Revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 through 2012.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, first off, I would like to start off this debate by paying a compliment to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). The gentleman from South Carolina is just that. He is a gentleman. He is a good man, he is a man who has a tough job, and he is a man who I enjoy working with.

The key to this year's budget debate is not whether Congress should balance the Federal budget. Republicans and Democrats this year are agreeing that we need to balance the Federal budget. The key is about how we are going to get there.

Today, as this House debates both the Democrats' and the Republicans' budget proposals for fiscal year 2008, it will become clear that this is much more than a simple discussion about numbers and how they add up over the next few years. Instead, this is going to be a bigger debate about our different governing philosophies, about what kind of society we envision, about what kind of country we want to leave to future generations.

The budget that the Democrats have proposed is true to their philosophy. I give them credit for that. They believe that more government is better government and that the best way to solve the myriad problems we face in this country is to spend more and more and to tax our people more and more to pay for that spending.

The Democrats' budget reflects this philosophy by calling for the largest tax increase in American history. I will make this irrefutably clear throughout the course of this debate: They call for immense new spending and postponement of critical entitlement reforms for another 5 years.

If Congress passes this budget tomorrow, this will enshrine the raising of taxes to the tune of $400 billion on the American family, worker and business. And we are not just talking about raising taxes on the rich, as they would like to have us believe. We are talking about raising taxes on every single American income tax payer. This means raising marginal income tax rates on all taxpayers; eliminating the 10 percent bracket that has benefited numerous low-income individuals; raising the tax on capital gains and dividends and discouraging investment in our economy and saving for our seniors; slashing the child tax credit in half; reinstating the marriage tax penalty; reimposing the death tax; and eliminating the State and sales tax deduction for States like Texas and Florida.

Let me just show you where the lie is. It is not in the numbers. The lie is in the so-called reserve funds. They can give you all the words they want. They can say they put all these fancy words in this budget that says we don't want to raise taxes, we want this new spending. But what a budget resolution is is a bunch of numbers, and numbers don't lie, Mr. Chairman.

This budget requires, banks on, plans for, assumes, insists upon the largest tax increase in American history. Otherwise, they don't balance the budget.

So my friends on the other side of the aisle can have it one way or the other, but not both. They can say they are balancing the budget. But, according to their budget, they therefore have to raise taxes. Or they can say they are not raising taxes, at which hand they then are not balancing the budget. They can't have it both ways.

The line, the red line, which is the revenue baseline, does not lie.

Now, their revenue numbers show it. And they can bring in all the left-leaning think tanks that have been in favor of tax increases in the past and in the present to say that this isn't a tax increase, but come December 10, January 31, that is the last day people have a $1,000 tax credit. It is the last day married couples won't be taxed for being married. It is the last day the death tax isn't at zero. It is the last day income tax rates don't go up across the board. That is what happens.

They have also made more than $100 billion worth of additional spending

promises in this budget, if they are offset. That's what all these reserve funds are about; more money for this program, more for that program, more money for this program, maybe some tax relief for the middle class. We have a reserve fund for it. My friends, a reserve fund is worth less than the paper it's printed on because all it says is we have these priorities, these ideas, these things we would like to do, we have no money for it; middle-class tax relief, more money for SCHIP, farm programs.

But if we did come up with the money to pay for these programs, we would like to do it; but we don't have the money, so we're not doing it. That is basically what a reserve fund is.

What we really have here, Mr. Chairman, is a huge tax increase, a tax increase that will have the effect of significantly increasing the burden on individual taxpayers and small businesses and will completely ignore the positive growth impacts that these tax cuts encouraged since 2003.

Let's review some of the effects that low tax burdens have had on economic growth, on jobs. Before we provided tax relief in 2003, we were losing an average of 100,000 jobs a month. Since then, we have added 7.6 million new jobs; about 170,000 new jobs have been created per month since the tax relief.

The economy. Before tax relief occurred in 2003, the economy grew at an average rate of 1.1 percent. Now it has been 3.5 percent since then, faster than it has grown in the last three decades, on average.

Unemployment. When we passed tax relief, the unemployment rate was at 6.1 percent, now it's all the way down to 4.5 percent.

Business investment. When we passed tax relief, business investment had been down for nine straight quarters. Since then, business investment has been up for 15 straight quarters. That is where the 7.6 million new jobs got created. Unfortunately, the Democrat budget would ignore all of this, with immense tax increases that threatened to put us right back where we were in the recession of 2001.

And now on revenues. What they will tell you is that the revenues are the reason why we are in deficit. What they will tell you is that the tax cuts drove us deeply into deficits. That is completely untrue. On the contrary. If you take a look at this chart, the tax relief actually had the effect of increasing job creation and revenues coming into the Federal Government.

We had 3 straight years of revenue decline during the recession. The tax cuts kicked in. What happened? Revenues went up exponentially, to the point where we have had double digit revenue gains for the last 3 years, and as a consequence, the deficit has been going down. These surging revenues have been a key factor in reducing this deficit.

Mr. Chairman, the wrong way to balance the budget is to raise taxes. The right way to balance the budget is to control spending. We do not have a revenue problem in Washington. Money is coming in very quickly from taxpayers. What we have here is a spending problem. And the Democrats are making it worse because they are calling for all this new spending.

For all of their talk about reducing the deficit, all they have done since they came into the majority is to spend more and more money, and we are only into the end of March. First they passed the omnibus bill that added $6 billion in new spending. Next came the supplemental for the warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan; they added $21 billion in unrelated and unrequested spending. And now their budget resolution adds another $24 billion in new spending next year alone.

For all the additional spending and gimmicks, the worst thing about this budget is not just the tax increases and the new spending, it's about what it does not include. This budget does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address our entitlement problem. This is what needs to be fixed, Mr. Chairman.

We had all these eyewitnesses, all these experts come from the left and the right that the majority called, from the GAO to CBO to other groups, all talking about the fact that our Nation is facing a fiscal crisis, that entitlements are growing out of control, that our primary responsibility in crafting our budget should be to address entitlement spending. Let me read some quotes from the Democrats' own witnesses.

The Comptroller General of the GAO has called the rising costs of government entitlements a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve came to testify. He said, ``Without early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S. economy could be weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.'' Even the Democrats' own witnesses from the Concord Coalition testified to the same.

They've heard all of these witnesses, they've heard all these warnings, and they have chosen in this budget to do nothing. There is not a single reform, a single dollar of savings from entitlements. Obviously, they seem to be unconcerned with the $4.6 trillion in liability that Social Security has, which grows every year by $600 billion; or the $32 trillion in liability that my children are facing that gets larger and larger every single year.

With this budget, they have simply accepted that we are going to continue to pile up massive amounts of debt to our children, and we are going to force them to pay double what we pay in taxes today to sustain these programs.

This brings me to my final chart, a chart by the General Accounting Office. We know that if we fail to reform entitlements, the Federal Government will double in size by the year 2040. When my kids reach my age, this budget would leave them with the choice of either paying double our current tax rate, or accepting the fact that we just don't have enough money to spend on health care, defense, national security or education.

I believe this is an enormous missed opportunity by the Democrats. Yes, the Democrats balance the budget in 2012, and they should be commended for reaching that goal. But at what price are they balancing the budget? They hit balance only because they are imposing the largest tax increase in American history. We still will have all of the same problems though.

They are not reforming anything in government. They are not reforming any program. They are just calling for the American taxpayer to send more money in Congress so we can continue to spend too much money. And because of the path of big government and the tax-and-spend policies that the Democrats have chosen, this is going to be a very short-lived success. As soon as we get back to this balanced budget on paper in 2012, the year where their budget gets balanced on the backs of taxpayers, it won't be long before entitlement spending drives the Federal Government right back into deficits as far as the eye can see.

This is not a Republican and Democrat issue. The fact is every independent expert in America that watches fiscal issues knows that government is growing out of control. We have really important programs that need our attention, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the three most important programs, in my particular opinion, in the Federal Government. Important programs, and programs people depend on, organize their lives around. We have to reform these programs in order to save these programs, yet they are doing nothing to do that. And because their budget does nothing to save these programs, they are hastening the day at which they go bankrupt. That is an abdication of responsibility.

No matter how you put it, Mr. Chairman, this is a tax increase. No matter how you put it, Mr. Chairman, a reserve fund, no matter what flowery language you can attach to it, no matter what left-leaning think tank you can have to say whatever you want, a tax is a tax.

In our budget, we make sure that these tax increases don't hit American families. We make sure the marriage penalty stays away. We make sure the child tax credit stays up. We make sure tax rates are down. We make sure the death tax goes away. What do they do? They insist upon, they require, they depend up all these tax increases. If they don't, their budget doesn't balance. They can't have it both ways.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of rebuttal, I yield myself 1 minute.

I think we may set a record today on the floor on charts.

But, first, let me say, if you really don't want to raise taxes, if you are telling us that you have these words in your budget that says you don't want to raise taxes, you want middle-class tax relief, then why didn't you put it in your budget?

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, we gave the Democrats ample opportunity to put it in their budget to make sure that these taxes wouldn't increase. We had amendments in the Budget Committee to prevent the increase on the marginal tax rates, to prevent the elimination of the $1,000 per child tax credit, to prevent the elimination of marriage penalty, cap gains, dividends, State and local tax, bring back the death tax. We had all these votes to say, let's make it clear in the numbers: Don't raise taxes.

What happened? Party line vote after party line vote after party line votes, Democrats voted on every one of these amendments which put in the numbers the prevention of these tax increases.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a member of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Lungren.

At this time I yield myself 20 seconds to say, the gentleman from Virginia who just spoke, Mr. Chairman, according to the numbers in this budget, that State will have an average household tax increase of $3,119; and this will hit another 2,958,000 taxpayers in the State of Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentlewoman from Oregon who just spoke, the tax increase in this budget would hit the average Oregon household with an annual tax increase of $2,751 which would affect 1,336,000 taxpayers in that State alone.

I would like to take a moment to compliment my colleagues on the other side on the veterans' portion of the budget. They do add more resources for veterans, to veterans' health care. They do meet the President's numbers on defense. This is a part of their budget that I would like to compliment them on. We, too, in our substitute, will add additional resources to veterans and veterans' health care. This is an area where I think they have made some improvements over the President's budget in their budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

Mr. Chairman, I will take a little time on our side to try and catch up. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, if I may just interject, may I just inquire as to how much time is on each side remaining?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\2/3\ minutes.

I would simply say the gentleman from North Dakota represents a State that pays a lot of capital gains tax and farm income, death taxes. Under this bill, the average household of North Dakota will see a tax increase annually of $2,613, which had 244,000 taxpayers. In the State of Georgia, the gentleman just spoke, that State will see an average household tax increase per year of

$2,743, which will hit 3,132,000 taxpayers.

If this budget doesn't raise taxes, then why is it that the Democrats shot down every single amendment that was offered to prevent all of these tax increases?

If you really believe it doesn't raise taxes, then why would you prevent us from adjusting the numbers to make sure it didn't raise taxes? You can read any word you want.

You can read any word you want of these so-called reserve funds. At the end of each of these reserve funds, it says, well, we got to come up with offsets to pay for these priorities. We don't want to raise these taxes. We want to extend the child tax credit, but they are not paid for. Actions are louder than words.

More importantly, numbers are louder than words.

Announcement By the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, the numbers are very, very clear. The numbers, equivocally, have the largest tax increase in the American history.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield myself 1 minute just to read some clarifying language, which is in the Democrats' budget.

At the end of these reserve funds, so called, for middle income taxpayers, it says we want to provide this tax relief, but only to the extent that such bills or joint resolutions in the form placed before the House in the Committee on Rules would not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for fiscal years 2007 through 2012.

Then, in section 401, where they talk about these tax extensions as a statement of their policy preferences, they assume that the cost of such a policy is offset. What does that mean? That means they are not covering the tax cuts. That means if you want to extend these tax cuts, they would have to pay for them on top of raising these taxes.

What this budget resolution also does, if you simply merely want to extend this tax relief, that is past 2010, you would have to come up with more tax increases to do so. This prohibits the ability of Congress to simply extend this tax relief, thereby bringing these tax increases to a curve.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, a member who has great financial expertise, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the RSC, a distinguished member of House Budget Committee, Mr. Hensarling from Texas.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the House Budget Committee, Mr. Smith from Nebraska.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the Budget Committee and the distinguished chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman, only to say that I can't understand how you can say that their budget lowers taxes, let alone doesn't raise taxes.

You can't have it both ways. Either you are raising taxes and balancing the budget or you are not raising taxes and not balancing the budget. It is mathematically impossible for the other side to say they are balancing the budget and not raising taxes.

With that, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer of Indiana.

(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left on each side?

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I will yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Budget Committee, Mr. Hensarling from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say, you can get every left-leaning think tank to say whatever you want, but the Congressional Budget Office is saying: This raises taxes. Plain and simple.

We can reinvent new words and come up with new language. We can put reserve funds that are meaningless into the budget.

The CBO says that their baseline, which the gentleman is using for his budget, if the tax cuts expire, the baseline goes up, that is what they are using.

Let me put it another way. According to the Congressional Budget Office, their budget does not balance if they don't raise taxes. Their budget does balance, which they are claiming it does, by letting these tax cuts expire and raising taxes across the board.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I want to go to the point that I mentioned a minute ago about who says what about what this budget does. Let me talk about the Congressional Budget Office. By law, that is what we use.

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says: The year 2010, all of these tax cuts expire. I think we all agree with that. All of these tax cuts expire in 2010. But we are talking about marriage penalty, per child tax credit, death tax, capital gains dividends, income tax rates across the board, they all go up.

That is the red line. That red line shoots up because all of those taxes are increased. That is the line the Democrats are using to run their budget. That is the line the Democrats are using to finance their new spending. That's the line the Democrats are using to show that they get to a balanced budget.

The green line, the dotted line, that is the CBO line that says here is what revenues will be if you extend the tax cuts. That's the line we are using in our budget. We are balancing the budget by controlling spending.

So reserve fund, shmerve fund, that means nothing. What matters are the numbers. And the numbers, not by the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities, not by the Brookings Institution. The Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office shows us very clearly, black and white in the numbers, in the numbers in your budget resolution.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying, the red line shows all the tax increases kicking in and hitting American taxpayers. That is the line that the Democrats are using to run their budget, to balance their budget, to pay for their new spending.

You can use any word you want, you can't escape the fact that they are imposing, banking on, planning on, assuming, legislating the largest tax increase in American history.

They want to smoke screen it with reserve funds and cute language. The fact is the fact, and the fact is underlined by the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

As a representative from the State of Wisconsin, each of us represents about 670,000 people in our congressional districts, and in my home State of Wisconsin, the average tax increase on the average household in the State of Wisconsin will be $2,964, and this will hit 2,164,000 taxpayers. Numbers do not lie. The CBO certifies it. If we pass this budget and it comes into being, that is what will happen. Mr. Chairman, I think that is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important debate. It is an important debate about our priorities as a country. It is an important debate about how we run the fiscal ship of state, but it is more important than that. It is an important debate about our future.

I related a story the other day in committee that I want to share again with my colleagues.

When I first ran for Congress in 1998, I was a 28-year-old young guy, single, no children. I remember at a Kiwanis Pancake Day, we have a lot of pancake days in Wisconsin. It is how we raise money for charities. I remember going up to a woman in line, not much older than me, and she had three little children. I asked her for her vote. I asked her to support me in my race for Congress.

She said something to me. She said, I do not think I am going to vote for you. I said, well, why not? She said, because I do not think you can relate to me. I said, well, why can I not relate to you? She said, because you do not have children and you do not know what it is like to have children; you do not know what it is like to think about their futures. I said, well, I was in a family. I know what it is like to be in a family. And you know, I did not understand what she was saying to me at the time.

You know what? Now that I have a 5-year-old daughter, a 3-year-old son and a 2-year-old son, I understand exactly what that woman was telling me. I understand exactly what it feels like to really, really, really care about the next generation. It is like your heart is walking around in someone else's body. I can only imagine what grandparents feel like.

So this debate is about numbers. It is about priorities, how much for the Pentagon and how much for veterans and how much for this program and that program. But it is also about what is that horizon we are looking for, what is that vision on the horizon and what are we doing for our kids and our grandkids? What legacy are we putting in place for our country?

The great, beautiful thing about America, the American Dream is that one generation leaves a better standard of living for the next generation. That was drilled into me by my parents, that they were working and thriving so that we would have a better life than they had. That is what our job in Congress is to do.

We have big challenges and our country has faced big ones before, the Great Depression, World War I, World War II, the Cold War. We have got three challenges right now hitting us simultaneously, the global war on terror, globalization, and this entitlement explosion, the retirement of the baby boomer generation which we are not prepared for. This budget is about all of those things, but let me talk about two of them.

Globalization: We have got new kinds of competitive pressures against us unlike that which we have ever seen before. No longer do the oceans separate us from competitive pressures. We have broadband and digital technology. We have competition from countries like China and India unlike any we have ever seen before, and it is something we have to respond to so that our kids and our grandkids can have that higher standard of living.

At the same time, we have got entitlement programs that are exploding before us. We have an enormous debt on our horizon that we have to address.

Now, you heard this talk about taxes, tax increases. This budget does unequivocally raise taxes. I will not belabor that point.

Let me show you three lines. The lower line here, the blue line, shows you what revenues would look like if we kept those tax cuts permanent. That is what our budget will propose to do. Do not raise taxes, keep the marriage penalty down, keep the kid credit where it is, keep income tax rates where they are, get rid of the death tax, do not raise taxes. That is the blue line.

The red line right here shows you what happens if we let the tax cuts expire as this budget proposes to do if you increase taxes. It shows you a $400 billion tax increase.

What really matters here is not the red and the blue line at the end of the day for our children and grandchildren, matters a lot, but at the end of the day what matters is the green line, the spending line. This is the line that is occurring right now under our watch. This is the spending trajectory of the Federal Government because of Republicans and Democrats, both of us. We are all in this thing together. This is the line that happens.

So if you do not address the spending, you are not addressing the real problem. That is why I really have a big problem with this budget. Not only does it have the largest tax increase in history, not only does it raise taxes about $400 billion, it does nothing to control spending. It does not reform our entitlement programs. If you want these entitlement programs to succeed, to exist, to continue, you have to reform them.

Let me show you one more chart. This is the Government Accountability Office. This shows you the trajectory we are on when you take a look at Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the debt, when you take a look at all the discretionary spending. It shows you this: By the year 2040, that is when my kids will be exactly my age, by the year 2040, our Federal Government will be doubled in size.

Let me put it another way. If we want to have no new programs whatsoever, keep today's government in place, no fewer programs, no more programs, just today's Federal Government, the cost of that Federal Government when my kids are my age will be double what it costs today.

Let us put it another way. We have historically run our government, the Federal Government, by taxing about 18 percent of GDP to fund the Federal Government. Since about 1960, the Federal Government has had to tax the American people at about 18 percent of the economy and its output to fund the Federal Government. When my kids are my age, to fund today's Federal Government at that time it will require us to tax 40 percent of GDP. We will literally have to tax our kids at twice the rate we are taxing ourselves today if we do nothing to reform spending and reform these entitlements.

You cannot survive globalization if you are going to double the tax rates on every man, woman and child in America at that time. We cannot win when we are competing against the likes of China and India if we are going to crank taxes up like that.

So the real problem with this budget is not what it contains, the largest tax increase in American history. The even larger problem with this budget is that it contains no reforms. It contains no spending control. It includes immense new spending.

You have 12 of these reserve funds which are worth less than this piece of paper. They do not pay for anything, but the one thing they do say is we want to spend $115 billion in more money. We do not have the money for it, but if we can have the money for it, we would do it. The other reserve funds say we do not want these taxes to go up, but we are planning on having them go up. We would stop them going up if we had money to do it, but we really are not stopping these tax increases.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say you are going to balance the budget and not control spending without raising taxes. In order for your budget to balance, in order for the Democrat budget to balance, Mr. Chairman, they have to raise taxes, especially since they are not only not controlling spending, they are increasing spending. That is the way mathematics works.

But more important than all of this, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we have to get our kids and our country ready to compete in the global economy. We are not prepared for that. We have got to do more to help them compete, and we do not do it by doubling their taxes.

We tax our country, our businesses and our capital more than any other country in the industrialized world except for Japan, and they just finished two decades of recession. We can't tax our way out of this problem. We will tax ourselves out of being the leading economic superpower. We will tax ourselves out of a good standard of living.

If we don't tackle this problem, we will have severed that American Dream, that American legacy, that legacy that says each generation should leave on to the next a better country, a better standard of living. That is what is really wrong with this budget. We can't keep spending or taxing our way out of these problems. If this budget achieves balance on paper, which I will clearly, freely admit that it does, it will only do so for a short period of time.

Because if you don't fix these entitlement programs, it will drive us that much deeper into debt, that much more in the deficit, just around the corner. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the big three entitlements. They are very important programs. Health care for low income, health care for people in old age, retirement security. We all agree with that. We think that is the right thing.

But you have got to reform these programs if you are going to save these programs. You have got to reform these programs if people are truly going to be able to count on these benefits. Because if you don't reform these programs, you are driving the debt even higher. You are driving taxes up on our kids and grandkids even more. Not only will we not have programs to depend on for our livelihood when we reach the age of 65, not only will we not be prepared for the baby boomers, we will hit our kids with the biggest tax burden this country has ever seen.

We will lose our greatness, and we will not pass on this legacy of a better country and a higher standard of living to our children. I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, H. Con. Res. 99 is not the full and final solution, but it is a good solution. It moves us in the right direction towards a balanced budget. It moves us to balance in 5 years, as a matter of fact, by 2012. It posts a smaller deficit than the President's budget over 5 years. It adheres to PAYGO, and it contains no new mandatory spending that is not fully offset.

It also includes program integrity initiatives to root out waste, fraud and abuse in the Department of Health and Human Services and in the reporting of taxes in the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this resolution described both in our markup in committee and today during the debate on the rule. I think you have to bear in mind what our critics have said, in terms of where the criticism is coming from, because the party that is opposing this resolution and criticizing this resolution is the same party that took a surplus of $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011 and turned it into a deficit of $2.8 trillion during this same period of time.

As a consequence, we have heard a lot of talk out here today, but the truth of the matter is, with respect to taxes, their bill imposes on future generations, our children and grandchildren, an unerasable tax called a debt tax, because they will be servicing the debt of the United States for years to come.

Let me show you just a few charts to illustrate what I mean.

First of all, the chart showing the debt of the United States that has increased since 2001 when Mr. Bush took office. This is a simple chart, but it contains an enormous amount of truth.

When Mr. Bush took office in 2001, he came to office with an advantage that few American presidents have ever enjoyed, a budget in balance, in surplus by $236 billion the year before. Within 4 years, he had driven that surplus of $236 billion into a deficit of $418 billion; and, as a consequence, the debt when he took office, which was $5.7 trillion, today is $8.8 trillion, having increased $3.1 trillion over the last 6 years.

We have never seen a debt accumulation like this, certainly during any normal period of time. Except for the Depression or Second World War, we have never seen, except for those periods, any kind of accumulation of debt that approaches this. And if we continue on this path, if we continue on this path, then we will see the debt, by the time Mr. Bush leaves his presidency, at $9.6 trillion, as opposed to $5.7 trillion when he came to office.

Net interest on the national debt is today $170 billion. That is the debt tax I am talking about. This is the debt service that our children and their children will have to pay for years to come. It is a debt tax that is indelible, almost permanent, unless we can do something to turn this budget around and start reducing our debt, instead of accumulating mountainous debt year in and year out.

The budget that we bring to the floor today fully funds the President's defense request, and we husband what little is left over for some centerpiece initiatives which we strongly support as Democrats.

First of all, we created in 1997 a Children's Health Insurance Program. The authorization for it runs out this year. We would propose in our budget resolution to reauthorize the CHIP program, Children's Health Insurance, and add $50 billion to the program so we cover most of the children who are eligible for coverage in the United States.

The second point: With respect to education, we think the education of our children, of today's workforce, is critically important as never before in American history; and we think it would be shameful to cut back for education. But for 3 straight years President Bush has sent us a budget that would cut the Department of Education, this year by $1.5 billion.

If you take Function 500, which includes elementary and secondary education and student loans and workforce investment and Trade Adjustment Assistance Training, the Bush administration requests $3.6 billion next year

less than this year; and in 2012 the request is $8.6 billion below current services. That is for training our workforce. That is what this administration is willing to invest in the education of our children.

We feel differently, and strongly differently, and we provide $8 billion to $9 billion more than the President and, over 5 years, $46 billion more than the President provides for education and job training and related activities.

We also call for a long-term fix in the Alternative Minimum Tax. The President has told us twice that they can take the Alternative Minimum Tax and, within the context of the Tax Code in a revenue-neutral manner, change the Alternative Minimum Tax so that it will not extend to middle-income families for whom it was never intended. They have told us that, but they are yet to do that.

We are saying in this budget resolution to the Ways and Means Committee, given its jurisdiction over taxes, and to the administration, we need to fix the AMT.

You will hear, as you have heard earlier today, a lot of talk about this being the biggest tax increase in American history, which is absolutely absurd. The Democratic budget resolution which I am presenting right now, introducing, which we will discuss tonight, does not raise taxes, period. The budget resolution that we bring to the floor tonight in no way affects the tax cuts that were passed in 2001 and in 2003. It leaves those tax cuts in place for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

What we do assume is the same revenues that CBO projects in its current baseline. If you look at the CBO baseline and the OMB baselines, you will find they virtually converge. There is about a 1.2 percent difference between the two of them, as this chart right here will easily show you.

All this palaver about taxes and the biggest tax increase in history, this is the difference between our revenue projections, the green bar, and theirs, which is blue, 1.2 percent over a 5-year period of time.

Looking at this budget in its whole context, three outside groups which are vigilant overseers and advocates for good, sound fiscal policy, the Concord Coalition has said, ``Thus, to be clear,'' this is how they sum up their letter, ``this budget resolution does not call for or require a tax increase.'' As plain as you can put it, from a group that is truly disinterested and independent politically.

Then we have got the Brookings Institution, the Hamilton Project. ``This budget would not raise taxes.'' ``This budget would not raise taxes.''

Finally, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, they took a look at our budget and they said, ``This claim is just flat incorrect. The House plan does not include a tax increase.''

What the House plan does do is allow the tax cuts that were passed in 2001 and 2003 to follow their course. They will expire on December 31, 2010. Not because of this budget resolution. It doesn't have a thing to do with the expiration or extension of those tax cuts. But, in 2010, those tax cuts expire of their own volition, because they were so drawn, designed, intended by those on this side of the aisle, the Republicans. They were designed to expire on December 31, 2010.

What we are simply assuming in this budget resolution is that that decision will be taken when we reach it. When we have to cross that bridge, we will cross that bridge. We will know then what our deficit is in 2010. We hope we will have a surplus by that point in time; and if we have a surplus, we will know whether or not we can offset it against the extension of some of these tax cuts.

I will say this and will say it repeatedly: Read this budget resolution. Give us a fair shake. And you will find in two different places prominently inserted, this resolution says we endorse, we support, and we will seek the renewal of the middle-income tax cuts that have been passed since 2001 and 2003, the marital tax penalty, the child tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, State tax reform. All of these things we embrace and we pledge ourselves to the extension to see when they expire, as they will, they will be duly renewed.

We will have this debate continually throughout the night. It will be brought up again and again and again. But I want to say one final thing: This budget resolution does not raise taxes, and it does not cause the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. They expire of their own volition.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Texas, I yield myself 1 minute to reply.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will acknowledge that they have requested in their budget resolution $278 billion in reconciled tax cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and a number of different areas. He is faulting us for not joining in this endeavor. That is partly because, number one, we don't agree with his specific cuts. But number two, having so-called saved $278 billion, there is then enacted by reconciliation directive to the Ways and Means Committee $447 billion in tax cuts.

So the net effect is not to use entitlement cuts for reform, but to actually add to the deficit $168.5 billion.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield myself 1 minute.

While the gentleman was on his extended sabbatical back in California, he missed the heyday of our experience here under the Clinton administration and seems not to know that during those years the average job creation was 237,000 jobs per month. By comparison or by contrast, for the Bush administration comparable figures are 68,000 jobs per month.

Now, you can fudge that number by starting to count in August of 2004, claiming that it doesn't apply until then. But if you go back to January of 2001, the average per monthly increase for the Bush administration is 68,000 versus the Clinton administration which was 237,000.

Furthermore, the Clinton administration every year had a better bottom line in the budget. Every year, the deficit got smaller and smaller, to the point where, in 1997, we had a surplus for the first time in 1998 in 30 years; and in 2000 we had a surplus of $236 billion.

I now yield 1 minute to Mr. Davis of Alabama.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) with the request that he be allowed to yield part of the time that is allotted to him to other Members.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Moore, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) let me just say once again that this budget resolution leaves in place all of the tax cuts implemented in 2001 and 2003. Had we wished, we could have repealed those tax cuts. It leaves them in place in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The year 2010, December 31, those tax cuts expire their provisions, because they were written and designed to expire by the other side, by the Republicans. That is what happened to them.

This present resolution does not trigger their re-elimination, it doesn't trigger their determination. It doesn't decide either way. By its open volition, by its own terms, these tax cuts will expire on that very day unless they are renewed.

For the purpose of renewal at that point in time, 2010, 2011 and 2012, we will have a surplus of $450 billion, and those surpluses, over time, according to our projection, according to this budget resolution, will build to $1 trillion. If we so choose then, depending on the situation, we can so choose, then, to apply these to all or some of the renewable tax cuts. But that decision can be reached and made then better than it can be now. In the meantime, the tax cuts stand for the next 4 years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the former superintendent of education in the State of North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I thought I had seen it all, until I just saw the cartoon. What we have seen tonight is a sort of unrelenting attack for 3 hours on a straw man, a demonized version of this particular budget resolution. Because if you read it, you read it in vain in search of any particular language or place where these tax cuts are terminated or extended. That decision, as we have said, has been left open until a better time when we know better where we stand.

If we had wanted, if we had wished, we could have repealed all of the deductions, credits and exemptions passed in 2001 and 2003. We did not do that. They remain in effect this year, next year, 2009, 2010. Then they expire on December 31, 2010, because that is the way they wrote them to expire, in order to diminish the size of the tax cuts somewhat and shoehorn them into the budget situation, which would only provide for so much tax expenditure reduction.

I have also heard it said out here something about defense spending. Let me mention to you one little anomaly we haven't brought up tonight. But in order for the other side to say they are spending more than us on defense, I guess, I surmise, they have added $38 billion to budget authority, BA, for national defense. But, at the same time, they have taken $60 billion out of the outlay stream. That is the real money that is outlaid, that is spent by the Pentagon.

So they have taken $60 billion away from our troops in the field by their assumption about outlays, if it were efficacious; and, in fact, it is not efficacious. You can't control outlays. So they have an anomaly like that in the middle of the budget.

So I don't think it behooves them to criticize our budget resolution or to make it something that it isn't, because they have got things there in their own budget resolution that won't bear scrutiny and require explanation.

But the tax cut, let's get down to the bottom line, this budget resolution does not raise taxes. It allows all of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 to remain in place until they expire December 31, 2010, and leaves for then the decision as to what to do about their renewal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Before yielding to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), let me read from three letters we received in our committee. One is from the American Legion with respect to our support for veterans' health care.

``The American Legion and its 2.8 million members applaud the Budget Committee,'' that's us, Democrats, ``for the budget resolution recommendation of $43.1 billion in funding for veterans' health care. That is our recommendation.'' That is the American Legion speaking.

The DAV says, ``The budget recommendation coming out of the House will make a real difference in the lives of America's sick and disabled veterans. This is important if our Nation is at war.''

And the Veterans of Foreign War, the VFW says, ``The members of the VFW stand firmly behind you in support of your strong advocacy for this Nation's veterans.'' These letter go on and on and on. We had a press conference yesterday where they endorsed our budget resolution because of what we provide for veterans' health care, the biggest increase in veterans' health care funding in the history of the organization.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

If you are quoting the Congressional Budget Office, can you cite the quote?

How much time is left on each side, and who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, I am reserving my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have been treated to a show tonight featuring a one- trick pony. Every Republican who has come to the well of this Chamber has come with the same mantra, the same slogan, alleging wrongfully that our budget resolution would raise taxes. We have repeatedly explained why, only to have them keep coming to the floor basically on the belief if they say it often enough, maybe somebody will believe it.

Here is one thing you can believe. There is no conjecture in this. These are matter of fact. As Casey used to say, you can look it up. You can look it up. There is the debt of the United States, $5.7 trillion before President Bush came to office. Here is the debt of the United States today, $8.8 trillion. That arithmetic is very simple and very straightforward. It's a $3.1 trillion increase of debt of United States on their watch. This isn't conjecture, this is a matter of record.

I will just show you this chart one more time, because it shows that the revenue flows that we are projecting, based upon CBO's base-line certification of projection of revenues is essentially the same as the President is assuming in his budget from OMB, there is a 1.2 percent difference. This is the so-called biggest tax increase in American history. The President is right where we are, 1.2 percent difference between us.

Now, why all of these shenanigans? Partly it is because this is a red herring. They don't want to talk about really what is in their budget resolution. It's their resolution they will have to pass tomorrow. They bear the burden of truth and persuasion. You would think they would be talking about it.

But deep down in that resolution, you have to dig hard. You will find the same thing in the Agriculture Committee. This year they are to renew and reauthorize the farm bill. We want you to reconcile $9.85 billion in cost reduction in the agriculture bill. It will be awfully hard to get that farm bill out if that reconciliation is implemented.

They say to Labor, which has student loans, Pell Grants under its jurisdiction, you can cut $4.9 billion. Where from, student loans? No where else to go.

They say to Energy and Commerce, with Medicare and Medicaid in its jurisdiction cut $97.539 billion over the next 9 years. Judiciary and our law enforcement programs, cut $3.5 billion

dollars; Natural Resources, already strained, huge backlog for our national parks, cut $4.7 billion; Transportation and Infrastructure, about to run short of funds for our highways, cut $4.2 billion; Ways and Means, with all kinds of safety net programs, this is an instruction to Ways and Means, to cut $153 billion.

Now, this is done under the name and guise of balancing the budget. But what's the bottom line? They also tell Ways and Means to cut taxes by $447 billion.

When you net the $447 billion tax cut against the $278 billion in reconciled spending cuts, the result is $168 billion more to be added to the deficit. That is why they are talking about this other subject. That is why they wouldn't talk about their own resolution. Our resolution will stand on all fours. Our resolution is a good resolution. It's not the best, but it is doggone good.

It brings us to balance by 2012. It fully funds defense. By the way we don't have any shenanigans with the outlays. We don't short up guys in the field $67 billion in outlays. When we get through paying and providing for defense, which is a big item there, is not a lot left over. We husband our resources. We say to our veterans, by golly, you deserve what you are talking about. We give the biggest increase in history, $5.4 billion over current services for veterans health care.

Education, we think it's critically important. We genuinely believe in it on this side. We provide $9 billion more than the President for education next year, over the next 5 years, we provide $46 billion more for education than does theirs.

Children's health insurance, it's going to expire this year. What they propose will not even allow us to insure the children now on the program. We want to not only renew it, but expand it. We also want to pay for it. So we say to those who advocate SCHIP, its expansion, if you pay for it, you can go up to $50 billion in expanding the program. That is in our budget resolution.

Why do they want to put this red herring out there? To keep us from talking about these things that the American people really care about, the health of their children. They should.

We don't have any Medicaid cuts, and we don't have any Medicare cuts. I will tell you, because I have been at this business of the budget for a long time, in 1990 and 1991 Democrats voted for budget measures that truly reduced the deficit and had some restraints on Medicare and Medicaid in them; 1997, the same thing; 1993, with Mr. Clinton, the same thing. When we knew that it was going to improve the bottom line and not be used simply to offset another of their tax cuts, we were willing to pay for Medicare and Medicaid reduction. They have not been able to or willing to.

Finally, as to taxes, we have no tax increase anywhere in this resolution, none whatsoever. For that matter, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, particularly those middle-income tax cuts, which we list and enumerate, not once but twice in our resolution, we fully protect them and leave them in place, full force and effect, this year, next year, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

They only expire then, not because of anything in this budget resolution, but because when the Republicans first wrote those tax cuts and passed them, they put that sunset date in there in order to diminish the size and shoehorn these tax cuts under what was allowed under that budget resolution.

We have got a good budget resolution. It will stand on all fours. It brings the budget to balance in 2012, encourages less in deficits and depth than the President does. Furthermore, we have got a track record to talk about.

When President Clinton came to office in 1993, there was a deficit of $290 billion. Every year thereafter, every year thereafter, the bottom line of the budget got better, to the point where in 2000, there was a surplus of $236 billion. That is what happened on his watch.

President Bush came to office with an advantage few preceding Presidents have enjoyed, a surplus of $5.6 trillion projected by his own economists. He has run that into a deficit of $8.2 trillion. We haven't seen a reversal like that since the Great Depression. That was not the President's fault in the 1930s.

This is the record they have to rely on. The record we have to rely on is the record of the Clinton administration, which balanced the budget in the year 1998 for the first time in 30 years, and built up a surplus of $236 billion, which we turned over to Mr. Bush.

We will discuss this further tomorrow. But what we offer is a responsible budget resolution that reaches responsible results but is balanced well in its priorities.

Madam Chairwoman, let me thank the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Carolyn Kilpatrick, and Mr. Bobby Scott for joining with us as the Congressional Black Caucus so that we could really emphasize what compassion and the American dream is all about and equate it to the Congressional Black Caucus budget that really responds to the tragedy that has occurred under this administration.

The surplus, as you can see, that we had in 2000 under the Bush administration declines $8.4 trillion. That is what we attack.

In fact, the Congressional Black Caucus budget reduces the deficit $107 billion less of a deficit than even the Democratic budget and $339 billion less cumulative deficit than the President's budget. In fact, we saved some $18.3 billion less in interest than the Democratic budget and $27.7 billion in interest than the President's budget. We take this deficit and turn it around. We save the country this enormous burden that they have with respect to the deficit and the interest.

In addition, as you can see, interest payments on the debt weren't the priority under this President's budget and under this administration. They have gotten completely out of control. That is why we are feeling the pinch, and the Congressional Black Caucus budget responds to that immediately.

Now, let me talk specifically about what we do, why we represent the American dream, why we focus on real compassion, and we do it in a fiscally secure and responsible manner.

We look at this map, we will see the numbers of children that are uninsured in America. Some of the States that we would think are prosperous States, such as Florida and Texas, the President's own State, my State, has over 12% and going as high as 40 percent of the children are uninsured; California, 12 percent or more are uninsured. Vote for the Compassionate Budget and for the CBC budget and vote for the Democratic Budget that strongly represents the needs of Americans.

Numbers of us in these different colors here, 8 to 12 percent are uninsured.

The Congressional Black Caucus budget is compassionate. Why? Because we provide resources for housing. We provide resources for transportation. We don't leave any firefighter or law enforcement officers behind. And we ensure homeland security.

But we are the compassionate budget. We are the American Dream. We ensure that children, who are our precious resources, have the ability to get complete children's health insurance.

I ask my colleagues to support a budget that ensures compassion and the American Dream and believes in eliminating the deficit. Vote for the Congressional Black Caucus Budget.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise to support H. Con. Res. 99, the Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2008. But more than that, I rise to welcome a new day. For the past six years, the federal budgets put forward by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have cut funds for critical American priorities and, incredibly, turned a $5.4 trillion surplus into a $8.8 trillion deficit over the same period. Starting today, the new Democratic majority in the House leads America in a new fiscal direction. And we do it without raising taxes. In fact, Madam Chairwoman, thanks to the treatment and applicability of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) called for in the budget resolution, 19 million Americans will pay less in taxes that they otherwise would. This week we will pass a fiscally responsible budget with the right priorities for the American people, present and future.

For that, I wish to thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, a man of uncommon grace and mastery of budgetary arcane. I wish to thank our great Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, for never letting us forget that we are here for one reason only, and that is to address the real needs and priorities of real Americans confronting the real problems of their real lives in the real world. Finally, let me thank the remarkable leadership team which has worked long, hard, and tireless to keep us informed, cooperative, and united in our resolve to do the necessary work to America better.

Madam Chairwoman, H. Con. Res. 99, better reflects the priorities and values of the American people. After all, a budget is much more than a balance sheet, an income statement, a financial scorecard. Rather, it the expression in fiscal terms of who we are and what we believe. In short, a budget is a financial reflection of our national character. And as it is by a person's character that you know her, so too it is with a nation. Look at a nation's budget and you will see how it treats its children in the dawn of life; its elderly in the twilight of life; its poor and disabled and helpless in the shadows of life; and the earth, the sustainer of life. Look closely at the choices it makes regarding the neediest and most vulnerable of its people, and you will know the true character of a nation.

Madam Chairwoman, America and the world can be proud of the choices we make in this budget resolution. Unlike the budgets of the last six years, the budget brought to the floor by the new House majority reflects the best angels of our nature. As I discuss in more detail, H. Con. Res. 99 expands health care for our children. It provides our soldiers and veterans with the care worthy of their sacrifice; it is faithful to President Lincoln's injunction ``to care for him who has borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' This budget resolution supports education for a 21st century workforce and a growing economy. It invests in renewable energy for an energy independent America that faces up to the challenge of global warming.

Equally important, Madam Chairwoman, the majority's budget resolution represents a return to fiscal responsibility and budgetary accountability. I am proud to support a budget that reflects the care and fidelity of a wise steward of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. The American people can be assured that the new majority in Congress will not be profligate with the public treasury.

The new Democratic-led Congress has instituted ``pay as you go'' or ``PAYGO'' budgeting, requiring that new spending be offset, which in the 1990s helped turn deficits to surpluses. We have also reformed the earmark process, cutting in half the number of budget ``earmarks'' for specific Member projects, requiring transparency in the process, and exposing such earmarks as the infamous ``Bridge to Nowhere.''

Madam Chairwoman, nothing engenders more public cynicism than the shameful conduct of some to avoid paying taxes legitimately owed. The overwhelming majority of Americans obey the law, play by the rules, pay their taxes, and work to improve their communities. There is, however, a small but significant percentage of Americans and corporations that do not. That is going to end. In this budget, we invest in an increased effort to make sure that taxpayers pay the taxes they owe. The Internal Revenue Service has estimated that the tax gap--the amount of taxes owed under current law but not collected--has ballooned to $345 billion since 2001. This has left middle-class families picking up the tab for those who refuse to obey the law. It is shocking to think, Madam Chairwoman, that amount of taxes owed by these scofflaws approximates the costs Americans have paid to date to finance the Iraq War.

The new Democratic-led Congress also will save millions by investing in efforts to identify and eliminate wasteful spending and improve government efficiency in Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Every dollar invested in conducting Social Security ongoing disability reviews results in $10 of savings. The savings could total $3 billion.

Madam Chairwowan, this budget resolution correctly assumes that substantial savings can be realized from more vigorous efforts by the Defense Department (with increased Congressional oversight) to root out fraud, abuse, and wasteful spending. It is totally unacceptable that unlike the typical taxpayer, small business, or large corporation, the Defense Department still cannot pass a standard audit. The Pentagon cannot adequately track what it owns or spends. We just know that it's a lot. Defense auditors estimate that more than one of six dollars they have audited for Iraq is suspect, including $2.7 billion in sole- source, single-bidder contracts.

The American people can have confidence that lax financial controls and fiscal mismanagement are a thing of the past now that Democrats are the majority party in Congress. Under this budget resolution, House Committees will conduct performance reviews to make sure that government programs are working as intended. We will work to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending. We know that oversight and financial controls work. Similar efforts produced 385 recommendations for smarter ways to improve government services, saving billions during the Clinton Administration.

Madam Chairwoman, the new House majority pledged that we would work together to restore our economic health, reclaim our leadership position in the world, advance our national security, and invest in the future. We promised to restore fiscal responsibility and began by instituting tough pay-as-you-go rules. And we have been delivering.

For example, in the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we passed with bipartisan support procedures imposing discipline and transparency in congressional spending. With

bipartisan support, we also passed legislation to implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, increased the minimum wage, paved the way for lower prescription drug costs, cut student loan costs, and redirected oil subsidies towards investments in renewable energy. We did all of this while maintaining our commitment to fiscal discipline.

The 2008 budget resolution advances these priorities. The budget balances in 2012 while accommodating additional tax relief for millions of middle-income families. It allocates funding for national priorities like children's health care and education. It begins to reverse six years of disinvestment in education, infrastructure, and innovation. The budget resolution is the crucial next step to realizing the initiatives we have developed to move the country forward and to set us on a course to build the future we want for our children and grandchildren.

And, as I have stated, it does all this without raising taxes.

Madam Chairwoman, discretionary spending, or the amount available to be allocated through the annual appropriations process, accounts for about one-third of all federal spending. The budget resolution provides the Appropriations Committee with $954.9 billion in discretionary budget authority in FY 2008, $22.1 billion more than the administration's request as re-estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The Appropriations Committee will subdivide this amount (known as a 302(a) allocation) among the various appropriations bills.

In addition to the $954.9 billion in regular FY 2008 appropriations, the resolution assumes $145.2 billion in emergency appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for FY 2008, as requested by the administration. When this emergency funding is added to the $954.9 billion in regular appropriations, a total of $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending could be available in FY 2008 under the resolution. I think it important that the American people know where and how their money will be spent.

Defense Appropriations

The resolution calls for defense discretionary budget authority or appropriations at the levels recommended by the Administration for fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Thus, the resolution calls for defense appropriations of $503.8 billion in FY 2008, $531.6 billion in FY 2009, $542.0 billion in FY 2010, $548.0 billion in FY 2011, and $566.9 billion in FY 2012. The totals include funding for the Defense Department as well as nuclear-weapons-related activity in the Energy Department.

The resolution also assumes $145.2 billion in emergency funds in FY 2008--that would not count against the cap on discretionary spending-- for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as recommended by the administration. When added to the $503.8 billion in regular defense appropriations, total defense spending under the resolution would be $649 billion in FY 2008. Like the Administration, the resolution assumes $50 billion for these wars in FY 2009.

While the resolution assumes the same total amount of spending for defense as the Administration recommends, it does not propose to spend the funds the same way. Specifically, the resolution assumes that nuclear non-proliferation programs will be given a greater priority and higher funding than the administration proposes.

Madam Chairwoman, in our resolution health care for active duty forces is a very high priority, as will be caring for those who return wounded from combat. Specifically, the resolution rejects the administration's proposals for increased fees for Tricare, the military health program, and calls for a substantial increase in the veterans' health care system.

The resolution assumes continued funding of missile defense and satellite procurement programs, but at a lower level than proposed by the administration. The budget resolution recognizes the need for the Defense Department to root out wasteful spending with far more diligence, noting that the Defense Department has awarded contracts for its foreign deployments that have been grossly more wasteful than domestic contracts, especially in Iraq.

Non-Defense Discretionary Spending

The resolution calls for a non-defense discretionary budget authority of $451.1 billion in FY 2008, which is $22 billion (5 percent) more than the Administration's request. This includes an additional $2 billion in advance FY 2009 appropriations that would be available for appropriation in FY 2008, resulting in a total non-defense discretionary total of $453.1 billion, $24 billion more than the administration's request. This non-defense discretionary total includes funding for international affairs programs as well as for domestic.

The resolution's FY 2008 level for non-defense discretionary spending is about $10 billion more than the FY 2007 level, adjusted for inflation. For fiscal years 2009 through 2012, the level of non-defense discretionary spending generally increases at the rate of inflation.

Education, Training, Employment & Social Services

Funding for education, training, employment and social services programs has lagged during the past six years, so the resolution attempts to compensate by increasing such funding by 11 percent ($82.3 billion in FY 2008) over the president's budget.

Madam Chairwoman, we reject the president's proposed cuts to education programs, including rejection of his proposals to eliminate many education programs. We also reject the president's proposed steep cuts in job training and social service programs, including the Community Services Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant.

The increased spending can and should be used for several purposes, including Head Start, Title I Compensatory Education program, and job training and national service programs. It could also be used to increase the federal share of the cost for educating handicapped children, and to help improve access to colleges, and broadening access to Hispanic Serving and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Health

The resolution proposes $54.2 billion in budget authority in FY 2008 for discretionary health programs, and higher levels of spending for these programs in each of the four succeeding years. By FY 2012, funding for these programs under the measure would increase to $58.9 billion. The FY 2008 discretionary level for this function is $2 billion (4 percent) more than recommended by the president.

Discretionary health spending does not include the federal government's main health care spending programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare, both of which are mandatory spending programs.

Veterans' Benefits and Services

The resolution calls for the budget authority of $43.1 billion in FY 2008 for discretionary veterans' programs, which consist mainly of veterans' health programs--$3.5 billion (9 percent) more than the president's request. The resolution calls for increased funding for these veterans' programs in each of the succeeding four years. By FY 2012, funding for these veterans' programs would reach $48.3 billion.

The resolution rejects the president's proposals to increase enrollment fees in veterans health care programs and rejects his proposals to increase co-payments. The resolution assumes funding to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan ``Walter Reed Commission'' as well as the recommendations of other investigations into military and veterans' health care facilities and services.

The increases above the president's proposed level would address veterans' mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury. Additional funding could also be used to reduce the backlog of disability claims.

Low-Income Programs

Madam Chairwoman, other reason I support this resolution is that it provides $52 billion, nearly $3 billion (6 percent) more than the president recommends, for low-income programs, including unemployment compensation, low-income housing assistance (including Section 8 housing), food and nutrition assistance (including food stamps and school lunch subsidies), and other income-security programs.

Transportation

The resolution provides $25.4 billion, an increase of $2.1 billion over the president's budget, for transportation funding, which includes non-homeland-security funds for the Federal Highway Administration; the Federal Transit Administration; Amtrak; highway, motor-carrier and rail-safety programs; the Federal Aviation Administration; the aeronautical activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the Coast Guard; and the Maritime Administration.

The resolution provides full funding of the highway, safety, and transit programs authorized by the 2005 surface transportation law Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A legacy for Users. We also maintain Amtrak, provide for additional funding for grants to airports and reject the president's proposed cuts to aviation programs in NASA.

Community and Regional Development

The community and regional development function includes programs that provide federal funding for economic and community development in both urban and rural areas, including Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and the non-power-related activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

The measure proposes to spend $13.7 billion in budget authority in FY 2008 on community and regional development programs, with increases of $200 million in each succeeding year, reaching $14.5 billion in FY 2012.

The FY 2008 funding level for discretionary programs in this function is $2.7 billion (24 percent) more than the president's request. The measure rejects the president's proposed cuts to the CDBG program. It assumes additional funding for this program as well as for rural development and disaster preparedness programs.

Natural Resources and Environment

The resolution calls for $31.4 billion in discretionary budget authority in FY 2008 for natural resources and environmental programs,

$2.6 billion (9 percent) more than the president's request. The resolution rejects the president's proposed cuts to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Fish and Wildlife Service's wildlife refuge system, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) grants to state sand tribe for water and aid quality and other EPA programs. The resolution accommodates the president's proposed increases in funding to National Park operations and maintenance.

Energy

The budget resolution provides for funding civilian energy and environmental programs of the Energy Department, the Rural Utilities Service of the Agriculture Department, the TVA, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It does not include the Energy Department's national security (nuclear weapons) activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration or its basic research and science activities.

The resolution provides $4.6 billion in funding for discretionary energy programs in FY 2008, about $300 million (7 percent) more than the president's request. The resolution generally calls for spending between $4.6 billion and $4.8 billion in each year covered by the resolution.

International Affairs

The international affairs function includes international development and humanitarian assistance, international security assistance, the conduct of foreign affairs, foreign information and exchange activities, and international financial programs. Major agencies in this function include the State and Treasury departments, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation which administers special assistance to developing countries that meet certain political and economic standards set by the U.S. government.

For international affairs, the resolution calls for $35.3 billion in discretionary budget authority in FY 2008, $2 billion more than the amount needed to maintain purchasing power at the FY 2007 level. Compared to the president's request, the resolution provides $1.2 billion less than the request. The resolution assumes the president's request for overseas military deployments and the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which includes the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative. The committee report also notes the importance of adequate funding for U.S. development assistance.

The resolution assumes full funding to continue the U.S. agreements with Israel and Egypt made in 1998 on military financing and economic support. The measure also assumes additional funding for the McGovern- Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.

Science, Space and Technology

The function contains general science funding, including the budgets for the National Science Foundation and the fundamental science programs of the Energy Department, and programs at NASA, except for aviation programs.

The resolution calls for $27.5 billion in budget authority in FY 2008 for discretionary science, space and technology programs, about $200 million more than the president's request. The resolution projects gradually increasing levels of discretionary funding for these programs, reaching $32.3 billion in FY 2012.

For all 5 years covered by the resolution, the space funding is higher than the president's recommendations and the levels required to maintain purchasing power at the previous year's level.

Administration of Justice

For federal judicial and law enforcement activities, the measure calls for $44.7 billion in discretionary budget authority in FY 2008-- $1 billion (2 percent) more than the president's request. The resolution calls for increases in each of the succeeding 4 years, reaching $49.3 billion in FY 2012.

The resolution rejects the president's proposals to cut local law enforcement and first responders programs, including his proposed cuts to the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants program. Increases above the president's requested level could also be used to fund recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.

I compliment Mr. Ryan for his budget. I speak in support of the Republican alternative for fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

In particular, I would like to address the veterans discretionary health care and programs which would provide $42.4 billion, most of it for health care. This budget is $2.9 billion above the administration's overall request.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican alternative would provide our Nation's veterans with an increase of $8 billion more than the Democrats over the next 5 years, without any tax increases on the very same veterans. That is a budget of $8 billion more for our veterans versus a tax increase of $392.5 billion on America's veterans.

Now think about that. They want to stand up and say, oh, we are going to be against enrollment fees and copays, but what are they really doing? They are increasing taxes on veterans to do what? Increase funding for veterans programs. Think about it. Over 25 million veterans they want to increase taxes on.

The assumptions behind the numbers of Mr. Ryan's budget here, within the $28.5 billion for medical services for FY08, House Republicans would provide $1.3 billion more than the President's request, including $463 more in increasing demands on VA health care system, $200 million for mental health over and above the President. These numbers are over and above the administration. $100 million more on OIF, OEF, $100 million for chiropractic care, $100 million for dental care, $80.2 million on long-term care, $50 million more than the administration on polytrauma care, $65 million for prosthetic and sensory aids, $25 million for blind rehabilitation. Republicans would also provide nearly $100 million more than the administration's request for the medical and prosthetic research.

We also fund $1.4 billion above the administration's budget for construction and facilities. This includes $585 million to the O&M accounts for improving our current medical facilities, an additional $691.7 million to support a substantial investment in the construction, renovation, planning and design of major medical VA facility projects, and $120 million for the gravesite expansion in the National Cemetery Administration.

When you look at the chart, the zeros on the chart, the dots here are the National Cemetery expansions. Those would include Calverton, New York; Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania; Canton, Georgia; Abraham Lincoln, Illinois; Dayton Ohio; Houston, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona and Riverside, California.

When you look at the diamonds, what this would include would be advanced planning for construction projects in Tampa, Florida; in Bay Pines, Florida; Seattle, Washington; American Lake, Washington; Seattle, Washington; Roseburg, Oregon; Palo Alto, California; San Francisco, Loma Linda, Los Angeles; Dallas, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; Butler, Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C.

In North Carolina it would be in Salisbury, Ashville and Fayetteville; Wichita, Kansas; Omaha, Nebraska. And in South Carolina, it would be in Columbia and in Charleston. In Alabama, it would be Birmingham. Perry Point, Maryland; Bronx, New York; West Haven, Connecticut.

With regard to major construction projects and full funding, that is depicted by the stars on this map, you would have in Los Angeles, California would be seismic corrections of $103.8 million; Fayetteville, Arkansas, clinical addition $59 million; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a campus consolidation of $105.5 million; Lee County, Florida outpatient clinic of $89 million. St. Louis, Missouri, is medical center improvements of $25.8 million. Columbia, Missouri operating suite replacement of $32.5 million. And in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a spinal cord center of $30 million.

With regard to how we get to the $8 billion differential, it is this: The Democrats assume an assumption over the 5 years of an increase of 5.8 percent. The Republican proposal over 5 years is an increase of 7.2 percent. What I did is I looked at the medical inflation plus utilization rate, and when you work those numbers, we actually come up with a differential of $8 billion. The Republican alternative is an $8 billion increase in veterans funding over and above the Democrat proposal. And we do that without increasing taxes on America's veterans. I think that is pretty important.

When I think about the taxes on America's veterans and families, let's see, those are tax increases on middle-income veterans and their families, tax increases on low-income earners, tax increases on veterans with children, those who own small businesses. Think about it. It is going to be an increase in marginal rates potential, the child tax credit reduction could be wiped out. You've got the increase in the marriage penalty, increase in death taxes, increase in capital gains and other tax increases. That is going to be upon America's veterans, and I think that is pretty disturbing.

So a $392.5 billion Democrat tax increase, who does it hurt? It hurts America's veterans. It hurts our wounded warriors. It hurts our low- income veterans. It hurts veterans with children. It hurts our veterans who are business owners.

Now think about this for a second. I want to go back to it. I support the copays, I support enrollment fees for proper utilization. But what is happening here? You see, my Democrat colleagues will stand up and say to the veterans community, oh, I don't want to increase any copays, I don't want to do enrollment fees, but what are they doing instead? They are taxing America's veterans, who in turn will then take those dollars and roll them back into veterans programs. But they are going to champion that we are not going to increase copays, I am not going to increase enrollment fees, but what I am going to do to 25 million veterans is I am going to tax them, not only during your life, but I am going to tax you when you die.

Thank you, for the time Mr. Ryan and I thank you and your staff for your hard work on this budget. It is a budget of which we can be proud.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican Alternative for Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Resolution for veterans discretionary healthcare and programs would provide $42.356 billion, most of it for health care. This budget is $2.939 billion above the administration's request.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican alternative would provide our Nation's veterans with an

increase of $8 billion more than the Democrats over the next 5 years without any tax hikes on those same veterans.

Within our $28.5 billion for medical services for FY08, House Republicans would provide $1.3 billion more than the President's request, including: $463 million more for increasing demands on the VA health care system; $200 million for mental health care; $100 million more for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom; $100 million for chiropractic care; $100 million for dental care; $80.2 million for long-term care; $50 million more than the administration for polytrauma care; $65 million for prosthetic and sensory aids; and $25 million for blind rehabilitation.

Republicans also would provide nearly $100 million more than the administration's request for medical and prosthetic research.

We fund $1.4 billion above the administration's budget for construction and facilities. Included in this is $585 million for improving our current medical facilities and an additional $691.7 million to support a substantial investment for the construction, renovation and planning and design of major medical facility projects. The Republican Alternative also includes $120 million for the National Shrine Commitment of the National Cemetery Administration and expands gravesites in the following locations: Annville, PA; Canton, GA; Elwood, IL; Riverside, CA; Calverton, NY; Houston, TX; Elwood, IL; Dayton, OH; and Phoenix, AZ.

This is why the Republican alternative also funds an additional $691.6 million above the administration's request to support a substantial investment for the construction, renovation and planning and design of major medical facility projects.

$105.5 million for the consolidation of campuses in Mr. Doyle's district in Pittsburgh, PA. Constituents in Mr. Altmire's, Mr. Murphy's, and Mr. Murtha's district will benefit as well.

$103.8 million for seismic corrections in Mr. Waxman's district in Los Angeles, CA. Constituents all over the Los Angeles area would also benefit including constituents in Ms. Harman's and Ms. Watson's district.

$32 million for a Spinal Cord Center in Ms. Moore's district in Milwaukee, WI. Constituents in Ms. Baldwin's, Mr. Sensenbrenner's, and Mr. Ryan's district will benefit.

$89 million for outpatient improvements in Mr. Mack's district in Lee County, FL. Constituents in Mr. Mahoney's, Mr. Diaz-Balart's, and Mr. Buchanan's district will benefit as well.

$59.9 million for a clinical addition in Mr. Boozman's district in Fayetteville, AR. Constituents in Mr. Snyder's, Mr. Blunt's, and Mr. Ross' district will also benefit.

$92 million for medical center improvements in Mr. Carnahan's district in St. Louis, MO. Constituents in Mr. Lacy Clay's and Mr. Akin's district will benefit.

$25.8 million for operating suite replacement in Mr. Hulshof's district in Columbia, MO. Constituents in Mr. Graves', Mr. Skelton's, and Mr. Akin's district will benefit.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican Members also fund advanced planning for medical facilities. The funding represents about 5 percent of the estimated cost of the project and is an important first step in the construction of these new facilities.

$36.8 million for a co-located joint use medical facility with the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, SC. This project is in Mr. Brown's district but constituents in Mr. Clyburn's district will benefit as well.

$8 million for Poly-trauma center expansion and a bed tower in Tampa, FL. The project is in Ms. Castor's district, but it will also help constituents in the districts of Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Putnam, and Mr. Young.

$1.9 million for seismic improvements in Seattle, WA. The project is in Mr. McDermott's district but will also help constituents in the districts of Mr. Dicks and Mr. Smith.

$6.8 million for inpatient and outpatient clinic improvements in Bay Pines, FL. This is in Mr. Young's district and the project will also help constituents in the districts of Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Castor, and Mr. Putnam.

$26.5 million for land to build a new medical facility in Louisville, KY. This project is in Mr. Yarmuth's district but will also benefit constituents in the districts of Mr. Davis and Mr. Lewis.

$14 million for seismic correction in ambulatory care in Palo Alto, CA. This project is in Ms. Eshoo's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Honda, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Stark will also benefit.

$2.4 million for seismic corrections in American Lake, WA. This project is in Mr. Smith's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Dicks, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Reichert will also benefit

$3.6 million for seismic corrections for the mental health building in Roseburg, OR. This project is in Mr. DeFazio's district but constituents in the districts of Ms. Hooley and Mr. Walden will also benefit.

$2.9 million for a spinal cord injury center in Dallas, TX. This project is in Ms. Bernice Johnson's district but other constituents in the Dallas area will also benefit.

$4.1 million for a spinal cord injury center in Bronx, NY. This is in Mr. Serrano's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Rangel, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Engel will also benefit.

$4.3 million for seismic corrections to five buildings in San Francisco, CA. This project is in Speaker Pelosi's district but constituents in the districts of Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Lantos will also benefit.

$7.5 million for seismic corrections to thirteen buildings in Los Angeles, CA. This project is in Mr. Waxman's district but all constituents in the greater Los Angles area will benefit especially those in the districts of Ms. Harman and Ms. Watson.

$2.2 million for an outpatient clinic in Butler, PA. This project is in Mr. English's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Altmire and Mr. Peterson will also benefit.

$6.5 million for seismic corrections for buildings in Seattle, WA. The project is in Mr. McDermott's district but will also help constituents in the districts of Mr. Dicks and Mr. Smith.

$3 million for an outpatient clinic in Palo Alto, CA. This project is in Ms. Eshoo's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Honda, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Stark will also benefit.

$8.5 million for outpatient clinic expansion in Washington, DC. This project would affect constituents in Eleanor Holmes Norton's district but also benefits constituents in Mr. Davis's and Moran of Virginia, as well as constituents in Mr. Wynn's and leader Hoyer's district.

$2 million for a clinical addition in Salisbury, NC. This project is in Melvin Watt's district, but constituents in Mrs. Bono's, Mr. Baca's, and Mr. McKeon's districts will also benefit.

$3.75 million for medical and surgical bed, and ambulatory modernization in Wichita, KS. This project is in Mr. Tiahrt's district but will benefit all veterans in Kansas.

$2.6 million for diagnostics and specialty care facility renovation in Columbia, SC. This project is in Mr. Wilson's district but the constituents in the districts of Mr. Spratt, Chairman of the Budget Committee, and Mr. Clyburn will also benefit.

$5.9 million for clinical expansion in Dallas, TX. This project is in Ms. Bernice Johnson's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Sessions and Mr. Marchant will also benefit.

$1.6 million for an outpatient clinic in Huntsville, AL. This project is in Mr. Davis' districts constituents in the districts of Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Bachus will also benefit.

$2.5 million for a nursing home care unit in Perry Point, MD. This is in Mr. Gilchrest's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Miller and Mr. Sarbanes will also benefit.

$5.2 million for a clinical ward tower in West Haven, CT. This project is in Ms. DeLauro's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Hall, Mr. Shays, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Courtney will also benefit.

$7.8 million to fix heating and air conditioning and clinical deficiencies in Omaha, NE. This is Mr. Terry's district but I am sure all Nebraskan veterans will benefit.

$1.8 million for outpatient expansion in Ashville, NC. This project is in Mr. Shuler's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Davis and Mr. Duncan, of Tennessee, will also benefit.

Mr. Chairman, I now turn to my next chart, which shows the Republican alternative budget outlays for the next five years.

As you can see, the President's five-year average budget growth rate for VA discretionary spending is 1.60 percent, the Democrat's is only 5.8 percent and the Republican alternative five-year average growth rate is 7.2 percent.

This number accounts for the cost of medical inflation that is calculated by the consumer price index and annual increased use of VA by all veterans.

What this means Mr. Chairman is that over the next five years Republicans would increase spending by $8 billion more than our friends on the other side of the aisle and we will do this without a tax increase.

Mr. Chairman, at first blush the Democratic budget appears good for veterans, but it is really just smoke and mirrors.

The Democratic budget contains a $392.5 billion tax hike. This includes tax hikes on middle income veterans and their families, veterans who are low-income earners and veterans who own a small business. Democrats also blocked every amendment offered in the Budget Committee that would stop unfair taxes on veterans and their families.

Mr. Chairman, the last time Democrats were in the majority they passed the largest tax hike in history. Now, with only 3 months in office they have already broken their own record. This is the wrong message to send to our veterans and their families.

Mr. Chairman, we are a nation at war, and we will win this war. The best way to maintain morale of our servicemembers is not to micromanage the fight, pretending that's good for the troops; it is to make tough decisions here that will engender their confidence in our capacity to preserve the vitality of this nation while they fight for its freedom.

I believe that the Republican budget helps do exactly that, while honoring the promises we have made our veterans.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to address why we are here today. We are here to balance the budget, and what is very good about this debate we are having here today is we are talking about not if we should balance the budget; we are talking about how to balance the budget.

So for that point we have come to a good part of this debate, where I believe, based on the numbers I have seen, all of these amendments we are going to experience today and the base Democrat budget balances by 2012. That is a good start. So now we here in Congress are agreeing, let us balance the budget. That is good.

The question then becomes how do we balance the budget. This is where there are enormous differences between the two parties.

The three budgets on the other side of the aisle, the Progressive budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget and the base Democrat budget, all have one big thing in common: they raise taxes. They raise a lot of taxes, anywhere from $400 billion to $1 trillion just over the next 5 years.

What kind of taxes are we talking about? Well, let's look at the tax relief that occurred. In 2003, if you take a look at what happened to our country in 2001 with 9/11, with the Enron scandals, with the dot- com bubble bursting, the fact that we went to war and we went into a recession, we lost a lot of jobs. We were losing over 100,000 jobs a month at that time. We went into a recession. Three years of revenues declined. We had a big deficit. So while revenues went down because people lost jobs, we went into deficit and spending went up.

Why? Because we had unemployment. We had programs to help people who lost their jobs. We had war costs, and so what ended up happening was we needed to get people back to work. We needed to get this economy growing again.

So what did we do? At that time, we were in the majority. We decided we needed a package of reforms, of tax cuts to get the economy growing again, to get people working again. So we cut taxes on families, cut taxes on small businesses, cut taxes on business investment.

What happened? 7.6 million new jobs were created since those tax cuts in 2003. We went from growing our economy at an anemic 1.1 percent prior to the tax cuts to growing our economy at an average of 3.5 percent. We went to creating about 160,000 jobs per month since those tax cuts.

What also happened? Revenues went up. Revenues went up for double digits the 2 years following. This year so far the revenues are up about 10 percent. So revenues came in, why? Because we actually cut taxes. We have lower tax rates, but we have higher revenues because people went back to work. People went to work, to jobs and paid more taxes.

What happened? The deficit went as high as $412 billion. Now it is as low as $176 billion. I would like to say that it is because we did a great job on controlling spending. No, that is not the case. The reason the deficit for the most part went down is because revenues went up, because the economy grew, people went back to work, paid their taxes.

So, Madam Chairman, we do not have a revenue problem in Washington. Revenues are coming in fast. We have a spending problem in Washington, and this is the difference between our philosophies, our budgets.

We believe that the money people make really is their money, not the government's money. We believe that when someone starts a business, when someone goes to work, that is the fruit of their own labor and they ought to keep more of their hard-earned money, because at the end of the day, if government takes more money out of the person's paycheck, you are taking more freedom out of their lives. If you take more money out of a family budget, you are taking more freedom away from that family. That is the difference.

We believe that people ought to keep more of what they earn. We believe that small businesses, which are the engine of economic growth in this society, which create all these jobs, should not be taxed at tax rates higher than large corporations, but that is what will happen if any of these three budgets pass, if the Progressive budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, or the Democrat budget passes.

We believe that we need to focus on spending and not on raising taxes, because more important than that, I want to show you one chart, Madam Chairman. If you take a look at these revenue lines, even if we take the low line, the blue line, that is the line of revenues coming in if we don't raise taxes. That is the line the Republicans are using for our budget, and we balance our budget by controlling spending instead of raising taxes, and we control spending to the point where we stop the raid on the Social Security trust fund and we pay down $100 billion in debt in the fifth year alone.

The red line, not much higher, but the red line says, let's raise taxes by $400 billion. That is the smallest of the tax increases we are looking at of these budgets today. That still shows, but it is a lot lower than the green line, the spending line.

Spending is the problem. If we do nothing to control spending, by the time my children are my age, the Federal Government will double in size simply by growing on the current path that it is on.

This has to be dealt with, Madam Chairman. This has to be dealt with, and no matter how much you propose to raise taxes, no matter how much you want to raise taxes on small businesses, take away the per-child tax credit, bring back the marriage penalty, reinstate the death tax, raise taxes on businesses and capital investment and seniors and dividends and capital gains, no matter how much you want to raise taxes here, if you pass one of these other three budgets, we still will not have enough to meet the spending line, the spending appetite, the spending trajectory of this Federal Government. That has to be dealt with.

Why does that have to be dealt with? Because we do not want to pass onto our children and our grandchildren a mountain of debt. The debt has increased. Sadly, over the last 8 years, it went up $3 trillion. I think you are going to hear that from other people. I have got news for you, Madam Chairman, just Social Security alone by doing nothing to address this program

over the next 5 years, that debt will go up by $3 trillion.

Medicare, if we do not address Medicare's growth, if we do not reform and maintain and save Medicare, the debt to just Medicare will go up almost $20 trillion over the next 5 years by doing nothing.

So, Madam Chairman, let's not raise taxes. Let's work on spending, and let's reform these programs.

I want to reserve the balance of my time, but I want to say one thing before I do, and that is these three programs which we commonly refer to as our entitlements are the most important domestic programs in the Federal Government. Medicare helps people who are an older age get health care. Medicaid helps people who are low income get health care. Really, really important missions, Madam Chairman. And Social Security helps provide people with retirement security.

These programs are too important to let slip into bankruptcy. These programs are too important to go for five more years without any reforms designed to extend their solvency and make them work better and be more responsive to the needs of the American people.

I think that is where we should place our efforts.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire about the time allotment remaining between the two parties.

Madam Chair, this is an important moment for our time of fiscal responsibility in America. I would like to read from a few quotes. We have had great hearings in the Budget Committee. I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for holding great hearings. In all of these hearings, we had fiscal experts coming to testify from both parties, from nonpartisan organizations like the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, from the Federal Reserve.

I would like to read a few quotes about the fiscal condition that is staring us in the face that this budget should be addressing today.

On the urgency of entitlement reform, we had Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, come in and say, ``Without early and meaningful action to address entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.''

Then we had the Comptroller General, Mr. Walker, on 60 Minutes say, ``Health care is the number one fiscal challenge for the Federal and State governments. If there is one thing that

can bankrupt America, it is health care. We need dramatic and fundamental health care reforms.'' That's at a hearing.

On 60 Minutes, he said, ``The rising cost of government entitlements is a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.''

Here is what Mr. Walker is talking about. If you take a look at this chart, it shows you that, consistently, our government has been taxing the American economy at about 18 percent of our gross domestic product. What that means is, basically, since about 1960, to finance our Federal government, we have had to tax the American economy, families, businesses, all those things, at about 18 percent of our economic output. It has been remarkably consistent.

Because of the unsustainable growth of government spending programs, of our entitlement programs, they are growing at such a quick pace that by the time my 5-, 3-, and 2-year-olds are in my age bracket, they will have to tax the American economy at 40 percent just to pay the bills.

Let me put it another way around. We have very important programs. We call them our entitlement programs. They meet critical missions of the Federal Government. When they were set up, they made sense at the time the way they were financed. They were called pay-as-you-go. Current workers pay taxes, particularly payroll taxes, to pay the benefits for current retirees, for current beneficiaries. It worked fine for many years.

Not now, though. Because as the baby boomers begin to retire, which begins next year, we will double the amount of retirees in this country; and we will only increase the amount of workers coming to this country by 17 percent. For all of those who had kids during that baby boom generation, they had a lot of kids; and it was wonderful. Our birth rates went up. But, since then, we haven't had as many kids.

Heck, in my own hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, where I come from an Irish Catholic family, I had 65 cousins in just Janesville, Wisconsin. But I am a Generation Xer; and at my family level, we didn't have as many kids. That is what is happening across the world and across the country.

Why am I saying all of this? What did it mean? It means that these programs are going to double the amount of consumers to the programs and not double the amount of payers into the programs.

We have to reform these programs. We have to make them work better, and we have got to prevent our kids from having their taxes doubled. That is what this is about at the end of the day, Madam Chair. It is about our children and our grandchildren.

Now, this seems to be a cliche thing that everybody says when they get up to a microphone. But, quite honestly, if we don't get a handle on our fiscal situation, if we don't recognize the fact that if all you do is raise taxes to balance the budget in 2012, you are going to go right back into deficit soon thereafter if we don't control spending, if we don't reform government, if we don't fix our entitlement perhaps. If we don't do this, the debt we have today will pale, pale in comparison to the debt we are going to be passing on to our children and our grandchildren.

We have new economic challenges and threats unlike any we have ever seen before in this country. We don't have oceans that separate us anymore. We have broadband, Internet, digital technology. We have to compete with workers on a daily basis from countries like China and India overnight.

We have real economic challenges facing us, and we can't survive and thrive in this era of globalization. We can't continue to be America's economic superpower, the world's economic superpower, if we are going to double the taxes on future generations.

You can't tax your way into prosperity. We already today tax our businesses, our capital, more than any other country in the industrialized world except for one, Japan. They just finished two decades of recession.

We have got to wise up to the fact that we have to be lean and mean and compete with China and India and these other countries. We have got to make sure that the way we run our health care system works for patients, that the way we have our entitlement benefits gives us income security, retirement security, health security. We have got to make sure that it doesn't do it in such a way that it literally doubles the entire tax burden on the American economy, on the American family. If we do that, we will push more jobs overseas. We will lose our standard of living, the great gift of America of a generation to the next.

The legacy of the American Dream is that each generation bequeaths unto the next a higher and better standard of living. That is exactly what my parents and grandparents told me. We are at risk of severing that tie. We are at risk of discontinuing that legacy of giving our kids and our grandkids a better standard of living, a better economy, things better off than when we found them.

Budgets matter, and the budget that we have before us today, whether it's the CBC budget, the Progressive budget or the Democrat budget, raises taxes by anywhere from $400 billion to $1 trillion over the next 4 years and does absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing to control spending, to reform government, to prevent this mountain of debt going onto our children's backs.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?