Healthy Hospitals Act of 2007

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the esteemed minority leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to our minority whip, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself 6 minutes, and I'm going address the House in the well.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to start off by thanking my friends from New Jersey and South Carolina. They did put together a credible budget that adds up. We did, too.

Budgets are about priorities; they're about values; they're about what way you think the country should go on a fiscal ship. Let me walk through our budget and how it's different.

Number one, my friend from New Jersey and the chairman himself said that by calling our budget that makes today's tax policy a permanent tax cut, I want to thank them for saying that. By keeping tax rates where they are today, which is what we propose, a tax cut, then the opposite of that is a tax increase. They have proven my point. Their budget raises taxes.

Now, let me simply show you, Mr. Chairman. This red line is the baseline that the Democrats have chosen to adopt for their budget. This blue line is the baseline we've chosen on revenues to adopt for our budget. The blue line says, make the child tax credit permanent, repeal the marriage penalty forever, make the income tax rate not go up, keep the death tax repealed, keep the lowered tax rate on capital gains and dividends. What does the Democrat budget do? It raises taxes $683 billion on everybody, not just rich people.

What do we do on the alternative minimum tax? Here's what the Democratic budget proposes to do: It proposes to patch it for a year by swapping it out with another tax increase. Then, by 2009, about 30 million people are going to get hit by it; 2010, 31 million people. On and on and on. We propose to make sure no new people get hit by the alternative minimum tax, then we phase it out completely. That's point two of what our budget achieves.

Point three, and I think you're going to hear this a lot, we cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cutting here, cutting there. You hear this sort of legislative gobbledygook about function 920. Well, as we looked at the Democratic budget, we really couldn't find any savings, but we did, we found a sliver of savings in the budget. Where was that sliver of savings kept? Function 920.

What matters in a budget resolution are two numbers, the discretionary number, the 302(a) we call that, we do that, and the direction to the committees, we do that. We do it just like the Democrats did it. That's how we wrote our budget. But there's a difference. You may not be able to see this. For those who are watching on TV, you may have to zoom in. The CBO baseline is the red line. The Republican substitute is the blue line. Not a huge gap of difference in spending. We are simply saying let's not spend that money as fast, and by controlling the growth and the increase in spending, we can make sure we don't raise taxes on the American people. We can repeal the alternative minimum tax. That's the difference in values between the two of us.

Let me give it to you in a different way. What we Republicans are proposing to do is, instead of spending $15.82 trillion over the next 5 years, let's instead spend $15.32 trillion over the next 5 years. Don't spend 15.8, spend 15.3. What's the difference? We're not cutting the child tax credit in half. We're not bringing back the marriage tax penalty. We're not raising every single income tax payer's tax rates across the board. We're not raising the tax on pensions and 401(k)s by raising the tax on dividends and capital gains, and we're not going to keep taxing people when they die. At the end of the day, though, what are we doing for our children and our grandchildren? That's what we should be talking about in budgeting.

Budgets are moral documents. There is a moral imperative before this country, before this Congress, and that moral imperative is, what are we doing for future generations? In just one program, in just one program, the Medicare program, one of the most important programs in the history of the Federal Government, the Democrats' budget proposes to increase its debt by $11 trillion. The debt for Medicare right now stands at $34 trillion; that's the unfunded liability. What are the Democrats doing by doing nothing, by going 5 years with blinders on? $45 trillion. That breaks down to $395,000 per household, each household would owe to make Medicare whole.

What are we doing? We're reforming the program. We're making it work better. We're giving it changes that are needed so that we can make it sustainable, so we can save the program for the baby boomers.

We lower the Medicare debt and unfunded liability by $11 trillion to 23. The Democrats raise the debt to Medicare alone by $11 trillion; we reduced it by $11 trillion. At the end of the day, it's about priorities.

We also call for a 1-year moratorium on earmarks. We're simply saying, let's just take a time-out from pork for a year in Congress. What do we achieve with that? By not doing earmarks for 1 year and by saving that money in this budget, we can make sure we don't raise taxes on every household by $500 per child. We can make sure we don't return to the days of taxing people when they're married. Just those two things can be accomplished by saying ``no'' to earmarks for a year, having a time-out, saying let's have Democrats and Republicans from both parties from both the Senate and the House get together and figure out how to clean up this system and, in the meantime, save the money. So we don't tax people for having kids and we don't tax people for being married.

At the end of the day, you're going to hear all this rhetoric about cuts, about devastation, about how wrong it is and how immoral it is. We're simply saying, instead of spending $15.8 trillion, spend $15.3 trillion. We're still increasing spending, but let's not increase it as fast as Washington has been spending it so we can save that money, so we can make sure we don't raise taxes on Americans. That's what our budget does.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to simply say to my friend from Illinois, cutting military benefits? Where did that one come from? Not true, not even anywhere in our budget. You know what? Medicare goes up, spending goes up. Education? Spending increases. I don't know where these cuts are coming from that he's talking about, but that's not in our budget.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, our assistant minority whip, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to make three points.

The gentleman's revenue chart makes our point. After the dot-com bubble, we went into recession and revenues went down. After the tax cuts, and his own chart makes the point clear, revenues went up.

Point number two, this budget, the Democratic budgets, has the single largest increase in the national debt in any given year in the history of the country.

Point number three, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman just acknowledged more or less, their budget raises taxes. We don't believe we should be raising taxes at a time when people are paying a lot just to live in a time when we're about to go into recession.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the vice-ranking member of the Budget Committee (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a senior member of the Budget Committee, (Mr. Hensarling).

Will the gentleman yield for a friendly point on that?

The gentleman is right. Earmarks proliferated under Republican watch. You're right about that. Both parties are guilty. That is why we should have a moratorium and clean the system up.

Will the gentleman yield on that point? This budget is a 1-year, for-the-rest-of-the-Congress moratorium.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield myself 1 minute simply to praise the majority leader before he leaves because he has been a man who has sincerely discussed and talked about the need to reform entitlements most of his career. And we need to talk to each other more often. I want to praise him for his leadership on entitlements.

I also want to say that this budget proposes to borrow more in one year from foreign governments than any has in history. Also, Mr. Chairman, let's take a look at the 2003 taxes.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Reclaiming my time, my point is the Democrats' budget, the Spratt budget, has the single largest increase in national debt in any given year, which comes from largely foreign governments these days.

My other point was I understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle are so dismissive of these tax cuts in 2003. Only three Democrats who are here today voted for them. All but three of them voted against them. They voted against reducing the marriage tax penalty. They voted against expanding the child tax credit. They voted against lowering tax rates across the board. They voted against lowering dividends and capital gains and repealing the death tax.

I simply would say that, as this chart shows you, even after all of those tax cuts, look what happened. Receipts went up. Four straight years of income tax receipts increased. Do you know why? People went to work. They got jobs. They paid taxes. Economic growth, even at those lower tax rates.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

I want to inquire of the time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to who has the right to close. There seems to be difficulties about that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Chairman, I will just take 30 seconds for myself.

I would simply say our budget does not have the veterans fee increases. That is in the President's budget. That is not in our budget.

Also, our budget does not cut Medicare and Medicaid by a half a trillion dollars. Under our budget, Medicare and Medicaid increases every year, one year after the other. We simply think it should not increase as fast as it is because we want to make it more solvent.

Third point, they say this is a new vision budget that they are proposing. All they are really doing is bringing us a CBO baseline and slapping another $280 billion on top of it. That's what their budget is. The problem is that the CBO baseline requires the largest tax increase in history. That's what we don't support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the new Member from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the chairman of the Budget Committee, are you the last person? You are going to close next, no more speakers on your side; is that right?

All right. I will address the House from the well for the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left?

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

First of all, I would like to say thank you to a few people. I would like to take this moment to recognize the hard work of the minority staff of the Budget Committee.

I want to thank Austin Smythe, our new staff director; Chauncey Goss, Pat Knudson, Charlene Crawford, Tim Flynn, John Gray, Jim Herz, Charlotte Ivancic, Angela Kuck, Paul Restuccia, Jon Romito, Stephen Sepp and Clete Willems; and our interns, Sigurd Neubauer, Dustin Antonello, and Ryan Michaels.

I am very fortunate to have very bright, very talented, and very dedicated coworkers on the Budget Committee. I also want to thank the chairman for being a gentleman and for his staff for being professional as well.

I have a problem with the budget the chairman has brought to the floor. We have a different vision. It's good that we have these choices. We owe the American people a choice. We owe them two different visions to choose from in this country.

That's what's good about elections. Lately, the differences have been muddled. I'm glad we are making them more clear. What do we want to do with our budget?

We believe that we should do a few things. We should balance the budget, number one, and we shouldn't raise taxes. We think that it's really tough for people to afford just the cost of living today. You are filling up your gas pump at the highest prices you have ever paid before. You are paying health care costs the highest you have probably ever paid before. Food prices are up $70 a month for the average family these days.

The last thing the American taxpayer needs is a big tax increase, an average of $3,000 per family per year. That's what the Democrat budget has.

Now, the Democrats like to say they have this policy document in their budget. On page 48, it's the policy that we don't want these taxes to go up. Then they say, later on, but we are balancing the budget.

The first 27 pages are ones that matter in this budget, the numbers. They can't have it both ways. They can't look the American people in the eye and say we are balancing the budget and we are not raising taxes, because

the only way they balance the budget, you can bring out all these left- of-center experts that tell you otherwise, but according to the numbers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the only way they balance the budget is by enacting the largest tax increase in American history.

So the question is, at this time of economic uncertainty, at this time of job loss, at this time where we possibly could go into a recession, at this time of high prices of living, can we afford the Democrats' tax hike? I would like to know. I would like to get e-mails and calls from people to know, can we afford this?

What is our vision? Our vision is to balance the budget without raising taxes. The key thing is we have got to save money. We are not even proposing to cut spending. We are saying instead of spending $15.832 trillion over the next 5 years, let's spend $15.32 trillion over the next 5 years. Instead of growing spending at 5.2 percent, let's grow it at 3.8 percent.

In that, we are saying let's put a down payment for reform on our children and grandchildren so we can make Medicare and Social Security more solvent, so we can say to the seniors of this country we want Social Security and Medicare to last for you and for our kids.

But we also say, this Congress is broken. Most people get that. We don't call earmarks congressional initiatives or investments; it's pork. If we just do away with the pork for 1 year, we can put a down payment on making sure we don't have our taxes increased. For 1 year, we can make sure we don't raise taxes on everybody who has children by $500 per child. We can make sure we are not going to tax people simply because they are married if Congress just says ``no'' for pork for a year.

So what's the question? Do we want pork or paychecks? More money in workers' paychecks or more pork up here in Washington?

I agree that earmarks are necessary and are a function of this branch of government. It's out of control. It's broken. It needs to be fixed.

Let's stop them for a year, fix this problem so that it has the integrity and the faith that the American people deserve. While we are doing that, let's balance the budget without raising taxes. That is what our budget does.

Yet you hear this same old thing in Washington every year. What they always say is, if you are doing anything other than spending as much as they want, you are cutting spending. If you are not throwing all this money at new programs, you are cutting spending, you are hurting the veterans, you are hurting children, you are hurting people, you are doing this, you are doing that. We are simply saying we need to control our spending in this town.

You see, Washington doesn't have a tax revenue problem. Plenty of money is coming in. Washington has a spending problem. We have got to get our handle on that spending.

By controlling that spending, by growing it at a slower pace, by putting a down payment on reform, by making Medicare more solvent, we can do those things while we balance the budget without raising taxes.

That's the choice. We can have their plan with the largest tax increase in history, more and more and more spending, more earmarks, more pork, less money in our paychecks, or we can have our plan: control spending, balance the budget, keep more money in your paychecks.

Because you know what? Paychecks aren't going as far as they used to. They don't cover as much groceries, as many gas tanks. They don't cover as much of health care bills as they used to. We believe it's the people's money; they believe it's Washington's money. That's the basic difference at the end of the day.

We believe people ought to keep more of their own money because it is their money. They believe it's Washington money, and they want more of it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I think it bears remembering that 8 short years ago the budget of this government was $236 billion in surplus. Since 2001, we have experienced, on the watch of this administration, the largest deficits, nominal deficits, in American history, and an accumulation of debt that's enough to blow the mind. The debt of this country was $5.7 trillion when Mr. Bush came to office. When he leaves office, it will be $10 trillion. So that explains why we are skeptical, if you will, and even more skeptical and dubious when we look at the substitute resolution that has been brought to the floor, about which the leader barely spoke until he got to the very end of his presentation a few minutes ago.

To find the real numbers in this resolution, the leader said that this is addressed to deal with a spending problem, not a revenue problem. So as we look through the spending side of the resolution, we have to go all the way to an obscure account called function 920 Allowances to find where the real action is.

Now, this function is typically an allowance function where we have things we haven't decided how to assign yet and put into allowances because we know it is a catch-all account until some decision is made as to how to treat it.

Typically, therefore, you find smaller amounts in this account; but in this particular case, in this particular resolution, $817 billion in additional cuts are called for.

If you look at the Republican resolution, initially it seems to be providing current services for just about every function. But then you get to function 920 and you see that what has been provided is taken back. And when you ask where these cuts are distributed, who bears the brunt of $817 billion in cuts over a 5-year period of time, there is no real answer because they're unallocated. We've heard them say they've added a billion dollars to veterans health care; but once they begin allocating the $817 billion, that billion dollars is likely to be wiped out.

The same can happen to defense and nondefense programs. We can't say, because $817 billion is left unresolved tucked away in this account called function 920. This is the first black hole in this budget.

This budget then goes on. You can do a little arithmetic and figure out that $405 billion is assigned to cuts in domestic discretionary spending, $417 billion is assigned to mandatory cuts. Mandatory cuts are entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; and if you look at the accounts here, you will find that basically it appears that the Ways and Means Committee is being directed to save $253 billion, is presumably out of Medicare; the Energy and Commerce Committee is being asked, told, directed to save that $116 billion out of Medicaid. These are not just small cuts, minor adjustments that you would normally find in function 920. These are emasculating cuts for programs that are critically important.

Then when we come to the reconciliation provisions, we find that the Republicans' substitute anticipates at least another $1.1 trillion in tax reduction. How that's allocated, we can't tell for sure; but the tax cuts have to be reconciled against the mandatory spending cuts. When you do that, what we find is the tax cuts equal $1.1 trillion; the mandatory spending cuts equal $412 as a $739 billion addition to the deficit. It worsens the deficit rather than improving the deficit. That's the second black hole in this particular budget.

Reconciliation actually works as a problem instead of improves it. We know that the other side intends to repeal the alternative minimum tax after 3 years. We know also that they intend to extend the tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003. The total of these would come to $2.5 trillion easily over a period of 5 to 10 years; and if that's the case, the third hole, the third hole that this resolution leaves is a big hole in the bottom of the budget.

So what we've got here is work that is not really a completed product. It is not a finished product because function 920 leaves $817 billion still to be distributed, still to be determined. By whom? Apparently by the appropriators or someone like this, but not today on the floor. When you vote for this today, it has tremendous consequences.

Let me just offer one illustration of what the consequence might be.

After the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, which are truly sizable, they are starkly large, there is a cut called for of $115 billion in savings by the Education and Labor Committee. Now, where would the Education and Labor Committee go to get such cuts? They would go to student loans.

We have just done something phenomenal. In last year's budget, we were able to make some rearrangements and reduce the interest rate over time and subsidize student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. A phenomenal accomplishment. This indicates that the reduction in interest would be abolished, reversed, as one way of achieving that direction to save $115 billion.

We just passed a College Cost Reduction and Access Act. One of the things it did would take Pell Grants up to $5,400 over time. That, too, would have to be repealed in order to meet $115 billion.

So watch out for the black holes. Watch out for the things that won't easily appear as you read the language here. If anyone votes for this, we are voting, in effect, in my opinion, to go back to where we were over the last 7 years in a period of endless deficits and mountainous debts. This is not the way to go. This is not good work. This is not a finished product, and we should not support this as an amendment to the base bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House, Mr. Hoyer, the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

We have heard throughout this debate the charge repeatedly that we are raising taxes by as much as any tax increase since the history of time. The charge won't really bear itself out. But let me just turn to third parties. Don't take it from me, let me turn to third parties who have a tremendous interest in the Federal budget and in the deficit in particular. None is more respected or more truly nonpartisan than the Concord Coalition, and here is what the Concord Coalition says:

``Allowing some of the tax cuts to expire would not be the result of Congress' raising taxes. It would be the result of sunsets that were included when those tax cuts were originally enacted to avoid the level of fiscal scrutiny that PAYGO is designed to ensure.''

Now, I have a chart here which is a replica of our famous eye chart to test your visual acuity. I am not sure whether you can see it, but the bottom line is instructive. We will reach surplus, starting from a CBO baseline, our budget will take us to surplus by the year 2012. That surplus will continue throughout time, 2012, 2013. And if you total that surplus up between 2012 and 2018, the total amount you get is $1.4 trillion.

Out of that $1.4 trillion in surpluses, a lot of money can be derived if we so choose to offset tax cuts. And toward that end, we have pledged ourselves as specifically and explicitly as we possibly can in the budget resolution before you in commitment to the middle-income tax relief. And anyone who has any doubt of this should come and read this paragraph in our budget resolution itself, not in the report, it is in the budget resolution itself, which says the following:

``It is the policy of this resolution to minimize the fiscal burdens on middle-income families and children and grandchildren, to provide immediate relief for tens of millions of middle-income families who would otherwise be subject to the AMT, the alternative minimum tax,'' and, by the way, we provide a 1-year patch. Talk about tax cuts, we have got a tax cut, and it is offset in our bill.

To extend the child tax credit we commit ourselves; to extend the marriage penalty relief, we commit ourselves; to eliminate estate taxes on all but a small fraction of estates, we are committed to that; to extend the research and experimentation tax credit, we are committed to that; to extend the deduction for State and local sales taxes; to extend the deduction for small business expenses; to enact a tax credit for schools.

This resolution assumes that the cost of enacting these policies is offset by reforms within the Internal Revenue Code that promote a fairer distribution of taxes across families and generations and economic efficiency and higher rates of tax compliance. And we

put money in the bill for program integrity, for the IRS to bear down and try to close the tax gap.

When you take what we can reap from doing that, it may not be as great as it would seem since the tax gap is estimated to be $500 billion, when you add to that the $1.4 trillion in surpluses per our projection of our budget, you have a lot to work with, not just for tax relief, but for other things as well. Debt retirement, the retirement of the baby boomers, all of these things will be demanding.

That is why we put this decision off until a later time. It is not pressing now. It doesn't have to be committed to now. The tax cuts don't expire until December 31, 2010. In the interim, nobody's taxes are going up because of what is done here on the House floor today, and nobody's taxes are going down, because it doesn't work that way.

Over time, we think that we have got a partial solution here. If we can simply adhere to the budget that we are proposing in House Concurrent Resolution 312, we believe that we can produce surpluses along this bottom line, a substantial portion of which can be used to offset tax cuts.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

I reserve the right to close. I have no further speakers.

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

Mr. Chairman, like Mr. Ryan, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to the staff on both sides: Tom Kahn, Sarah Abernathy, Ellen Balis, Arthur Burris, Linda Bywaters, Barbara Chow, Marsha Douglass, Stephen Elmore, Chuck Fant, Jason Freihage, Jose Guillen, Jennifer Hanson- Kilbride, Dick Magee, Sheila McDowell, Diana Meredith, Gail Millar, Morna Miller, Namrata Mujumdar, Kimberly Overbeek, Kitty Richards, Diane Rogers, Scott Russell, Marcus Stephens, Naomi Stern, Lisa Venus, Greg Waring, Andrea Weathers, and interns Les Braswell and Tina Shah.

We have had a fast track on which to bring this resolution out of committee onto the floor to passage. Without their assistance, long nights, weekends, you name it, we certainly could not have done it. We certainly could not have done it without the presentation we put on the last 2 days. To them, I am deeply indebted for all of their help, both sides of the aisle, my staff in particular, which I think is one of the best committee staffs of any committee on the Hill in either House.

If I had a chart of my choice, I would have a counterpart to Mr. Ryan's chart, which said, can we afford the Democrats' tax? It would say, can our children afford the Republicans' debt tax? Because the legacy of this administration, 8 years, is nearly $5 trillion in additional debt, a phenomenal increase in debt that will have to be borne by our children.

When I say that our first objective in taking on this budget was to move it to balance, that's not some economic goal. That's not some green eyeshade objective. That's because I think we are morally wrong in leaving this mountain of debt to our children and our grandchildren.

If I had a chart, it would say just that, because I would assign the blame, the primary blame, to our Republican colleagues for the last 7 years.

We have brought to this floor a budget resolution, the base bill on which we will vote. After we vote on the Ryan amendment, we will vote on the base bill. I would ask for a vote against the Ryan amendment and for the base bill, H. Con. Res. 312, which is the Democratic-reported budget resolution.

We set as our first objective balancing the budget within a reasonably foreseeable period of time. The day we chose was 2012, and we hit that day. In fact, by our calculations, using CBO numbers, we will have a surplus that year under certain assumptions of $178 billion. That surplus will grow as time moves on; and by the year 2018, we will have accumulated $1.4 billion in surpluses. Now, I know they will be dissipated and used for other purposes, but I am suggesting here and have been suggesting that is one of the ways that we will pay for the tax cuts, particularly the middle-income tax cuts to which we have explicitly committed ourselves. That is one way we will make certain that they are cared for and extended.

Secondly, even though we are committed to balancing the budget, we are also morally committed to doing other things that shouldn't be held up or put aside while we try to bring our books in order, one of which is the education of our children. The President's budget basically flat funds education for the next 5 years.

I am proud to say that our budget provides $7.3 billion, $7.1 billion more than the President requested in his budget for the education of our children.

And watch out for education when they begin to, if you adopt the Ryan resolution, when they begin to distribute these undistributed, unallocated cuts, because education is right there in the bore sights.

Secondly, veterans health care. Of all of the promises government makes, the promises we make to our veterans ought to be upheld. And right now we have an increasing caseload. Therefore, we are proposing $3.6 billion over and above current services in order to pay for the additional case loads.

CHIP, children's health insurance. I am proud to claim a little paternity there. I was involved in 1997 when we created the program in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Now we are saying that we can balance our budget and still balance our priorities by seeing that our children, all of our children who don't have health insurance, can get health insurance. We provide for that. We provide for that in this budget resolution.

Finally, we provide for innovation, competitiveness, energy, research, things that will keep our economy on a competitive edge. For all of these reasons, we think we have brought to the

floor a good budget resolution which is worthy of the support of not just the Democrats on this side, but Republicans as well. It moves us toward balance, and it has balanced priorities. It is good for America and good for our economy.

I, therefore, request a vote in favor of the Spratt resolution, H. Con. Res. 312, which is the base bill and against the Ryan resolution which, if it were adopted, and I don't think it will be, but were it to be adopted, it would displace our bill. Vote for the base bill, H. Con. Res. 312, and vote to do these things that are so important to our economy, our country, our families, and our children. This is a good bill and I commend it to you for your support today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I'm always interested to listen to some of the representations made on this floor. I have been here some time, as all of you know.

Ronald Reagan said ``trust but verify.'' For 27 years, all but 8 of those with Republican Presidents, I have heard representations from the floor by Republicans about what their deficits were going to do.

For every one of those 27 years that Republicans were President of the United States, every one without exception, we ran huge deficits. And this year will be no different. The Republicans have had monopoly on policy-making in this town for essentially 7 years. This past year, we had some authority because the American people wanted change. But clearly, the President of the United States would not agree with us, and we had to do what the President would agree to so that, essentially, without restraint, the Republicans have had, for the last 7 years, the authority to do whatever they wanted to do.

The first 8 years I was here, Ronald Reagan was President. He ran $1 trillion in deficits. Then George Bush became President, a little over $1 trillion. This President, a little over $1.6

trillion. President Clinton was President for 8 years, only 8 years that we have had the Presidency, and America ran a net surplus.

So when you hear the protestations of the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee and the gentleman who just spoke from Texas, listen to them, but verify. Look at the record of Republican fiscal irresponsibility undiminished in the 27 years I have been here.

Mr. Ryan, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I have very substantial differences on how you get from here to there, is he correct that we need to look at our entitlement system? He is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, as he knows, I went to the Senate and testified on behalf of a resolution that does that. There is a resolution here that does that, as well. We have to do that. There is no alternative.

Have they done that over the last 7 years of this Presidency? They did not. Did we do it in 1983 with Ronald Reagan as President, Tip O'Neill as Speaker of the House? We did. And we made Social Security secure for the next 60 years. But when we were running up those deficits that Ronald Reagan said we were not going to run up, the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid crisis that confronts us was decades away.

Today, the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. It is years away. However, the solution is not to cut medical services for senior citizens and to cut education for our college students. The solution is not to put the car in reverse. The solution, as Ross Perot said, is to lift up the hood and fix it. And that is what the Spratt budget is doing. The Spratt budget is saying to all the Members of this House and to this Congress, we must act responsibly. Responsibly is not only acting fiscally responsibly, but also investing responsibly in the future of our country.

I would urge my colleagues to reject this tired, tired, tired shibboleth about ``the biggest tax increase in history.'' Frankly, the biggest per capita real tax increase in my tenure was under Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan in 1982. And then, of course, George Bush was defeated, presumably because he tried to help balance the budget. And in fact, George Bush made a significant contribution because it was the George Bush agreement on pay-as-you-go, the 1997 Newt Gingrich-Bill Clinton agreement on pay-as-you-go that got us those 4 years of surplus of which I have spoken.

John Spratt was involved in the leadership of that effort. Tom Kahn of the committee was involved in that effort. And as a result of that effort, we brought surpluses, 4 years. Surprisingly, one of those years was a real surplus. And when I say ``real surplus,'' notwithstanding the Social Security income that we are counting to get to either balance or surplus which is really not what we should be doing, I agree with that, on either side of the aisle.

But ladies and gentlemen, John Spratt's budget meets the test of verification. It meets the test of reality. It meets the test of saying we need to pay for what we buy and not pass it along to our children and grandchildren. The budget vote is one of the most important that we make. Not because the American people really will look closely at the budget or because they think it has great consequence in their lives. It is very difficult to see the consequence of the budget because the budget then needs to be carried out in appropriations, authorizations, and policy.

But ladies and gentlemen of this House, we know that it speaks to whether or not we have the courage of our appropriations. The gentleman that spoke before me from Texas talked about earmarks. I am always interested to hear Republicans talk about earmarks. They came to Congress and quadrupled, quadrupled, four times, the number of earmarks.

I am always pleased to yield to a friendly point. Do I get to make the judgment as to how friendly it is?

I am reclaiming my time.

The tears, the crocodile tears that flow from the eyes of the ranking member of the Budget Committee about this awful thing that we called ``congressional investments.'' It is so sad that for 6 years they were unable to discipline themselves. And by the way, last year, they were unable to discipline themselves. And guess what? This year they wanted a moratorium for 6 months.

You have gone much longer than your caucus wanted to go. I understand that. But the conference wanted to go for 6 months.

I thought it was such an interesting proposal because it meant ``we will go just long enough until we really do appropriations and when it really means something.'' Too often, ``hypocrisy, thy name is ourselves.'' I say it on both sides of the aisle.

Now, I'm for, as everybody knows, congressional initiatives. But I am for paying for them. When we quadrupled them, we borrowed for them from the Chinese, from the Germans, and from the Saudis. As a matter of fact, this President, as my friend knows, has borrowed more money from foreign governments than all of the other Presidents combined. Trust but verify.

Every year that I have been here, ranking members have risen, one of whom is now the chairman of the OMB, and told me what a bright future it would be if their budgets were adopted. Now, the problem is that sometimes they can't get agreement between Senate Republicans and House Republicans on what that beautiful budget ought to be. We passed a budget last year. We lived within that budget last year. We need to do so this year. And we are trying to pay for things. We had a stimulus we didn't pay for. Some of us were concerned about that, but you can't stimulate and depress at the same time.

So my colleagues in the House, Republicans and Democrats, vote for our children and future generations today. Vote for the John Spratt Democratic budget. Reject this budget that pretends it's going to bring you balance but has never done so once, not once in the 27 years that I have been here. Vote for the Spratt budget. It is good for our country. It is good for our people. It is good for our future.

Let me first thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, John Spratt of South Carolina, for all of his hard work, patience and intelligence in producing this Democratic budget resolution--which is nothing less than a blueprint of our values and priorities.

Let me also thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus for offering their important budget alternatives-- alternatives that reflect our shared commitment to the American people and a stronger America.

Now, before I discuss what I believe to be the vastly superior and realistic Democratic budget, let me briefly address the Republican budget substitute that we are now debating.

I both like and respect the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan. He is a thoughtful, diligent Member.

And, I believe that were it up to him, he might actually try to implement the provisions in the Republican budget substitute.

But the problem, of course, is that he would be fighting a lonely, losing, untenable battle.

This we know: many, many Republicans would not support the deep, draconian cuts to domestic programs called for in their own budget.

The fact is, this Republican budget only reaches balance in 2012 by slashing funding for mandatory programs by $412 billion.

This Republican budget would cut Medicare and safety-net programs; cut Medicaid, thereby jeopardizing health care for more than 50 million children, parents, seniors and disabled Americans; cut--and possibly eliminate--the recently enacted increase in Pell Grants; and cut funding for military retirement and health care.

Furthermore, the Republican budget implies very deep cuts in discretionary programs, devastating public health, education, safety net and infrastructure programs.

This Republican budget fails to reflect the values and priorities of the American people.

In contrast, the Democratic budget continues to move our Nation in a new direction and to clean up the fiscal train wreck caused by failed Republican economic policies over the last 7 years.

Remember, in just 86 months, Republicans have turned projected budget surpluses into

record deficits--including a projected $386 billion this year and another $340 billion next year--and added more than $3 trillion to the national debt, which today stands at $9 trillion.

Our Democratic budget restores fiscal responsibility, adhering to pay-as-you-go budget rules and bringing the Federal budget back to balance by 2012.

It rejects the drastic funding cuts in the Republican substitute and the President's budget, which includes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, State and local law enforcement programs, and environmental protection.

It strengthens our economy, providing crucial funding for our innovation agenda, efficient and renewable energy programs, education, and infrastructure.

It provides tax relief for hard-working Americans, including a reconciliation instruction that provides offsets for a new one-year patch of the alternative minimum tax.

And, our Democratic budget makes America safer, providing for a robust defense, boosting homeland security funding, and rejecting the President's cuts to first responder programs.

This is a budget that we can be proud of. And, it stands in stark contrast to the irresponsible fiscal policies of the current administration and former Republican majorities in Congress.

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.

Will my friend yield on his last point?

I agree with him, and the reason for that, of course, is while you cut revenues, you didn't cut spending when you were in charge.

It is too late to ask you to yield, I take it, on the employment issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 312, the Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2009. This proposal fulfills an important commitment that we have made to the American people by investing in fiscally responsible tax relief to millions of households and in programs that strengthen the economy, make America safer, and help families struggling to make ends meet in an economic downturn.

On February 6, I expressed my strong concerns over the misguided budget request that the President transmitted to Congress. I am very pleased to see that the budget before us today restores many of the important programs that the President proposed to cut, while achieving balance by 2012. It is more vital than ever that we remain responsive to the needs of the American people, while maintaining strong fiscal stewardship to ensure our financial obligations are not passed along to our children and grandchildren.

Any budgetary blueprint that we expect to bolster the economy must also include an investment in education and job training programs that will promote new employment and ensure our workforce can adapt to the jobs of the future. Unfortunately, those programs were not priorities for this Administration. Under the President's proposal, Rhode Island would see $1.5 million less for after-school programs and a cut of almost $6 million for career and technical education. In contrast, the Democratic budget resolution would provide $7.1 billion more than the President for vital education, job training, and social services programs nationwide in 2009.

I am pleased that this resolution addresses the President's failure to make higher education affordable for students with economic challenges, especially in Rhode Island, where college tuition has risen 45 percent in 4 years. This measure also includes crucial funding for the Democratic innovation agenda and the America COMPETES Act, which will enhance our edge in math and science education and research. To maintain our economic advantage in the coming years, our Nation must invest more in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, education.

Also critical to America's economic prosperity is a budget that promotes fiscally responsible tax relief to millions of families struggling to make ends meet. In particular, this measure includes a 1- year patch to keep millions of hard-working, middle-class Americans outside the ever-widening net of the alternative minimum tax, AMT, and it is fully offset. In addition, the Democratic budget will extend the R&D tax credit, which will spur economic growth, create new jobs, and help struggling small businesses regain their competitive edge.

Community development and social services programs will play an important role for businesses and families as we attempt to reclaim our economic prosperity, and I am proud to support a budget that funds these initiatives. This budget restores community and regional development programs, like the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program, which provides vital funding for economic and community development in both urban and rural areas nationwide. The House Democratic budget resolution also reverses cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, and the Weatherization Assistance Program, which helps people actually reduce their energy consumption. These programs are vital to places like Rhode Island where families are struggling with astronomical heating costs.

This budget resolution also includes $1.2 billion more than the President's budget for energy programs. As families face unprecedented costs to heat their homes and put gas in their cars, it is imperative that we fund efficient and renewable energy programs. H. Con. Res. 312 does this by encouraging the production of renewable energy alternatives, increasing energy efficiency, investing in new energy and vehicle technologies, and training workers for ``green collar'' jobs. This resolution also encourages mass transit by increasing funding for Amtrak. I am proud that Rhode Island has already started many of these initiatives, but Democrats recognize that we need to support them on a broad, nationwide basis.

Equally important during this challenging economic time is the continued need for strong health care funding. The Democratic budget measure rejects the President's proposed 10-year cut of over $500 billion to both Medicare and Medicaid, two vital safety net programs serving our Nation's elderly, low-income, and disabled citizens. It also provides

an increase over the President's proposed discretionary health care budget to fund programs that emphasize support for disease-prevention, food safety, and access to quality health care for underserved populations. I am also very pleased to see that this budget will accommodate up to a $50 billion increase to expand children's health insurance to cover millions of uninsured children.

Health care also remains the highest priority for our Nation's veterans and the brave men and women currently serving in our Armed Forces. This resolution appropriately addresses veterans' needs by rejecting the President's proposed new fees and increasing veterans funding by $3.6 billion relative to the amount needed to keep pace with inflation. This will provide increased resources for the VA to treat 5.8 million patients in 2009, including 333,275 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the VA will play a larger role in the coming years as more servicemembers return from ongoing conflicts.

As the Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology, I am proud to support a budget that properly invests in our homeland security. Unlike the President's budget, this resolution provides robust funding for programs important to State and local law enforcement in Rhode Island, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which awarded $34.8 million to Rhode Island from 2004 to 2007, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, LETPP, from which Rhode Island received $11.5 million from 2004 to 2006. By passing the Democratic budget, we can give local law enforcement officials in Rhode Island the tools they need to continue to keep our citizens safe.

The Democratic budget resolution also makes America safer by investing in our Nation's transportation systems, including highways and waterways, providing sufficient funding as well as a reserve fund to facilitate new infrastructure initiatives. This budget also meets the President's funding level for the Department of Defense, but shifts resources to high priorities such as nuclear nonproliferation programs, which was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Finally, this resolution responds to the current hardships faced by our servicemembers by funding quality of life improvements for the troops as well as their families.

In this time of uncertainty, the American people are relying on us as decisionmakers to put forth a plan that will restore our economic prosperity, strengthen our national security, provide relief where it is needed, and promote fiscal discipline. Today, I am pleased to rise in support of a Democratic proposal that will accomplish each one of these goals. This budget resolution represents a new roadmap toward achieving the true priorities of Americans, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding and congratulate him and the Republican members of the Budget Committee for a job well done in putting this budget together.

I also want to thank our colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, the chairman of the committee for their budget. Although I'll be critical of it, still, the gentleman did his work, and the House is considering the budget at the time of the year the House should be considering its budget, in March, and in early March, which has not always happened.

When we think about our budgets, it's not as complicated as people think. It's about revenue coming into the Federal Government and revenue going out of the Federal Government to provide benefits for the American people. And it's not just about numbers for this year. It's about numbers for next year and over the next 5 or 10 years that we need to look at so that there is a balance between revenues and expenses.

Clearly, over the last 40 years, there's been a big imbalance between what goes out and what comes in. And the fact is that in 36 of those 40 years, the Federal Government has run a deficit, at least 36. I think 36 of the 40 years we've run a deficit. We balanced the budget in the late 1990s when Republicans controlled the Congress by holding the line on spending while revenues to the Federal Government were growing in a healthy economy, held the line on spending at or near the rate of inflation, and revenues surpassed expenses for the first time in some almost 30 years.

But here we are again, back in a situation where we're spending more than what's coming in, mostly as a result of the attacks of 9/11, the aftershocks to our economy. But if you look at the revenue over the last 5 years, revenues have grown at 11 percent annually in each of the last 4 years, going back through 2006. And even in 2007, revenues to the Federal Government grew, estimated to grow at about 8 to 9 percent. And so revenue growth to the Federal Government, I think, has been healthy since we reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends, per child tax credit, and relief for the marriage penalty back in 2001 and 2003.

And so you can see that reducing tax rates doesn't mean less revenue to the Federal Government. Matter of fact, you can look back over the last 27 years, other than a couple of small exceptions, there has been a significant effort to lower tax rates, income tax rates, capital gain tax rates; and as a result, there has been more economic activity in our country, more people employed in our country, and more people paying taxes.

And so if you look at the marginal tax rates today as compared to 1980, you see that those tax rates are significantly lower. Yet the Federal revenue, the taxes that American families pay, continues to come into Washington at very high levels of growth on an annual basis

I would argue that making the capital gains tax rate permanent, making the rate on dividends permanent, would give more people reasons to invest in America's economy allowing those rates of growth in revenue to the Federal Government to continue.

And so Washington doesn't have a revenue problem. Washington has a spending problem. And when you look at the Washington spending problems, it really rolls down to several things: one is controlling the growth of domestic discretionary spending. I think, by and large, if you look at the budgets that we've seen over the last 15 years, we've done a fairly good job of controlling domestic discretionary programs and the spending that goes there. There are some exceptions, and there is certainly some room to eliminate some of what I would call wasteful Washington spending. But if you look at the increases, most of it has gone into the area of defense.

The real problem that we have is that we continue to have an older America. The number of Americans over 65 continues to grow and will grow significantly as I and other baby boomers begin to retire.

And so when you look at the problem today in terms of the spending problem, it is in the entitlement area. And the underlying budget that the majority has put forward does nothing to reform entitlement spending. I came here in 1990 because I thought that programs like Social Security and Medicare were unsustainable unless Congress was willing to act to protect those programs.

And here we are in my 18th year. We've nibbled around the edges of a couple of these programs, but have never really done anything that would make these programs sustainable for tomorrow and for succeeding generations. As I have said hundreds of times on this floor, our generation has made promises to ourselves that our kids and grandkids can't afford.

So if you look at the budget being presented by myself and our Republican colleagues, we assume that the capital gains rate of 15 percent will be made permanent. We assume that the rate on dividends at 15 percent is made permanent and the per-child tax credit is put in permanent law as is the marriage penalty, the tax cuts that were put in place on a temporary basis in 2001 and 2003.

So our budget balances over the next 5 years, and it balances because we go in and actually do something about the spending side of the equation.

Now, if you look at the Democrat budget, they assume that the 15 percent capital gains rate goes back to 20 percent. They assume that the 15 percent rate on dividends goes to whatever the marginal tax rate for that taxpayer would be, probably an average tax rate of about 30 percent on dividends, or double that tax, that the marriage penalty comes back in for all Americans and that the $1,000 per-child tax credit goes away.

And I forgot one, of all things: the death tax that we want to see go away completely in 2010. The death tax, under the Democrat proposal, comes back in full force putting the Federal Government back into a competition with the heirs over the balance that we have in people's estates.

But the real issue in the Democrat budget is spending. If you look at the chart I'm holding here, the Democrat budget assumes all of these tax cuts go away. So you have a $683 billion tax increase in their budget, the largest one in American history; and they have it in because if you look at their spending levels, they do nothing about reforming entitlement programs or putting a lid on the growth of domestic discretionary spending.

So I think that the budget that the Republicans are putting forward here is a responsible budget, and I think, frankly, a majority of the American people would agree with me. We ought to keep tax rates low. We ought to encourage economic activity and more economic growth in America that would provide more opportunity for more jobs and better paying jobs in America, and to get the balance, do something constructive about Social Security and Medicare, especially, to modify those programs so that we can save them for future generations.

At some point, we are going to have to ante up to the piper, and the sooner we begin to address the long-term problems in Social Security and Medicare, the better off we will be.

So I would encourage my colleagues to look closely at the budget put together by Mr. Ryan and his Republican colleagues on the Budget Committee, and I ask all of our Members to consider supporting it.