget is one way to start demonstrating that 
change.
  I thank my friend from Florida for yielding and for his important 
work in leading the Blue Dog Coalition in this Congress.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
  May I inquire of the Chair how much time we have left.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 3\1/2\ minutes 
left.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Let me simply close, Madam Chairman, by saying 
that there is always a lot of rhetoric and accusations flying around at 
budget time in the House of Representatives, and you will hear much 
talk about this budget raising taxes. Let me tell you, this budget does 
not raise taxes. The independent, nonpartisan groups outside of this 
body say that. Listen to them. They certainly would come at this in an 
objective manner.
  What this budget does do is it sticks to the principles that the Blue 
Dogs have laid out. It adheres strictly to the PAYGO principle, a 
principle that helped us get the Federal Government budget back in 
balance in the nineties that this Congress in 2002 allowed to expire, 
the PAYGO principle.
  This budget also provides for a fully offset AMT fix, fully offset. 
What does that mean? It's paid for. You either find spending cuts or 
other revenue sources to do it.
  This budget also provides for adequate defense funding. One of the 
things that we said is let's not have the debate in this budget about 
the war. We know what the policy is now of this administration; let's 
provide the funds for our troops overseas and not have that debate 
here. This budget does that.
  And most importantly, Madam Chairman, it provides a glide path for 
balance, gets this Nation's fiscal issues back into balance by 2012.
  If I could, Madam Chairman, the gentlelady from South Dakota (Ms. 
Herseth Sandlin) has just arrived and I would like to yield to her.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman. And I thank Chairman 
Spratt and Mr. Boyd for their leadership on the Budget Committee in 
fashioning a budget resolution for fiscal year 2009 that is putting our 
fiscal condition on a course toward far better health than we've seen 
in the first 6 years of the Bush administration and the continued 
proposals that we've seen from the administration in the substantial 
cuts, but also the imbalance that we've been experiencing and adding to 
the national debt.
  I am proud, as a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, to support this 
resolution because of so many of the core principles of our 
organization and fiscal responsibility that Mr. Boyd and Mr. Cooper and 
others have identified here in our endorsement, our strong and 
enthusiastic endorsement of this budget resolution that will bring us 
to balance by 2012, that will include in reconciliation instructions in 
light of what happened to us last year, the full offsets to pay for 
alternative minimum tax relief for middle-class families across the 
country, and that also maintains the principle of PAYGO, but also 
recognizes the importance of a strong national defense in accepting the 
President's number, as well as increasing the amount of money we are 
spending on veterans health care, because ongoing costs of national 
security include taking care of our Nation's fighting men and women.
  I applaud Chairman Spratt for his great work and encourage my 
colleagues to support this important budget resolution.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, 2 
minutes to say, ``wow.'' We just heard from the sort of self-proclaimed 
fiscal conservative wing of the Democratic Party talking about, while 
it's wrong to increase debt, it's bad to send this to future 
generations, and then to have all of them come here and say how great 
it is that they're spending so much more money on all these new 
programs in their budget.
  We've also heard another claim, that there are no tax increases in 
this budget. Well, I've got the budget right here. The budget is a 
series of numbers, and the numbers are crystal clear. The numbers raise 
taxes.
  We heard from two gentlemen from Florida, two gentlemen from 
Tennessee and the gentlelady from South Dakota. The average annual tax 
increase on the average taxpayer in Arkansas is $2,462 per year. The 
average tax increase for the taxpayer under this budget in Florida is 
$3,040. The average annual tax increase for the average taxpayer in 
South Dakota is $2,596. And the average tax increase for the average 
taxpayer in Tennessee is $2,611.
  Now there is this thing at the end of this budget resolution in 
section 5, and it's a policy title. And it says, basically, we don't 
want to raise these taxes, we hope not to do it, but this resolution, 
Madam Chairman, is worth no more than the paper it's printed on. It's 
simply a sense of the Congress resolution. It's the legislative 
equivalent of passing a bill and saying, ``Have a nice day.''
  This budget unequivocally, extremely clearly, relies on, depends on 
the largest tax increase in American history. Repealing the marriage 
tax penalty relief, raising income tax rates across the board, cutting 
in half the marriage tax penalty, bringing back the death tax in full 
force, raising the dividends in the capital gains tax. Real taxpayers 
paying really high taxes, about $3,000 on average: $2,400 in Arkansas, 
$3,000 in Florida, $2,600 in South Dakota, $2,600 in Tennessee. That's 
real money.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana, the ranking member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. McCrery.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Chairman, the speakers from the majority side for 
the last 15 minutes or so are among the Members of the House that I 
have the most respect for, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Boyd. I have 
watched them over the last few years show courage when it comes to 
fiscal discipline, when it comes to entitlement reform and suggesting a 
need for entitlement reform. So it was with some surprise that I heard 
them today endorse the majority's budget as crafted by the majority on 
the Budget Committee.
  And the reason I say I was somewhat surprised is that I believe those 
gentlemen over the years have talked about the need to constrain 
spending at the Federal level, to restrain spending. That's the whole 
point of talking about entitlement reform. They know that the 
entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, are 
unsustainable as currently structured. And with some courage, they have 
talked over the last few years about the need to tackle those problems 
and get this spending under control.
  And so when my friend, Mr. Tanner, talked about turning this ship, 
and it takes so many miles and so long to turn a ship and this budget 
starts the turn and that's a great thing, well, the minority budget 
does the same thing. It starts to turn that ship in the right 
direction, also, toward a balanced budget. The difference is the 
majority's budget turns that ship with the energy source of higher 
taxes, whereas our ship, the minority ship, is being turned with the 
energy source of restrained spending.
  So I hope, Madam Chairman, that my good friends, for whom I have much 
respect, will see the light before the vote comes and join us in 
supporting a budget that does what they want to do, that

[[Page 3891]]

gets the ship of state turned in the right direction, but does it 
through what they have advocated very soundly over the last few years, 
which is spending restraint, not increases in taxes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, we are now in year two of the Democrat 
majority. For the second year in a row they're proposing a budget that 
calls for the largest tax increase in American history, $683 billion 
significantly more than last year's budget. For our constituents, this 
means eliminating the lower marginal tax rates, a new penalty on 
marriage, a lower child tax credit, and new taxes on investment and 
retirement savings.
  In California, taxpayers can look forward to an additional $3,331 in 
taxes. Meanwhile, anticipating a tax hike, our Nation's employers would 
think twice before hiring that next worker or investing in new 
infrastructure. Madam Chairman, we need permanent tax relief, not 
higher taxes. What's more, this Democrat budget fails to address the 
long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
  Every year we do nothing, as prescribed in the budget before us, our 
future debt goes up by another $2 trillion. Without reform, our three 
largest entitlement programs will keep growing until they crowd out 
everything else in the Federal budget, from national defense to 
transportation, to assistance for the poor. Ignoring the problem will 
not make it go away.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this budget and support our 
more responsible Republican alternative.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 
minutes to a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, the ranking 
member of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Camp from Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Under the budget resolution put forth by the majority, every American 
should be aware that their wallets are going to get a lot lighter. As 
the economy softens and we lose jobs, the Democrat budget resolution 
prescribes an overpowering combination of tax hikes and wasteful 
spending that will have our economy reeling.
  The one positive thing I will say about this budget resolution is 
that it provides Americans with an excellent glimpse into the future 
under a Democrat majority; more spending, more taxes, and more of 
Washington telling you what to do.
  The majority has written a budget blueprint that imposes a massive, 
unheard of $3.9 trillion tax hike that will cause the average American 
household to pay $3,000 extra in Federal taxes next year. Washington 
doesn't need this money. Washington doesn't need to spend an extra $3.9 
trillion of the American people's money on redundant wasteful 
government programs.
  The bureaucracy is far from being starved of revenue. Especially 
under these economic circumstances, it is wrong for this House, for 
this Congress, for this government to raise taxes.
  Under the Democrats' budget resolution Washington spending will 
increase because 44 million children will no longer qualify for the 
$1,000 child tax credit. It will increase because American couples will 
be hit by the marriage penalty.
  Don't believe these taxes will just be on the rich. Under this 
budget, low-income Americans will be forced into a higher tax bracket. 
Worse yet, Federal spending will increase because Americans will no 
longer be able to pass on a lifetime of dedication, devotion and hard 
work to the next generation. Instead, Uncle Sam will reap a whopping 55 
percent death tax. Taxing the living isn't enough for the Democrats; 
under this budget resolution, they even go after the dearly departed.
  We should be cutting spending to balance our budget, not raising 
taxes. With rising food prices, energy costs, health care spending and 
other everyday bills going up, this is no time for Congress to ask 
Americans to pay more and make do with less.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this massive tax hike and vote ``no'' 
on the budget resolution.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, who is doing a 
wonderful job presenting this today on the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, it was about this time last year that we came to the 
House floor, I was a brand new freshman, and I have to say my jaw 
dropped when I looked at the budget proposal. Being a mom of five kids, 
23 foster kids, just an average family, we know what it is to balance a 
budget just in our own home. And I saw the Democrats lay out their 
budget proposal which was the largest tax increase in American history.
  And here we are, it's deja vu all over again because we see the 
Democrats are now having a tax increase that's even higher than last 
year, $683 billion. It's hard to count that high, Mr. Chairman, $683 
billion in tax increases, hitting Americans at the most inauspicious 
time when we're in an uncertain economy, when families clearly across 
the Nation are paying more for health care, for education, certainly 
for gas, certainly for groceries.

                              {time}  1800

  And in Minnesota in particular, this means an average individual tax 
increase of $3,088.
  Yes, Minnesotans, this means an average tax increase for you of 
$3,088. I know you have many other places where you could use $3,088.
  And it's an average loss in income for people in my district, Mr. 
Chairman, of $1,609.
  Unfortunately, it gets worse. It means over 2,665 fewer jobs for 
people in Minnesota, $292 million less in our local economy.
  Those are real people's lives that are impacted by those figures. 
They aren't just numbers. They're real people's lives. And it's pain 
and it's suffering that this Congress does not have to deliver to 
normal average American taxpayers. In total, this budget increases our 
Federal tax burden, unbelievably, from 18 percent of GDP to over 20 
percent of GDP in 2013.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of fiscal responsibility, 
and, therefore, conscience demands that I rise in opposition to the 
budget of the liberal Democratic majority in Congress.
  The American people deserve to know. We have a $9.3 trillion national 
debt. They also deserve to know that there are some $53 trillion in 
unfunded obligations that this government has committed to in Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that our children and grandchildren 
will have to find some way to resolve and to fund. Frankly, if this 
government was a business back in Indiana, we'd have to file 
bankruptcy.
  Now, tomorrow Republicans will offer a budget to deal with this 
fiscal crisis at the national level that's based on spending restraint, 
entitlement reform. It balances the Federal budget without taxes and 
without earmarks.
  But the answer from the Democrat majority in Congress: The largest 
budget in American history, $3.1 trillion. The largest 1-year increase 
in public debt in American history, some $646 billion. More earmarks, 
higher taxes, and nothing to reform the entitlement spending that 
threatens the vitality of our economy and the very future of our 
children and grandchildren.
  In 2006, the American people voted for change in Washington, D.C., 
but they weren't referring to what would be left in their pockets after 
the Democrats took control. We must balance the Federal budget with 
fiscal discipline and reform, not with more spending and more taxes. We 
must reject the policies of the new liberal Democrat majority in 
Congress and reject this budget.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal discipline and reform and 
join me in voting against the budget priorities of the liberal Democrat 
majority in Congress.

[[Page 3892]]


  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture 
Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bloated budget 
resolution.
  Facing a slowing economy and an increased cost of living, Americans 
have to tighten their belts and carefully budget their hard-earned 
money. It's time the Federal Government did the same.
  Instead, the budget proposed by the majority exceeds the President's 
spending levels by $276 billion over 5 years. This budget increases 
discretionary spending and fails to touch entitlement reform.
  To pay for the massive spending increases, the bill passes the cost 
on to lower and middle class American taxpayers. This budget resolution 
calls for the largest tax increase in American history, $683 billion 
over the next 5 years, which means 116 million taxpayers will face an 
average tax hike of more than $1,800. Worst of all, it raises the debt 
by $646 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue 
problem. This budget makes no attempt to rein in wasteful government 
spending or balance our Federal budget. I believe it should be the 
highest priority in this House to balance the budget, which is why, on 
the first day of this Congress, I introduced House Joint Resolution 1, 
a constitutional amendment to require that the Federal budget be 
balanced, with 160 bipartisan cosponsors.
  When families across the country are preparing their budget, they 
know that they can't spend more than they take in. It's a simple 
concept but one that Congress has not adhered to for far too long. We 
must balance the budget and cut the national debt, not by raising taxes 
but by being good stewards of taxpayer money.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this 
fiscally irresponsible budget and rein in wasteful spending.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 17 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd first like to begin by sincerely congratulating the 
chairman of the committee and the ranking member from Wisconsin for, I 
think, a very thoughtful and substantive approach to a very serious set 
of problems. I think that the tone and quality of the debate on the 
House floor this afternoon has served the country well and has served 
the institution well, and it is entirely owing to the leadership of the 
chairman and ranking member and the men and women who serve the 
Members' committee so well, and I appreciate that.
  I strongly support the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) 
budget. I think it's the right thing for the country based upon an 
analysis of facts, choices, and consequences. The most important 
factual reason that the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) 
budget benefits and strengthens families in our country is it operates 
on the principle that American families operate under, which is you 
can't live on borrowed money forever. You can't run your credit card up 
forever and hope that you win the lottery someday to get yourself out 
of that mess. The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget, 
just as American families do across this country, recognizes the 
reality that you have to make choices.
  Now, the other fact that I think is very important that Members 
realize is that this budget does not have a tax increase for anyone 
this year or anyone next year or anyone last year. One of our friends 
on the other side, Mr. Chairman, said that this was deja vu, this 
budget. She was exactly right because most of us were here almost 
exactly a year ago and heard a ritualistic incantation from the 
minority side that this was the largest tax increase in American 
history, the largest tax increase in the history of the world, the 
largest tax increase in the history of the universe, the largest tax 
increase in whatever's larger than the universe.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd just invite the people of this country to evaluate 
the validity of that claim. When they sit down and fill out their tax 
return this year, they should ask themselves the question, did my 
income tax rates go up? No, they didn't. Did the capital gains tax 
rates go up? No, they didn't. Did the excise taxes go up? No, they 
didn't. And the same answer would be true for this year and the year 
after that.
  Now, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that people listen to this debate and 
they say, how can this be that the Democrats get up and say there are 
no tax increases in this budget and the Republicans get up and say it's 
the largest tax increase in the history of civilization or whatever the 
latest version of it is? Here's the answer:
  In 2010 the tax cuts enacted earlier in this decade expire, and the 
Congress will have to make a choice. Until then, there is no tax raised 
on anyone for anything. When that day occurs, this budget contemplates 
that we will do what families across the country do and make an 
intelligent decision. If the economy bounces back and grows, there's a 
very good chance there will be plenty of revenue to renew all of those 
tax cuts. If it doesn't, then the Congress has the choice of reducing 
spending in given areas to finance tax cuts for all or some of the 
people who would be affected.
  But what we will not do is what the erstwhile majority elevated to an 
art form during its reign, which is to borrow the money to pay the 
bills. We won't indebt the children of this country to the People's 
Republic of China and our other creditors because we don't have the 
discipline to make a decision here.
  There's a big choice. Our budget believes that the economy grows and 
American families prosper by stopping the practice of borrowing money 
to run the government, by investing in the education and health care 
and development of our people, and by expanding economic opportunity. 
We believe that works.
  The other side, with great sincerity, believes that massive tax 
breaks for the wealthiest people will trickle down to the rest of us 
and that will work.
  This is the big choice we have to make, but there is a record for 
this choice. We do not have to make this choice in the empty vacuum of 
political theory. You see, because we tried their way for 6 years when 
they had control of both Chambers and the White House, and our strategy 
of stopping the practice of borrowing money, investing in people, 
expanding economic opportunity is what we tried for most of the 1990s, 
and there's a record. They created some jobs through their strategy. 
But for every one job they created, we created five. There was some 
economic growth under their strategy, but for every dollar of economic 
growth they created or facilitated, we created a dollar and a half.
  What was the impact of their strategy on the American families that 
this budget supports? Well, over a 6-year period, the purchasing power 
of a typical middle class American family shrunk by $1,100. During the 
years in which our strategy was the policy of this country, the 
purchasing power of a middle class family increased by $6,000.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Isn't it the case that the Republicans 
controlled Congress from 1995 on?
  Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.
  Reclaiming my time, it's also the case that every single Republican 
there in 1993 voted against the plan that put that into effect and, 
therefore, they have no ownership.
  So I would say the record is very, very clear, that I think our 
friend from Wisconsin and his fellow colleagues on the committee are 
very well intentioned about the policy they followed to help American 
families. I just think they're wrong, and I think the record shows that 
they're wrong.

[[Page 3893]]

  Now, what are some of the consequences in this budget between their 
way and our way? Well, one of them is the issue of middle class tax 
cuts. Now, they are going to say that all these middle class taxes are 
going to go up.
  Here's the reality: The budget contains what we call a reserve fund 
for the purpose of financing middle class tax cuts. And, again, when we 
reach that point, we will make a decision as to how best to preserve 
those, either based upon growth in the economy, which we certainly hope 
will occur, in offsets in spending, which we are prepared to make, or 
in other sources of revenue which we have brought to this floor before.

                              {time}  1815

  Look at the issue of children's health care. Last year, we attempted 
to provide health insurance for 5 million additional children. These 
are the children of people that work in convenience stores, gas 
stations and retail stores. These are very hardworking people who are 
struggling to get ahead. And there is a program that has worked very 
well since 1997 to help those families and their children. Now, we 
wanted to expand that coverage to 5 million more children, and we paid 
for it. A great number of Members on their side voted for this, and a 
great number of Members of the other body on their side voted for this, 
but not quite enough, because we ran into a Presidential veto, and we 
couldn't quite override it here.
  Our budget will do the same thing. It will say let's find health 
insurance for 5 million more children who do not have it, and let's pay 
for it. Let's not pay for it by borrowed money.
  For those who are trying to live by collecting child support 
enforcement, there are more resources for it. For those women who are 
pregnant or have small children and want to promote their well-being, 
there is more money for it. For Americans struggling to deal with 
getting by and paying the grocery bills on food stamps, there is more 
resources for this. Public health issues, whether it is the spread of 
disease or the prevention of disease, there is more resources for this, 
as well.
  This budget proceeds on the powerful principle on which American 
families proceed. Don't try to survive on borrowed money forever. It 
puts us in position to make difficult and sometimes unpopular choices. 
It does not raise taxes on anyone in the fiscal year that is in front 
of us, and it makes investments in the strategy for economic growth 
that has worked in the past and we believe will work again.
  I know that the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) who is 
new to the institution, but in no way new to serving her constituents, 
has a special concern about block grants. I would like to encourage her 
to engage in a colloquy at this time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Like my colleagues, I was disappointed that the President's budget 
made such a poor investment in the health of our Nation's cities and 
communities at a time when strong action is necessary to stave off 
economic ruin for many hardworking Americans. Our cities are our 
Nation's economic engines, providing vital infrastructure, the 
foundation for an educated workforce, and for the health of our 
communities.
  For any of us who represents a city of any size, we know what a 
challenge it is, and yet how important it is that the Federal 
Government be a strategic partner with them. When I asked leaders in 
the cities of my district how the Federal Government could best help, 
the answer was unhesitating and unequivocal: Community Development 
Block Grant funding. CDBG funding has improved the quality of life in 
the cities of the Merrimack Valley in my district and in thousands of 
other cities across the country by helping to improve parks, add green 
space, and create affordable housing.
  In Lowell, CDBG funds were used to reclaim a contaminated site 
creating the potential to attract new companies to employ city 
residents. And they are not alone in putting these funds to such good 
use. Most recently, the City of Lawrence suffered a devastating fire 
which destroyed businesses and homes downtown. CDBG funding has been 
critical for razing and rebuilding these destroyed properties.
  If CDBG funding is not adequately in place, communities like this, 
faced with disaster, would have few alternatives to help finance their 
recovery effort, not to mention the loss of support for vital housing 
and community and economic development activities that States and local 
governments have come to rely on.
  I would like to confirm with the gentleman from New Jersey that the 
budget resolution before us today thankfully rejects the President's 
cuts to the grant programs that have proven so critical to helping our 
communities and provide additional funding for CBDG and other economic 
development and affordable housing priorities.
  I would also like to confirm that the budget before us today rejects 
the President's proposal to eliminate the Social Services Block Grant. 
Cities in my district rely on social service and community service 
grants to carry out programs ranging from parenting classes and 
consumer and tax counseling to child enrichment and adult literacy 
classes. Without these funds, critical elements of our social safety 
net will be lost exactly when American families need them most.
  I thank the gentleman for engaging in a colloquy and for presenting 
us with a budget that makes both a moral statement about our priorities 
and a reality-driven investment in the continued growth and vitality of 
our communities.
  Mr. SPRATT. I can assure the gentlelady that the programs that are of 
concern to her from the Community Development Block Grant, the Social 
Services Block Grant and the Community Services Block Grant are all 
accommodated in this budget resolution, and we definitely oppose 
certainly the repeal of the Social Services Block Grant.
  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. 
Moore of Wisconsin) having assumed the chair, Mr. Altmire, 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.

                          ____________________