Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

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?

Madam Chair, I reserve the right to close, and I think that they still have more speakers, so I will just reserve my time.

Madam Chair, I will address the House for the remainder of my time from the well.

Madam Chair, I wish to compliment the Congressional Black Caucus with their budget today because they are bringing a serious budget to the floor. They are bringing a budget that does achieve balance. They are bringing a budget that reflects their philosophies and their policies, and that is important. I commend the Black Caucus under the leadership of Ms. Kilpatrick for that.

This is what we do. We come to the floor with our budgets to encapsulate our priorities and what are the visions we have for the future of our country.

This budget does raise taxes. You simply can't get around the fact that it calls for $711.9 billion in additional tax revenues over the next 5 years to make the budget balance. But that is fine.

I wish to talk, at this time, about the underlying Democrat budget. And let me just quote from The Washington Post this morning. The article in The Washington Post this morning, in talking about the Democrat budget says: ``And while the House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all of these tax cuts expire on schedule in 2010.''

Now, we understand that people say, on the other side of the aisle, they don't want to raise taxes. I hear those words. I even hear that they say they have these sort of mythical reserve funds, which is really nothing more than a wish list.

So we had all these votes in the Budget Committee. We said, okay, if you really don't want to raise these taxes, then let's put it into the budget. Let's make it clear. Let's put it into the numbers of the budget so that we clearly can tell the American people we are not going to raise your taxes.

So we had a whole series of votes in the Budget Committee to amend the budget to make sure taxes weren't being raised. We had an amendment to make sure that we didn't increase marginal tax rates. We had an amendment to make sure we didn't eliminate the $1,000 per-child tax credit. We had an amendment to make sure we didn't eliminate marriage tax penalty relief. We had an amendment to make sure we didn't eliminate the capital gains and dividends tax relief. We had an amendment to make sure we didn't eliminate the State and local sales tax relief which applies to States like Texas and Tennessee and Florida. We had an amendment to make sure we didn't bring back the death tax. Amendment after amendment after amendment, which would have made this clear and simple that we weren't going to raise taxes was defeated, every single one of them, by party-line votes. The Democrats defeated every single amendment in attempts to stop these tax increases from coming into this budget.

Now, let's take a look at what kind of tax increases we are talking about. The Democrat budget only reaches balance because of this. This is how their budget achieves balance.

They have $32.5 billion in higher taxes coming from higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains. They have $40 billion in higher revenues because they cut in half the per child tax credit. They bring back the marriage tax

penalty, which makes people pay taxes simply because they are married. They get $91 billion in extra tax revenues by bringing the death tax back in full force, and they gain another $78 billion by taking away the lower 10 percent bracket for low-income Americans. They bring into the government an extra $104 billion by raising all other marginal tax rates, and that is also the tax rate that small businesses pay.

So small businesses, which are the engine of economic growth of America, and most jobs come from small businesses, under their plan small businesses will pay a tax rate at about 40 percent, when we are going to actually be giving a tax rate to the largest companies in America, IBM, Exxon, Microsoft, at 35 percent.

This is how their budget balances: Raise taxes on businesses, raise taxes on small businesses, raise taxes on investment in seniors' pension funds, raise taxes on people with children, raise taxes on people who get married, raise taxes on people who die, and raise taxes on low-income Americans. That is the only way, the only reason, the only ability that the Democrat budgets actually achieve balance.

We can do better, Madam Chairman, and the reason we can do better is because we have to attack out-of-control spending.

Washington does not have a revenue problem, Madam Chairman. Money is coming in as fast as it ever has. Money is going out too fast. Both parties are to blame for this. I am not going to be here and sanctimoniously say that our party has been wonderful on spending. No, we have not. What I am saying is we have to agree spending is out of control. That is the problem. Let's control spending.

The budget we are bringing to the floor later on does just that. We give the tools to get rid of pork. We give the tools to let the American people see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent. We bring more accountability and transparency to the Federal budget process. We reform our entitlement programs so we can extend their solvency, so we can make sure that people can better count on Medicare and Medicaid. These are the things that we have got to do so we don't crank up our debt, raise our taxes, and put a huge burden on our children and grandchildren.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his wonderful expertise on budget issues. He has been a leader on this issue.

I also want to compliment the Progressive Caucus for coming to the floor with an earnest budget and for putting a budget together. These are not easy things to do. The Progressives have put together a budget that embodies their philosophies, their opinions, and I think that is good.

I completely disagree with the direction of the budget, deep cuts to defense, incredible increases in spending across the board, and a $949 billion tax increase. I think it is the wrong recipe for our economy, but I compliment the Progressives for bringing a budget to the floor that actually achieves balance, albeit by raising taxes.

Madam Chair, I want to give a little foreshadowing of our next budget. You are going to hear the word ``cut'' and the words ``drastic cuts'' and things like that. I think we are going to hear that from the other side of the aisle because they propose to control no spending. Those chose to cut nothing, not even controlling the growth of spending. Rather, they choose to raise taxes.

On Medicaid, our budget will propose, yes, to increase spending, albeit not as fast as it is going right now. This will extend the solvency of Medicaid. We propose to increase spending even faster than medical inflation.

What about Medicare? Again, our red line below the blue line, we propose to increase Medicare spending and reform the program.

What will our budget achieve? It will achieve savings that will extend the life and solvency of Medicare.

What does the Democrat budget achieve? An exacerbation of the problem.

Here is what our budget proposes to do on all entitlements. I don't even know if the viewer can see the difference between the blue line, which is the current trajectory of entitlement spending, and the red line.

We propose to increase entitlement spending each year at 4.1 percent a year, instead of 4.7 percent a year. Is that a drastic cut? Is that a terrible, awful cut to programs? Let me repeat it one more time. We are increasing entitlement spending 4.1 percent a year, instead of 4.7 percent. That is above inflation.

Here is the legacy of the Democrat budget. Right now, today, according to the Government Accountability Office, the current unfunded liability of Medicare and Social Security is $37 trillion. That will go to $62 trillion of money that we would have to set aside today to make these programs work for the next two generations, my generation and my children's generation, by 2012. By doing nothing to save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the Democratic budget is actually increasing the liability of these programs. The Democrat budget is making matters worse by postponing the necessary reforms that must occur.

But there is one thing the Democrat budget does, and it was very well described in the Washington Post this morning. Let me quote: ``While the House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all of these tax cuts expire on schedule in 2010.'' That means cap gains, dividends, income tax rates, per child tax credit, marriage tax penalty, all of those tax cuts go away.

Let me make it very clear. We use the Congressional Budget Office by law to develop our budgets, and this red line shows you that, in 2010, tax cuts go away, taxes increase, and revenues go up. That is the line that the Democrats are writing their budget based on. Their budget requires, assumes, legislates, needs these tax increases for them to balance the budget.

The green line is the line we use to write our budget. We balance the budget without raising taxes, and they raise taxes.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the end of 2 days of debate on how to organize our Nation's finances; how do we want to prepare the budget for the next 5 years for our country.

This is a big debate. It is a debate that really underscores the different philosophies between our two parties.

The Democrats have chosen the path of higher spending and a lot higher taxes. The three Democrat budgets we had before us here on the floor today, one raised taxes by $400 billion, another raised taxes by $711 billion and a third one raised taxes by $949 billion.

The last tax increase we had was the last time the Democrats had the majority, and that was a $241 billion tax increase. Now, 3 months into their new majority, they are proposing anywhere from a $400 billion to a $1 trillion tax increase.

We don't believe that we should take more money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans. We don't believe we should tax, tax, tax and then tax more the American economy and the American family and the American workers.

We believe Washington has a spending problem, and that is why we are proposing to control spending, and that is how we achieve the balanced budget. Not only do we achieve a balanced budget, but we stop the raid of the Social Security trust fund and pay down $100 billion in debt in the fifth year of our budget.

Now, here is the difference. The blue line is our line, the revenue line, where we keep the tax cuts intact. The red line is the line where the Democrats raise the taxes. The green line is the current trajectory of spending.

We have to control spending if we are going to ever fully balance the budget. Even if we accept the Democrats' tax increases, the balance they achieve in 5 years will only last for a couple of short years because we will go right back into deficits if we do nothing to control spending.

Now, you are going to hear a lot of words about our budget in the next few minutes. Cut this, cut that, we are savaging this, we are taking a chain saw to that. We are pitting Medicare and Medicaid.

Let's be really clear. Medicare, spending goes up every year from here to the next to the next. Medicaid spending under our budget will go up faster than health care inflation. But we are going to reform the program so that it works better, doesn't cost as much, and extends its solvency so that it is there for people.

Medicare. Are we cutting Medicare? No, we are not cutting Medicare. We are growing Medicare. We are growing Medicare, not as fast as it is currently scheduled to grow because we are reforming Medicare. And what do we do? We extend the solvency of Medicare.

Overall, if you take a look at the difference in spending we propose over the next 5 years, on entitlement spending we propose growing, increasing, adding entitlement spending at 4.1 percent a year for the next 5 years, instead of 4.7 percent a year.

Now, at the end of the day, it is about how we get our fiscal house in order. Here is the devastation of the Democrat budget. And I am just going to pick one program.

Medicare, the unfunded liability of Medicare is $32 trillion. $32 trillion is how much money we would have to set aside today in current dollars to make sure that Medicare is there for my children when they receive Medicare.

Under the Democrat budget, the Medicare unfunded liability will go to $52 trillion. That means doing nothing to reform Medicare. Doing nothing to reform Medicare at all will actually lead to adding a huge debt onto the problem. It will mean that our children and grandchildren will have another $22 trillion in debt thrown onto them if we decide not to do a thing for the next 5 years to reform our entitlement programs. But that, in fact, is what the Democrat budget does.

The actual household burden today on Medicare is $282,400. That is what we would have to set aside today, per household, to make sure Medicare is there for my children when they retire. If we do nothing for the next 5 years, as the Democrats propose, that goes up to almost $476,000 a household.

We have got to fix these programs. We have got to reform these programs. We have got to reform them so that they work better. They were written in the 1960s. We are now in the 21st century. We can make these programs work better. We can better meet the mission of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, income security, health security; and we can do it without bankrupting our children.

The problem is, we can't put our heads in the sand for 5 years and do nothing. That is what the Democrat budget proposes to do. Absolutely no savings, no spending control, no reform.

We have to reform these programs, Mr. Chairman, because if we don't, our debt gets higher. We go back into deficits, and there isn't another tax you can raise to get out of that hole.

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

At this time, Mr. Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery of Louisiana.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of our leadership, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, isn't the gentleman supposed to address the Chair, not specific Members?

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds, as I yield to our minority leader, simply to say the gentleman from Maryland comes from a State which under their budget will see an average household tax increase of $3,238 per household. This will affect 2,259,000 Maryland taxpayers.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, the minority whip (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Chairman, as I yield to my friend from Michigan, I will note that Illinois taxpayers will pay $3,282 higher every year. That hits 4,731,000 Illinois taxpayers budgets under their budget.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Here it comes, Mr. Chairman, the closing of this debate. We have heard it all. We have heard the quotes: these cuts are so deep, so extreme about the Republican budget.

Well, let's just see how deep and extreme these cuts are. Instead of spending over the next 5 years $14.976 trillion, our budget proposes $14.928 trillion over the next 5 years. Instead of growing entitlement spending at 4.7 percent a year, we will grow it at 4.1 percent a year.

What do we accomplish with this? What do we do with that? We balance the budget without raising taxes. We stop the raid on the Social Security trust fund and we pay down debt. That is what we accomplish with our budget.

What do the Democrats accomplish? No matter how they spin it, no matter how they duck it, no matter how they hide, they are raising taxes. Don't ask me. Just look at The Washington Post that said: ``And while the House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a surplus by 2012 only by assuming that all of these tax cuts go away.''

Meet the new Democrat majority, Mr. Chairman, the same as the old Democrat majority. And the last time they had the majority in 1993, what did they do? They passed the largest tax increase in American history, $241 billion. Now, 3\1/2\ months into the new majority, what are they planning to do? Passing the largest tax increase in American history, about $400 billion. Is that to control spending or something like that? No. They are engaging on a gorge of new spending. $50 billion is already being thrown out the door just this year, and it is not even April into their new majority.

Mr. Chairman, this is a direction. This is a choice between two visions. Do we or do we not let people keep more of their own hard- earned money? Or do we just keep taxing them more and more and more and spending more and more and more? That is the choice.

We believe in the people. We believe people should keep more of their own money. We believe people should keep their child tax credit. We don't want to tax people for being married. We believe small businesses should be taxed no more than large corporations. We believe seniors ought to be able to enjoy their retirement savings. We believe in preserving, saving, and enhancing our entitlement programs by extending their solvency.

What are they going to do? They are hastening the demise of our entitlements, they are accelerating the bankruptcy of these programs, and they are giving us the largest tax increase in American history.

Like it or not, the numbers are clear. You can reserve fund everything you want, you can put any wish list you want in a piece of legislation, but numbers don't lie. And the numbers are crystal clear and they tell the truth: this budget, the Democrat budget, gives us the largest tax increase in American history, and the Republican budget keeps taxes low, and it balances the budget by controlling spending and it stops the raid on the Social Security trust fund and it pays down debt.

Pass the Republican budget. Defeat the Democrat budget.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor again today and appreciate the confidence of my leadership in allowing me to organize this hour and come chat a little bit with our Members here and to point out some interesting information in another edition of the Official Truth Squad.

The Official Truth Squad is a group of individuals who try to come to the floor on this side of the aisle at least once a week in an effort to bring some truths and some facts to the items that we talk about on this floor. I know it won't surprise you, Mr. Speaker, but oftentimes some of the things we hear on this floor aren't necessarily the truth. So what we try to do is to point out items that are of importance in terms of information to the American people and how we on this floor ought to be making decisions on their behalf.

And in so doing, we have a number of individuals we like to point to as kind of leaders in the public arena, both present and past, who have had as one of their hallmarks making certain that they discussed truth and made certain that they used facts in developing their positions.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former United States Senator from New York, and he had a quote that said: ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.'' I think that is incredibly important as we talk about this issue that we are discussing today, the economy and the budget and issues that relate to how Washington spends hard-earned taxpayer money.

One of the most important facts is it is the taxpayers' money, it is not the

government's. And there are many people who are here in Washington who believe that somehow, just by some miraculous nature, when the money is sent to Washington that somehow it becomes the government's money. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hope you would agree with me that in fact it is the taxpayers' money and we need to spend it very, very wisely.

One of the other relative issues that I think has seen a lot of naysayers and a lot of misinformation is the state of our economy right now. If you ask folks, most people across this Nation will say that their own economic situation is pretty good and they feel pretty good about the future. If you ask them how the economy in the Nation is going, the majority of them say that it is not going well at all. And that, I believe, to be in large part due to much of the messaging that comes out of Washington. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle have been down-talking this economy for years, literally years.

So I was curious that over the weekend the Wall Street Journal had an editorial that they entitled: ``The Current `Depression,' '' and they used ``depression'' in quotes, because if you really look at the numbers, if you look at the facts, Mr. Speaker, they kind of belie the naysayers in what they have been saying: 110,000 new jobs in January, 41 straight months of job growth in this Nation. The average job growth in 2006 was 187,000 jobs; 2.2 million new jobs in 2006, and 7.4 million new jobs since 2003; 7.4 million new jobs since 2003.

When you compare this expansion to the expansion that all sorts of folks talk about as being the be-all and the end-all, and that is with the expansion of the 1990s, when you compare this expansion, the expansion that we are currently in, the economic success that we are currently in is better when you look at many, many parameters.

Unemployment, for example. The first six years of the 1990s, 1991 through 1996, had an average unemployment rate of 6.4 percent. The average unemployment rate for the first 6 years of this decade: 5.4 percent. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment rate is at 4.6 percent. And the last time I looked, if the average unemployment rate is 4.6 percent, it means that 95.4 percent of folks are working.

Real wage growth. Our friends on the other side of the aisle often talk about, well, this is a recovery, an economy that isn't resulting in real jobs; the wage growth isn't occurring, people's wages aren't increasing. Well, if you compare it to the vaunted years of the early 1990s, real wage growth for those first 6 years averaged 0.6 percent per year increase. 2001 through 2006, real wage growth in this Nation up 1.5 percent, and last year it was 1.7 percent increase. And that is accounting for inflation. It is accounting for inflation, Mr. Speaker.

Now, one might want to ask, given the success of the current economy, how did that happen? What happened? How did that occur? How are we seeing the kind of results in the economy, the good news that we are currently seeing?

And I am fond of using charts because I think that they paint a picture that is oftentimes, at least for me, easier to comprehend and easier to get my arms around. This is a chart that runs from 2000 through 2006, and we are going to update the numbers for this most recent quarter. But what it shows here on this vertical line, this dotted green vertical line is when we began this remarkable expansion. And what occurred on that at that point was, you guessed it, Mr. Speaker, appropriate tax reductions for the American people. So when you decrease taxes, what happens is that the blue line, you get more jobs; the red line, you get increasing business investment; and, lo and behold, something that President Kennedy knew and President Reagan knew, when you decrease taxes, which occurred at the nadir of this graph here, what happens is that you increase government revenue.

It sounds counterintuitive, but in fact it isn't. If you decrease taxes, if you allow individuals to have more of their hard-earned money, what happens is that the economy grows and, because of that, tax revenue flows to the Federal Government.

Now, an individual who is joining us today for this edition of the Official Truth Squad, an individual who is a new member of our conference from California who knows a lot about taxes and a lot about the issue of taxes and how they affect us on a daily basis, I am pleased to ask my friend Kevin McCarthy from California to join us and give us some insight into exactly where those taxes come from and how often we are taxed. I think that is the kind of truth and facts you would like to bring to us today.

I thank the gentleman for coming and joining us today and helping out and bringing truth and facts to the issue of the economy and especially taxation, because oftentimes people don't think about the times that they do indeed pay tax.

I try to visit as many schools as I can in my district back in Georgia, and when I am in front of student groups, I oftentimes ask them, Do you pay any tax? And of course most often they say, Oh, no. We don't pay any tax. Our parents pay some tax, but we don't pay any tax. Then you ask them, Did you buy a pack of gum? Paid for any of your shoes lately? Have you bought any food? Anything that you buy, anything that you buy has taxes on it. So any consumable product whatsoever has taxes on it. So everybody contributes into it. And when individuals are able to keep more of their own money, what happens is that the economy is able to flourish to a much greater degree. So I appreciate the information that you brought about taxes.

I also want to point out that you mentioned that our good friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be moving in the direction of allowing the appropriate tax reductions that resulted in this success, to allow those tax reductions to go away, which means a tax increase for the vast majority of Americans all across this Nation. And if they do what they have basically said they are planning on doing, and that is allow those tax reductions to expire, allow taxes to go up, the marginal tax rate, that is the rate, the percentage of income that each and every American pays to government to run the services, will be over 50 percent for the first time since the late 1970s. And, Mr. Speaker, some of our Members may not remember the late 1970s, but I remember it and I know that my good friends here remember it, and that is that we had something called the misery index.

It was the last time that inflation and unemployment were just skyrocketing, both of them because of poor programs of the Federal Government.

So I fear that what will happen if our good friends on the other side of the aisle get their way is that we will revisit the misery index. So we are here to try to bring truth and fact and light to the issue of the economy and taxation and the budget.

I am so pleased to be joined by my good friend from Tennessee, the congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who understands business, understands the economy and budgetary issues as well or better than the vast majority of folks in this Chamber. I look forward to your comments today as we talk about budget, economy and taxes.

I thank you so much for joining us again today and bringing light and truth to an issue that is so remarkably important because it gets to the bottom line for each and every American and each and every American family.

What we do at home, when we have discussions about our family budget, is that we determine how much money we have to spend and then we determine what our priorities are. Depending on what those priorities are, that is how we allocate money, and we try to make certain that we set aside some savings as well for a rainy day, for a difficult time. That ought to be what the Federal Government does, as you well know, but, sadly, that appears to be not the plan of the new majority here.

So it is important that we talk about family budgets, about how family budgets ought to parallel Federal budgets, government budgets.

I would be pleased to yield if you have a comment.

I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for again pointing out how important it is to have our budget here at the Federal level compare or track what we do at home.

In fact, what we do at the State level, virtually every single State has a balanced budget because they cannot do what Washington does, and that is print money. Having served in the State legislature, we would spend days and weeks and months sometimes dealing with the hard-earned taxpayer money, again not government money, but hard-earned taxpayer money and make certain that our budget was balanced at the State level.

In fact, in Washington I am distressed that is not exactly what occurs. I am a strong supporter of a balanced budget, and what you will see on some of the charts and information that we currently have is that the tax policies that have been put in place and the program changes that have been put in place, something that is not well-known, is that the nondefense discretionary money, which is about 16 to 17 percent of our overall budget right now, has been actually decreasing as it relates to inflation. So Congress has been trying diligently to try to make certain that it reins in costs and spending. Because, Lord knows, we have not got a revenue problem; we have got a spending problem.

If you track out the budget itself, and this is with Congressional Budget Office numbers, they are not the kind of numbers that I think demonstrate the upside that we receive from tax reductions, but, in any event, what they do show is that at about 2011 the budget is balanced. The budget is balanced, and that is if we keep our current programs in place. Now, we can get to that point a lot sooner if we get more responsible on the spending side.

Now, my good friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you, well, we are going to balance the budget, too, and they can do that if they just left things alone. We would get to a balanced budget. But what they will tell you is we need to spend more in other areas, and so we need to tax Americans more. We are going to balance the budget, yes, but we are going to do it by taxing the American people more, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the way in which we need to move forward.

We will talk about some other revenue items and some other aspects of a balanced budget, but I want to address what has been termed by many myths, 10, 12 number of myths about President Bush's tax reductions. These are the tax reductions, appropriate tax reductions, that our friends on the other side of the aisle say they have to end. They have to increase taxes on the American people.

The Democrat majority has to write a budget. They have to write a budget. Each year, the majority party has to write a budget, and the House has to pass a budget.

The new majority, the Democrat majority, has three options in that budget as to how they are going to deal with these appropriate tax reductions that were put in place earlier in this decade. They can extend them. They can continue the appropriate tax reductions, something that I and the vast majority of folks on our side of the aisle believe ought to occur. They could allow them to expire. Virtually all of them are slated to expire in 2011.

So, if no action is taken, then the other side will, in fact, increase taxes, or they can repeal them. They could increase taxes right way. So they have the responsibility of determining exactly what they are going to do with those appropriate tax reductions.

There are a number of myths that have grown up around these tax reductions that I would like to highlight. One is that the tax reductions themselves or the tax revenues themselves remain low. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as I have on a previous chart shown, the tax revenues are above the historical average, even after these appropriate tax reductions.

Tax reductions in 2006 were about 18.4 percent of the gross domestic product, which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year and 60-year historical averages. Now the inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest 2-year surge in tax revenue since 1965 and 1967. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The revenue to the Federal Government increased 20 percent over a 2-year period between 2004 and 2006, which is the largest increase in revenue to the Federal Government since 1965 and 1967. So claims that Americans and the American people are undertaxed according to history are simply patently false, absolutely untrue, and so it is important to remember that tax revenues are up because of a decrease in taxes, decrease in liability to the American people.

When you compare the tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after each of the past recessions, it shows that the tax revenues were basically the same. So, in 1987, tax revenues were about 1.4 percent of gross domestic product; 1995, 18.5 percent; and 2006, 18.4 percent.

All of that is to say, Mr. Speaker, that when you decrease taxes, the revenue that comes into the Federal Government stays about the same as a percentage of the overall economy, but you decrease the number for each and every American because the economy is increasing and the revenue increases to the Federal Government. So tax reductions are good for the government. Tax reductions are good for the American people.

The second myth that I want to talk about and discuss as it relates to the appropriate tax reductions that were adopted by this Congress back in 2001 and in 2003, the myth that is out there is that these tax reductions substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit. Well, the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

I am the first to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government, Washington, has been spending too much money, too much of hard-earned taxpayer money. That being said, I think it is important that our friends on the other side of the aisle, who say that they want to balance the budget, do so by doing the responsible thing and that is decreasing spending and not increasing taxes.

In the first place, if you increase taxes, what you do is, over the long term, you get less revenue to the Federal Government, but in terms of budget deficit, what you see is that you will decrease the deficit more rapidly by decreasing taxes and by decreasing spending.

Now critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998 through 2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from what they call ``irresponsible'' tax reductions. This argument, however, ignores the historic spending increases that pushed Federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent of spending in 2006.

Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected. We have talked about that before. They were above the levels that were projected before the 2003 tax cuts.

Now, immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the 2006 budget deficit would be $57 billion. Yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. Now, the $190 billion deficit increase resulted from Federal spending, resulted from Federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. So revenues were actually $47 billion above projections even after the $75 billion in tax cuts that the other side says hurt, hurt the bottom line and hurt the deficits.

So these myths, I think, are important to correct to point out the factual nature of what is going on as opposed to just flying by the seat of your pants, which is not the way folks do their family budget and certainly ought not to be the way that we do our Federal budget.

The next myth I want to talk about is the capital gains taxes; tax cuts do not pay for themselves. There is kind of this sense that folks say, well, if you keep capital gains low, those are the taxes that people pay on the profits that they made on investments.

I am in favor of doing away with them all together. But if you keep

them low, what happens is you don't get the same amount of revenue into the Federal Government. Well, the fact of the matter is that capital gains tax revenues doubled, doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Did you hear that? Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Now, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people alter their behavior in response to that policy. Investors have shown to be the most sensitive to tax policy because capital gains tax cuts encourage new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate.

This chart here is a demonstration of exactly that. What we see here is a chart that shows capital gains tax revenues that doubled following the 2003 tax cut. The yellow line here projected from 2003 through 2006, the yellow line demonstrates what the Congressional Budget Office said would be the taxes gained from capital gains tax revenue. The blue line which you see is significantly higher than that are the actual revenues that came into the Federal Government following the 2003 capital gains tax reduction.

So in 2003 capitalize gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent to 10 percent, depending on income, to 15 percent and 5 percent. Now, rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006, as the CBO projected, capitalize gains revenue more than doubled $103 billion, $103 billion, more than twice what was projected. Past capital gains cuts have shown similar results as well.

The fact of the matter is, remember, you can have your own opinions as you walk through this discussion of the economy and of tax policy and of budget policy, but it is important that we look at facts so that we are making appropriate decisions here on behalf of the American people.

The fact of the matter is that when you decrease capital gains taxes you increase investment in America and you increase the revenue to the Federal Government, which is demonstrated clearly by this chart that we see right here.

Another myth that I want to talk about is the myth that says that the tax deductions are to blame for the long-term budget deficits. In fact, that isn't true at all. Projections show that entitlement or automatic spending, automatic costs, will dwarf the projected large revenue increases of the current tax reductions. As you remember, the graph that I had up here had revenue to the Federal Government increasing because of the appropriate reductions in taxes to the American people.

However, those increases will all be eaten up by automatic spending that occurs here in Washington. Some folks call these programs entitlement programs. They are primarily Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

These are the automatic programs where the spending continues to increase based upon a formula.

I have a chart that I would like to share with you that demonstrates clearly the challenge and the problem that confront not just those of us representing Americans but all of America. These are three pie charts that demonstrate the mandatory or automatic spending that occurs, primarily again in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is 1995. Those programs comprised approximately half of the Federal budget, 48.7 percent of the Federal budget.

Now, the percent of the Federal budget that was utilized at that time for interest on the debt was 15.3 percent, a point much greater than current, and then discretionary spending where we have all of the Federal programs that people think about in terms of transportation, national park programs, all of those kinds of things, in addition to defense, that portion, in 1995, was 36 percent.

Again, about 48.7 percent was the mandatory portion of the budget. In 2005, just 2 years ago, that portion had grown from 48.7 percent to 53.4 percent. Again, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, there were automatic spending increases over a period of time with those three specific programs.

If you track out to 2016, you get to 63.9 percent of the Federal budget. So those are the automatic programs that are in place, the automatic spending programs that are in place. This is clearly, clearly unsustainable. Spending of the entire GDP has kind of hovered around 20 percent for the past half century.

However, with the retirement of the baby boomers, this is the first year that baby boomers will begin to receive Social Security. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will see significant increases in the amount of revenue projected to increase over 10.5 percent over the next 10 years. What you see is an increase to 63.9 percent by 2016.

Clearly, clearly, these French-style spending increases, not tax policy, are the problem. In Washington, lawmakers, all of us, all of us have a responsibility and should focus on getting these entitlements under control, as opposed to raising taxes on the American people. That not only will not work, they may be good bumper sticker politics, but they will not work to solve the problem. This is hard work, significant challenges that confront all of us.

Next myth I would like to address very briefly is that raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue. There is kind of this general belief on the other side of the aisle that all you have to do to get more money is to raise more taxes.

As you know, tax revenues themselves correlate with economic growth, not with tax rates, so that as the government increases its revenue as the economy grows, many of those who desire additional tax revenues regularly call on Congress to raise taxes. But tax revenues are a function basically of two variables. One is tax rates and two is the tax base.

Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent, dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent. At the same time, tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining basically a constant percent of GDP. They are basically a perfect correlation between those two.

I think it is exceedingly important for all of us here and the American people to realize and appreciate that raising taxes doesn't raise tax revenue. In fact, as we saw from the previous charts, it is decreasing taxes that increase tax revenue.

One other myth that I would like to talk about very briefly is that there is this myth that reversing the upper income tax reductions, the upper income tax cuts, would raise substantial revenues. In fact, the lower income tax cuts reduced tax revenue more than the high income tax reductions.

I have a chart that will show that as well. This chart oftentimes comes as a real eye opener for the American people and for so many of my colleagues here, as a matter of fact. This chart shows the share of individual income taxes that are paid by different portions of our society, and I would like to just point to the last two bars, the last two bar graphs down there.

This one, the larger one, that demonstrates that over 96 percent of all tax revenue comes from folks in the upper half of the income bracket of this Nation, and that the bottom 50 percent, the lower 50 percent pay less than 4 percent of the tax revenue that comes into the United States.

Now, that is important because if you try to concentrate on just the middle-income folks, in fact, you will not generate the kind of money that you are talking about or that you need, and you also will significantly depress the economy.

Again, it is important to talk about facts. It is important to talk about truth as we talk about making certain that we have the right policy here at the Federal Government.

Finally, there is a myth out there that these reductions, tax reductions, haven't helped the economy. In fact, the economy has responded to the 2003 tax reductions in remarkable ways, as we have already pointed out. GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the tax reductions. The six quarters that followed the tax reductions, it grew at 4.1 percent; 1.7 percent before, 4.1 percent afterward. It is a fact.

Nonresidential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax reductions. Since then, it has expanded for 14 consecutive quarters. Down 13 quarters before, up 14 quarters afterward. It is a fact, not an opinion.

Standard & Poor's 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. After, increased 32 percent over the next six quarters; before, down 18 percent; after, up 32 percent. That is a fact, not an opinion.

The economy, six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts lost 267,000 jobs. In the six quarters after, increased 307,000 jobs, and, as you well know, since then we have burgeoned by having 7.3 million new jobs since the middle of 2003.

What we have tried to do today is try to bring to the American people some truth, some facts as we talk about the budget that will have to be laid out here over the next month to 6 weeks, pointing out the remarkable fallacy of so many of the arguments that are used on the floor of this House to say that, well, we have just got to raise taxes. You have heard some of the Presidential candidates out there on the stump, saying, we have just got to raise taxes. In fact, some of my good friends on the other side of the aisle say just that, nothing we can do except raise taxes.

You know and I know that the truth of the matter is that when you look at how the economy operates, how the Federal Government gains revenue, that, in fact, decreasing taxes, maintaining the appropriate tax reductions, allowing the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money is exactly what is the prescription that is necessary for America and for the economy to continue to flourish.

So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I look forward to a spirited debate. I think the question really is, when you get right down to it, the question becomes who ought to decide; who should decide how the American people spend their hard- earned money. Should it be the government? Should it be more government programs? Regardless of whatever area of the society you want to talk about, is it the Federal Government and State governments that ought to be making those decisions?

Or should it be, as I and so many of my friends on this side of the aisle believe, that those decisions are better left to individual Americans? They make better decisions about what to do with their hard- earned money when they are allowed to keep their hard-earned money and not have it rolled into the Federal Government as tax revenue.

I am pleased to be able to provide hopefully a bit of light, a bit of truth, a bit of fact for this Chamber, and deal with the issues that are coming before us over the next 4 to 6 weeks. I look forward to this discussion on this debate.

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.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of The Congressional Progressive Caucus Fiscal Year 2008-17 ``Peace & Security'' Budget Alternative. The American people spoke loud and clear last November. They wanted change, accountability, and a new course of action. This budget is a direct answer to the demands of the American people and steers us in a new direction. With this budget we can usher in a new era of fiscal responsibility that this current administration has failed to adhere to. The budget is morally sound, as it redirects funding to domestic spending programs that benefit the American middle class, the backbone of our great Nation. Most importantly this budget meets our moral obligation to all of our veterans. This budget ends the war and brings our troops home and moves this country toward an agenda of peace and security.

The news of the horrible living conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center raised our national consciousness regarding the need to do more--much more--for wounded and injured service members and to upgrade the administrative systems that support them. Simply put, this budget treats the heroic young men and women who sacrifice life and limb with the respect and dignity they deserve. This budget guarantees full funding for health care (including mental health care) for all veterans. The Progressive Caucus budget makes veterans' health care a new federal entitlement. It will require the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to make mandatory appropriations for VA health care based upon the following formula: the amount of funds available for VA medical care in FY2008 would equal 130 percent of the total obligations made by the VA for medical care programs in FY2005.

Let us send the right message to our young men and women returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve better, we owe it to them, and we have a duty to answer the will of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) works very hard on organizing our Truth Squad and making sure that we are getting the word out about what needs to be gotten out in terms of the issues that are important, I think, to the American people. We are going to talk about the economy and what is happening to the economy in the United States, and I want to talk a little bit about that to begin with until Mr. Price gets here, and I probably will recognize my colleague from Tennessee, who is also here to speak on this issue, and ask him if he would share some comments.

The first thing I want to say is that our economy is in wonderful, wonderful shape. It is the best economy that we have had in this country for many, many years. Now, a major reason that the economy is in such great shape is because of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I was not here when those tax cuts were passed, but I am very pleased that they were passed and that they brought about such a positive economy for this country. We have the lowest unemployment rate that we have had in 50 years. We have growth in all sectors. We have more people owning their homes than have ever owned them before. Incomes are up and revenues are up.

And I want to say something about revenues, using some information from the Heritage Foundation. Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product, which is above the 20-year, 40-year and 60-year historical averages. The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest 2-year revenue surge since 1965 and 1967.

There is a myth out there that tax revenues are low. Tax revenues are actually above the historical average, even after the tax cuts. We know that tax cuts are good for this economy; they are always good for the economy. The more money that we leave in the hands and the pockets of our taxpayers, the better off we are. When the government appropriates that money and spends it, the government is very inefficient in its spending of that money, and that does not grow the economy, contrary to what many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to say.

We are going to talk again more and more about the economy and the fact that it is in very good shape. And it is very unfortunate that the economy doesn't get the positive press that the economy has gotten under Democratic Presidents, when in fact most of the time the results of the good economy are coming from a Republican Congress, which knows how to do things in terms of growing the economy.

I would like to recognize now my colleague from Tennessee, who is here to make a presentation on this issue, also. I know that he will bring some enlightened points to the discussion.

I thank Mr. Davis, the gentleman from Tennessee, for his remarks. And I appreciate his being involved and sharing some information with us that is so important. This is his first term, and he has done a wonderful job.

He is my neighbor to the west. His district in Tennessee joins the 5th District in North Carolina. We both live in a wonderful, wonderful place. Every time somebody speaks to me about where I live, they say, what a beautiful place you live in, and I feel that way about it. And I want to say that it is a great honor to serve in Congress, but I can tell you that my feet are planted very firmly on the ground in the 5th District of North Carolina, and I don't ever forget where I came from and the people that I represent.

I want to talk a little bit on this issue about the economy that Mr. Price set up today for the Truth Squad. And I know he is going to be here probably very shortly, and when he does I am going to yield back to the Chair and hope that the Chair will recognize him so that he can continue this discussion.

I want to talk a little bit today about the economy and an egregious situation that we are facing here in the Congress as it deals with unions. I have come to the floor several times in this session and talked about what I consider the hypocrisy that is going on in this Congress by the majority party. We are having black called white and white called black in terms of pieces of things on the paper. It is astonishing to me the hypocrisy that is going on. And I think there is probably no more greater piece of hypocrisy than this so-called Employee Free Choice Act which has been introduced by the Democrats. It deals with the ability for unions to twist people's arms to get them into unions.

The unions have been steadily losing ground in this country for many, many years. My understanding is that the percentage and number of U.S. workers that belong to unions declined again in 2006, after having stabilized a little bit in 2005. BLS data show that only 13 percent of all construction workers were members of building trade unions, and that is down from 18 percent in 2001.

There is a steady erosion in the percentage of construction workers represented by unions in the past 23 years. What is happening is because the unions are losing membership, they want to take away the secret ballot.

I am going to enter into the Record today several different pieces which I have in front of me that I am quoting from. I am going to quote from a Wall Street Journal article of February 2, and from some other information which I will enter into the Record. But I want to read the beginning of this article from the Wall Street Journal because I think it is so pertinent. It says: ``Why is the new Congress in such a hurry to take away workers' right to vote?'' It seems extraordinary, but the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is right there near the top of the Democrats' agenda. This legislation replaces government-sponsored secret ballot elections for union representation with a public card- signing system.

One of the reasons that union membership is down so much in this country is because of the abuses of the unions, and also because our economy is so good. And, again, I think that Representative Price is going to talk more about the economy. I mentioned earlier that it is the best that it has ever been in terms of wages, in terms of income and wages and homeownership and the burden that we place on the American people from the government. But people don't need to join unions like they needed to 125 years ago or so. We did have abuses in this country by employers, and I am very sorry about that, but those abuses don't go on anymore, and people are finding out they don't have to belong to unions.

But the Democrats, who are so beholden to unions, want to take the right of a secret ballot, which is so fundamental to us in this country, and which they argue for on this floor for voters, and they want to take it away from union members or people who are thinking about forming a union. And I, again, want to make some quotes, because this article is so excellent.

Most important, it is totally unreasonable to deny all 140 million American workers the right to a secret ballot election because some employers break the law. Yes, occasionally somebody may not do what they are supposed to do. Not only is such a remedy disproportionate, it is counterproductive. If one goal is worker empowerment, how can a worker be better off if both his employer and his prospective union boss know his views on the union when the secret ballot is replaced with a public card signing? For the worker, it is the ultimate example of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Mr. Edwards, who is running for President, has said that if you can join the Republican Party, you should be able to join a union by simply signing a card. But Mr. Edwards' analogy is a very false one, because signing a card to join the Republican Party does not oblige you to vote for the Republican ticket in a secret ballot election. And I quote again from the article from the Wall Street Journal: ``The Employee Free Choice Act would take care of that by abolishing such elections. If the Edwards principle was applied to the political process in the 28 non-right to work States, Karl Rove and Republican Party organizers could force all Democrats and Independents to become Republicans and pay dues to the party if a majority of voters signed Republican cards. That's free choice?''

The final proof that this bill is about union power and not worker choice is revealed by its treatment of the flip side of unionization: decertification elections. These are secret ballot elections in which workers get to decide that they have had enough of the union. Under the Employee Free Choice, can a majority of workers decertify the union by signing a card? Not on your life. Here, unions want the chance to engage in a campaign to give workers both sides of the story and maybe do a better job of representing them before the union's fate is decided by a secret ballot vote.

Again, the hypocrisy is absolutely mind-boggling, and is just one more example. We have bills called one thing and they do another. It just goes on and on and on. But I think it is very important that we point out this particular hypocrisy, because the title of this bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, is I think particularly egregious in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

[From the Wall Street Journal Online, Feb. 2, 2007]

Abrogating Workers' Rights

(By Lawrence B. Lindsey)

Why is the new Congress in such a hurry to take away

workers' right to vote? It seems extraordinary, but the so-

called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' is right there near the

top of the Democrats' agenda. This legislation replaces

government-sponsored secret ballot elections for union

representation with a public card-signing system.

Under the act, once a union gets a majority of the workers

to sign a card expressing a desire for a union, that union is

automatically certified as the bargaining representative of,

and empowered to negotiate on behalf of, all workers. In the

28 states that do not have right-to-work laws, all employees

would typically end up having to join the union or pay the

equivalent of union dues whether or not they signed the card.

Moreover, under the act, the bargaining process would be

shortened, with mandatory use of the Federal Mediation

service after 90 days and an imposed contract through binding

arbitration 30 days after that.

I am sympathetic to the argument that strengthening the

negotiating position of workers is good public policy, and

that expanding the choices available to them is the best way

to accomplish that. So, for example, pension portability

unlocks the golden handcuffs that financially bind workers to

jobs they may become dissatisfied with after they have become

vested. Health savings accounts are an important first step

to liberating people from jobs they put up with only because

they fear a disruption in health-care coverage.

When it comes to unions, it doesn't take a very deep

appreciation of game theory to understand that a worker's

best position comes when a nonunion company has a union

knocking on the door. Indeed, one allegation about ``union

busting'' by supporters of the bill is that, during union

certification elections, one employer in five ``gave illegal

previously unscheduled wage increases while a similar number

made some kind of illegal unilateral change in benefits or

working conditions.''

In other words, they made workers better off. But, never

fear, the Employee Free Choice Act will limit these

unconscionable increases in pay, benefits and working

conditions by imposing fines of up to $20,000 against

employers who make such ``unilateral changes.'' Similar

penalties will be assessed against employers who caution that

unionization may cause them to shut down or move production

elsewhere.

Sometimes the interests of workers and unions coincide,

sometimes they do not. The chief complaint by the bill's

sponsors is that unions only win secret-ballot elections half

of the time. Apparently workers, after they think things over

and when neither the union nor the company knows how they

vote, often decide they are better-off without the union. The

solution of the Employee Free Choice Act is to do away with

such elections. It is hard to see how that ``empowers''

workers. And it is hard not to conclude that this bill has

little to do with employee choice or maximizing employee

leverage, and everything to do with empowering union bosses

and organizers.

The unions allege that companies use unfair election

campaign tactics and that a pro-employer National Labor

Relations Board doesn't punish them. But statistics cited by

the leftwing Web site, Daily Kos, on behalf of this

allegation come from 1998 and 1999--when the entire NLRB had

been appointed by President Clinton. In any event, roughly

half the injunctions brought against companies by the NLRB

were overturned by federal courts: This does not suggest

under-enforcement of the law by the NLRB.

All of this does not mean that there are no legitimate

complaints about the union certification process. Companies

have been found that fired workers for union organizing

activities. One careful examination of NLRB data found that

there were 62 such cases in fiscal 2005. This is not a large

number in a work force of 140 million, or in a year where

there were more than 2,300 certification elections. But it is

62 too many, and it would be reasonable to stiffen the

penalties for employers who break the law. But it is hard to

think of offering more pay or better worker conditions as

something that should be punished with draconian penalties,

as the Employee Free Choice Act does.

Most important, it is totally unreasonable to deny all 140

million American workers the right to a secret ballot

election because some employers break the law. Not only is

such a remedy disproportionate, it is counterproductive--if

one's goal is worker empowerment. How can a worker be better

off if both his employer and his prospective union boss know

his views on the union when the secret ballot is replaced

with a public card signing? For the worker it is the ultimate

example of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

The political rhetoric in support of this bill is a willful

exercise in obfuscation. For example, on the presidential

campaign stump John Edwards says, ``if you can join the

Republican Party by just signing a card, you should be able

to join a union by just signing a card.'' The fact is, you--

and everyone else--can join any union you want by just

signing a card, and paying union dues and meeting any other

obligations imposed by the union. But, under this bill,

contrary to Mr. Edwards's false analogy, signing a card to

join the Republican Party does not oblige you to vote for the

Republican ticket in a secret ballot election. The Employee

Free Choice Act would take care of that by abolishing such

elections. If the Edwards principle was applied to the

political process in the 28 non-right-to-work states, Karl

Rove and Republican Party organizers could force all

Democrats and independents to become Republicans and pay dues

to the party if a majority of voters signed Republican Party

cards. That is free choice?

The final proof that this bill is about union power, and

not worker choice, is revealed by its treatment of the flip

side of unionization: decertification elections. These are

secret ballot elections in which workers get to decide that

they have had enough of the union. So under the Employee Free

Choice Act can a majority of workers decertify the union by

signing a card? Not on your life. Here unions want the chance

to engage in a campaign to give workers both sides of the

story--and maybe do a better job of representing them--before

the union's fate is decided, by a secret-ballot vote.

No one has ever argued that secret-ballot elections are a

perfect mechanism, either in politics or in deciding

unionization. But they are far and away the best mechanism we

have devised to minimize intimidation and maximize the power

of the people to really matter, whether citizen or worker.

Congress should think a lot harder before it decides to do

away with workers' right to vote.

I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I speak on every one of these budgets; and because I have been here a long time, I know the history of these budgets going back a quarter of a century. I sometimes believe the talking points on the other side of the aisle are written by Lewis Carroll, the author, of course, of that famous book which had as its theme saying one thing and meaning another: ``black was white,'' ``up was down,'' et cetera, et cetera.

I have listened since 1981 to the economic observations of such people like Phil Gramm, such people like Dick Armey, an economist, the majority leader of your party, and I think to myself how confused the American public must be when the assertions are made, an article by Dave Stockman in today's paper, you may have seen. David Broder wrote an article about that. Mr. Stockman is in a little bit of trouble with assertions that things that he said were true were in fact not true. In fact, David Stockman admitted that in 1983 what he said was true was not true; what he said they thought, they did not think.

The American public needs to place it in that context.

I have heard a lot, I say to my friend from Missouri, over the last few hours about debates about we are going to make these tax cuts permanent, and we are not.

Now, I am sure the American public knows that the President for the last 6 years has been a Republican. I am sure they know that the leadership in the House for the past 6 years has been Republican, and I am sure they know that the leadership in the Senate has been Republican. And guess what? Never did you make those tax cuts permanent. Why not? Because you wanted to play fiscal games. That is why not.

You wanted to count your out-years as looking better than they did. Why are you having a $274 billion tax increase in this bill? How do I say that? Because you are not fixing the AMT. Why aren't you fixing it? Because it is STI, your ``stealth tax increase.'' You liked SDI. This is STI, a stealth tax increase, where you say one year we are going to fix it, but, guess what, for the next 4 years we will get that additional tax revenue. A stealth tax increase.

There are no tax increases in this bill. In fact, it provides for tax cuts for the middle class. But they have to be paid for.

George Bush I and Dick Gephardt, the leader of this House, came together and said, ladies and gentlemen, we have to have fiscal responsibility, and we are going to do it. And the way we are going to do it is we are going to have PAYGO. We are going to pay for what we buy. George Bush signed that. And guess what? The Republican side of the aisle excoriated the President of the United States, George Bush, for entering into an agreement that ultimately would bring us surpluses.

I have also listened to these debates and have seen some very earnest, very intelligent, very articulate young men. Mr. Ryan is the third in a series of those earnest, intelligent, energetic, articulate young men, who talk about their vision for America, talk about where they want to take America.

Mr. Ryan puts up the children. Now, unlike Mr. Ryan, who I think has children, I have children, I have got grandchildren, and, as some people know, I have a great-granddaughter. And I am very concerned about all of those children whose taxes you have raised almost every year you have been in charge that I have been here, starting in 1981. And you raised their taxes by not paying for what you buy.

You talk about cutting spending, I tell my friend.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell my friend that there are more ways to skin a cat than one.

I tell the Chair that I have heard the argument of these earnest young men who have all stood on this floor. David Stockman at the age of 34 telling the country as director of OMB how we were going to balance the budget, how Ronald Reagan said we are going to balance the budget. Ronald Reagan ran over $1 trillion in deficits over his 8 years. Over $1 trillion in deficits.

There is one person in America who can stop spending in its tracks, only one, and that is the President of the United States. Ronald Reagan ran $1 trillion in deficits, actually $1.4 trillion. George Bush I in just 4 years ran $1 trillion in deficits. And this President in the 6 years he has been President has run over $1.6 trillion in deficits. $4.1 trillion of deficits during the Reagan administration, the Bush I administration and the Bush II administration.

Now, I tell the Chairman that my friend does not seem to be paying attention to these dramatic figures. But ladies and gentlemen of this House, I hope you are, and I hope all of our constituents are listening as well, because the rhetoric on this floor is cheap, but the performance is not.

During those 18 years of Republican leadership of this country, we ran $4.2 trillion in deficits. During the 8 years that Bill Clinton was President, we had a $62.9 billion surplus. The only President in the lifetime, I tell the Chairman, of my young friend from Wisconsin that that has been accomplished, notwithstanding Mr. Stockman or Mr. Kasich or Mr. Nussle, who all said they wanted to balance the budget, and none, none, none of them did it. None of them did it.

Now, we adopted a program in 1993, and I heard the same rhetoric, I tell my friends on this side of the aisle, that I am hearing today, the same rhetoric. Dick Armey not only was the majority leader of the Republican House, it wasn't a Republican House then, but he was also an economist, and an economist still. And Mr. Armey told the President of the United States, if we adopt this program, we are going to have deep debt, high unemployment and annual deficits.

That was the representation I tell my friends on this floor. Those representations were all wrong. That's why when we listen to debate on this floor today we see a balanced budget, a responsible budget that invests in our future.

Mr. Chairman, if I were speaking directly to him, I would tell my young friend, I have heard about these cuts that you talk about, for a quarter of a century I have heard about these cuts. Why is it that you spent more money as a party with the President with control of the Senate, control of the House by a factor of two, twice as much spending rise under the Bush Administration than under the Clinton Administration. Why is that?

Why do you come here and crow about cutting spending when you doubled the rate of growth when you controlled everything? That's what the American public needs to judge.

Now, I had some prepared comments here, and I apologize to my good friend who spent so much time doing this. But, ladies and gentlemen, Lewis Carroll is not writing this budget. Alice is not going to have to live under this budget. My children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren and, more importantly, my country, are going to have to live under this budget.

We didn't adopt a budget last year. We didn't adopt appropriation bills last year. We didn't do any of the fiscal business that we should have done last year. Why? Because your party could not agree with one another. So you had no fiscal program. Your fiscal program was spending more money.

I hope that this House, for the first time in 6 years, adopts a responsible budget that will move us towards balance. It won't get there overnight. And when I say that, it is not empty rhetoric, because when we, in 1993, passed that program, we took this country for 4 straight years out of deficit.

Now, I know you will say, ``Well, we Republicans took over in 1995.'' And my response to that, of course, is, you didn't have the presidency. When you had it all, why couldn't you do it? When you had the presidency, when you had the Senate, when you had the House, tell me why you couldn't do it.

I will tell you why. Because it was the President of the United States who said this is the way we are going to do it or I am going to veto it. This President can veto it, and we won't be able to override his veto. I understand that. He is in charge. That's why we have these deficits, because he has not vetoed one spending bill. He vetoed one bill, embryonic stem cell research. Not one spending bill. Every nickel that has been spent in this country has been spent under the signature of George Bush, the President of the United States, every nickel.

So I ask my friends, vote for a responsible budget. Move us, as we did during the 1990s, 4 years out of debt, 4 years into surplus, the first time that had happened, and left you folks that took over with a $5.6 trillion surplus that you have squandered into a $3 trillion deficit. And, yes, 9/11 had an impact on that. And your tax cut, we had a very shallow recovery. You know that. Every economist says that. And a relatively shallow downturn in the economy.

This budget offered by Mr. Spratt is a responsible budget that provides for tax cuts for the middle class, provides for investment in education and competitiveness of our country, provides for investment in our veterans, provides for investment in defense, using the same number that the President gave us so that we can keep America strong.

Mr. Spratt, I thank you. I thank the members of your committee for having the courage and the wisdom and the fiscal soundness to come forth with this budget. It is worthy of support of every Member of this Congress.

I urge this House to adopt this budget this day.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to our republican colleagues, let me say that to hear them talk about fiscal responsibility is nothing less than surreal.

In this debate on the fiscal 2008 budget, many numbers have been used.

But only two are really relevant on the issue of fiscal responsibility, and the Republican Party's lack thereof--$5.6 trillion and more than $3 trillion.

When President Bush took office, he and the then-Republican majorities in Congress inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion.

The President proclaimed: ``we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens.''

He promised that he would pay down the national debt, and some in the administration even worried publicly about paying down the debt too fast.

Well, as we have learned, the President's projections were unequivocally wrong and worries about paying down the debt were completely misplaced.

Over the last 6 years, the President and Republicans in Congress-- after enacting the most reckless fiscal policies in American history-- have turned a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion into record budget deficits and additional debt of more than $3 trillion.

In fact, the amount of foreign-held debt has more than doubled under the Bush administration--from about $1 trillion in 2001 to $2.1 trillion today.

And, interest payments on the national debt have increased from $206 billion in 2001 to a projected $256 billion under the President's budget for fiscal 2008--consuming more than 20 percent of all individual income taxes.

Let me say, too, that until the American people spoke last November and elected Democratic majorities in Congress, the President never--not once--budgeted the costs of the on-going war in Iraq, which today stand at more than $400 billion, with another $100 billion being considered.

Thus today, Mr. Chairman, with this budget written and offered by Chairman Spratt, House Democrats will take our Nation in a new direction and begin to clean up the fiscal train wreck left by Republicans.

Our budget is a statement of our values and priorities, demonstrating our unwavering commitment to defend our Nation, grow our economy, protect our children and strengthen families, preserve our plant, and ensure that the Federal Government is accountable and efficient.

First, this fiscally responsible Democratic budget will bring the Federal budget back to balance by 2012. Over the next 5 years, the cumulative deficit in our budget is $234 billion lower than the President's budget.

Our budget strictly adheres to the pay-as-you-go budget rules that were reinstated in January by the new majority, and which Republicans allowed to expire in 2002. The Concord Coalition even says this budget is ``a successful first test of how seriously they [House

Democrats] plan to abide by [the PAYGO] rule.''

Furthermore, this Democratic budget invests in our priorities without increasing the deficit. It provides for a robust defense, boosting Homeland Security funding and providing $3.5 billion more for veterans' services than the President's request for 2008.

It also makes critical investments in education, children's health care, transportation infrastructure, and alternative energy research and development--while rejecting the President's request to cut Head Start, LIHEAP, COPS and First-Responder programs, and community development block grants.

And, our budget accommodates immediate relief for the tens of millions of middle-income households which would otherwise be subject to the alternative minimum tax--while calling for the extension of middle-class tax cuts that are not due to expire until December 31, 2010.

This is a budget that we can be proud of. And, it stands in stark contrast to the extraordinarily irresponsible policies of the last six years.

I urge all of my colleagues: vote for fiscal responsibility and a bright future for our children. Vote for the budget that reflects our values and meets the needs of the American people. Vote for this Democratic budget.