Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2010 through 2013.

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

First of all, let me commend the gentlelady from Michigan and the other colleagues for bringing forth an alternative budget. As a member of the Budget Committee for the past 6 years, I know how difficult it is to put together a budget of this magnitude. It takes a lot of work and a lot of dedication, so I commend my colleagues for doing this.

This is a true substitute budget, Mr. Chairman. It highlights the stark differences between the Democrats' priorities and the Republican priorities. And yes, it does increase taxes by actually more than $1.1 trillion. I think that bears repeating. It increases taxes by more than $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years. This includes actually $427 billion in increases on top of the $683 billion in the underlying Democratic budget.

The differences between the Republican budget priorities and those of my Democrat friends, frankly, are rather clear. They're crystal clear. The Democratic budget that came to the floor yesterday will raise taxes by $683 billion over the next 5 years. Apparently, however, some of my Democratic friends think that that increase is still not enough, so this substitute raises taxes by, as I said before, $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years. Now, however, Mr. Chairman, the Republican substitute that will be offered later today does not raise a single penny in taxes. It contains absolutely no tax increases.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take some time to discuss frankly the underlying Democratic budget.

Last year, the Democratic budget promised to raise taxes by $217 billion, and a lot of us were shocked because that was such a huge tax increase. A lot of us thought that was a lot of money. But this year they offer a newer and, frankly, bolder, more dramatic budget and more dramatic tax increase than last year. The underlying Democratic budget raises taxes by over $683 billion over 5 years. It sets up years and years of even higher spending and higher taxes.

Mr. Chairman, at last week's committee markup, the Budget Committee that I am privileged to serve on, a number of my Republican colleagues and I offered several amendments to extend the widely popular middle class tax provisions. And we're going to hear that this budget and the underlying Democratic budget only raises taxes on the wealthy. Well, we had that debate also in the Budget Committee. So, we offered some amendments to see if, in fact, that maybe they had just made a mistake. And yet, not one of these commonsense tax relief amendments were adopted. Every single Democrat on the committee voted against these amendments.

And I want to talk about what those amendments are, because, again, we're going to hear time and time again, oh, that's tax cuts for the wealthy. Let's talk about the specifics of the amendments that were voted down, that did not receive one single Democratic vote in the committee.

They voted against extending the $1,000 child tax credit. You know, I don't know, maybe it's different in the rest of the country, but in Florida, not only the wealthy have children. And they voted against that, against extending the $1,000 child tax credit. And that's raising taxes on families with children by $51 billion.

They voted against extending the marginal tax rates for all Americans and, thus, increasing taxes by $326 billion. They voted against, Mr. Chairman, eliminating the death tax. Now, I thought we could at least all agree that there should be, as a friend of mine here once said on the floor, ``no taxation without respiration,'' but no, they voted against eliminating the death tax, increasing taxes again by 181 additional dollars.

They voted against extending tax relief for married couples, increasing taxes by $25 billion on married couples.

And, again, I don't know, maybe Florida is different; but at least in the State of Florida not only the wealthy get married. That is a tax increase on every married couple in the entire country.

They voted against extending the 10 percent tax bracket for the very- low-income taxpayers. That's correct: we will hear time and time again, no, we only want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Yes, but then why did they vote against extending the 10 percent tax bracket for the very- low-income taxpayers?

Again, extending the State and local sales deduction for States like Florida, Nevada, and Texas, where people should be able to deduct what they pay in sales taxes because we don't have an income tax, which is deductible in other States, this provision expires this year. But the Democratic budget rejected this deduction, increasing taxes on Floridians and others right away.

My friends on the other side of the aisle claim they support tax relief, and they'll say it time and time again; but, frankly, their actions just don't match their rhetoric.

Those amendments were defeated in committee just a few days ago. Those amendments which are not tax cuts for the wealthy, as we're going to hear, no. They were for middle-class American families in the United States, and they voted against every single one of those amendments. And, again, every single one of them our colleagues on the Democratic side voted against those tax cuts for middle America, for American families, for small businesses, et cetera. Again, not one single Democrat voted for these tax cuts for the middle class.

But these tax provisions affect real people, Mr. Chairman, real American families, workers, and small business owners. Let's take a look at what these tax increases mean. Again, these are real numbers. This is not theory. This is not rhetoric:

A family of four with $50,000 in annual income, not wealthy people but a family of four with $50,000 in annual income, would see its tax bill increase by $2,100. That's $2,100 in tax increases in 2011 as a result of the Democrats' budget. That's a 191 percent increase in their Federal taxes.

Forty-eight million married couples will see their tax bills rise by an average of $3,000; 12 million single women with dependents will face a tax increase of nearly $1,100; 18 million seniors, seniors, will see a tax increase of more than $2,100 in the year 2011; 27 million small business owners, Mr. Chairman, which are the backbone of our economy, which are the job creators in our economy, will see their tax bills increase by over $4,000. More than six million taxpayers who previously had no Federal income tax liability will become subject to the individual income tax in 2011. Again, these are low-income Americans, because, again, unfortunately, the 10 percent bracket has gone away, and also their child deduction will go away.

These are just a few examples, not rhetoric, concrete specific examples of how this amendment and the underlying bill will affect hardworking American families, the American taxpayer.

With this budget, 116 million American taxpayers will see their tax increase by an average of $1,800 in the year 2011. That's actually the underlying bill. With this amendment it would be even higher than that.

I often hear my Democratic friends say that a budget sets priorities. And it's obvious that this budget and this amendment to the budget set priorities. And what are those? More runaway spending and much higher taxes. That's what this budget offers and what this amendment offers. More of the same, just more taxes, more spending, more taxes, more spending, and no reform.

Some people, I guess, believe in this budget, and this amendment shows that some people believe that the Federal Government just doesn't have enough money and that the people

have too much money in their wallets; so the Federal Government needs to take it from them because we can do a better job here. The bureaucracy and those smart men and women in Congress, we know much better how to spend people's money than they do.

But, Mr. Chairman, wait. Like those TV commercials: but wait, there's even more. This budget does absolutely nothing to address the huge entitlements, the crisis that our Nation faces. As entitlement programs continue to grow, this underlying budget contains no instructions to reform them so that we will be able to keep them so that they can continue to serve the people that they are serving and they will not bankrupt those programs and also not bankrupt the country.

Again, the truth is, Mr. Chairman, that Medicare and Medicaid are both growing at more than 7 percent a year. Social Security is growing at 7 percent per year. These huge growth rates are, unfortunately, unsustainable for our economy, for those programs, for our fiscal future. We must tackle this crisis. We must reform them to save those programs and also to make sure that we save the fiscal situation in this country. And if we don't, if we put it off for another 5 years, as this amendment does and as the underlying budget does, it will just make the situation worse. We have to act on that now.

Mr. Chairman, this substitute budget and the underlying Democratic budgets are both deeply flawed. They both raise taxes on hardworking Americans to a level that we have never seen. We know what higher taxes will do. It will kill job creation. I mean, we all agreed to that. When we wanted to make sure that we avoided a recession, what did this Congress do on a bipartisan level? We cut taxes because we know that cutting taxes, on a bipartisan level we know, that helps economic growth. But yet this amendment and the underlying budget will increase taxes on the American people without precedent, at levels that, frankly, have no precedent. And this is just more of the same.

And for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that we vote down this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to recognize, frankly, one of the most talented and one of the most knowledgeable Members in the United States Congress on fiscal matters, that is, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want everybody to kind of listen to this debate, to just listen to see where you hear one reduction in this amendment or in the underlying budget, one reduction in Federal spending, one reduction in waste, one cut in waste, one program that is eliminated, one thing in the Federal Government that should get a little bit less money. Please listen to that, and what you will hear is

just the opposite. More spending. More spending. More spending, more Federal programs, and not one reduction.

Is the Federal Government so efficient there is nothing that can be reduced? I don't think so.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I think if you ask the American taxpayer if it helps our domestic security to increase their taxes by $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years like this amendment does, they would probably tell you that no, and that frankly, it puts their domestic security in great jeopardy, or the $683 billion in tax increases in the underlying Democratic budget. I think obviously the answer would be the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

As you have heard, yes, we have heard time and time again this amendment does, and the underlying budget does, increase spending. And how do they pay for the increased spending? Well, $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years in increased taxes. Let me repeat that: $1.1 trillion in increased taxes. Including who? Who would get taxed? Well, everybody would get a tax increase, including, for example, reducing the child tax credit in half; including raising taxes by not extending the 10 percent tax bracket for the very-low-income taxpayers of this country; including not extending the tax relief for married couples.

This $1.1 trillion in increased taxes would hit every American, every small business, every family, every taxpayer.

If the gentleman would yield, I simply wanted to chime in and compliment the gentlelady as well, my friend from Wisconsin. She and I coauthored an amendment to this budget resolution on this issue.

It makes no sense for child support payments not to go to the children. That is unfortunately what is happening today. And I would very much like to work with the gentlelady and anybody who is interested in coming up with the offsets in the Ways and Means Committee, from which this jurisdiction derives, to find a way to fix this problem. I think this is an area that has wide bipartisan support. And this is one of those areas where I surely would like to think we can come up with the savings to fix this injustice.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains between the two sides.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a senior member of the Budget Committee.

If the gentleman would yield, it is also interesting that after that tax increase, from that tax bracket, the Federal Government actually brought in less money under those higher tax rates.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Chairman, let me inquire as to how much time is remaining for each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a senior member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I first want to start off by congratulating the chairman of the Budget Committee, a good man, a man I have a lot of respect for who has a hardworking staff and a diligent staff. I want to compliment them. These budget resolutions are not easy to write.

He has a tough job because he has to defend this budget. This is a budget I wouldn't want to come to the floor to defend. I just have to bring one point to bear, and I do so respectfully. You cannot say that you are balancing the budget and not raising taxes. It is illogical and axiomatically impossible. Let me explain why.

This red line is the baseline that the Democrats are using for their budget. It is what we also refer to as the CBO baseline. This green line is the baseline minus the tax increases. They are using the red line, not the green line. This means in order for them to achieve a balanced budget, what must happen, what is required to happen, what has to happen, all of these taxes have to be raised, specifically by $683 billion over the next 5 years.

Now, my friend from New Jersey, another very conscientious, skillful Member, said that was a tax vote he regretted not taking. And the Senator from New York at that time, Senator Moynihan, said that was the largest tax increase in American history. That was $240 billion. This one is $683 billion. This is the largest tax increase in American history.

The point is this: You cannot claim you are balancing the budget and not raising taxes because you are relying on these very tax increases to balance the budget. That is what this budget does. Now, no amount of reserve funds, no amount of senses of Congress, no amounts of ``we have delayed the decision on the tax cuts for now'' gets them out of this bind. They can't. It is impossible. You have to have it one way or the other. Either you are not balancing the budget or you are not raising these taxes because, Mr. Chairman, they are not saving any money. There is no savings in this budget.

The piece of paper I have in my hand is more valuable than the amount of savings they have in this budget. This paper, may it cost 1, 2 pennies. That is more money than they are saving in this budget over the next 5 years. In fact, they are expanding spending. They are increasing discretionary spending by $280 billion. What is worse is they are going to add, in just two programs, an unfunded liability of $14 trillion, to just two programs, Medicare and Social Security.

Let's look at the Medicare program. Today, the Medicare unfunded liability, according to David Walker, our GAO Comptroller General, is at $34 trillion. That is an average per household bill of $300,050. Every household in America right now, if we want to make Medicare whole for my children when they need it, 300 grand.

Under this budget, because they do nothing, they are adding $11 trillion to that liability. That is $395,650, almost $400,000 for one household to cover Medicare so my children can maybe get it. That's for our kids. That is wrong.

We have got to address these issues.

Now, Mr. Chairman, surely, there's waste in government. Surely, there's efficiencies we can get. But this budget concludes that there is not. This budget is basically saying, Washington's not wasting any money. All of these earmarks, the 11,000 we passed last year, are perfect, they're justified; we should do 11,000 more. And there's no waste, fraud or abuse anywhere in the Federal Government. In fact, they're doing such a good job in Washington spending our tax dollars, let's give them $280 billion more to spend. And on top of it, given the fact that our entitlements are going bankrupt, given the fact that we have an unsustainable course, let's just add more to the debt; and we're going to raise taxes while we do it. But we won't tell people. We'll pass this kind of cute reserve fund, sense of the Congress that says we really don't want to raise those taxes, but we're balancing the budget. That means you're raising taxes if you're going to balance the budget.

But let's look at the brass tacks. And this is what I want to ask the American people. Can you afford this budget?

People are struggling right now. People are losing jobs. We just finished 52 consecutive months of positive job growth, very impressive growth. Finished, I said. The last couple of months they've been bad months.

Also, prices; the cost of living is going up to America, the cost of health insurance, the cost of food, the cost of filling your gas tank when you take your kids to school, the cost of sending your kids to college. The cost of living is higher and higher, and people's pay checks are not getting as far along as they used to.

And so what does this budget do? It raises their taxes. It says you're going to have to send, on average, three more grand per person to Washington because we don't think Washington has enough of your money. We think Washington's great. There's no waste, there's no inefficiency, no fraud. We, in fact, need more of your taxpayer dollars, you, American men and women of America.

So I'd like to know, is that what America wants? Tell us. Call us, e- mail us. Call your Congressman. Because here's what this bill will do specifically. 116 million taxpayers will see their taxes on average go up $1,800; 84 million women will sustain, on average, a tax increase of $2,121; 48 million married couples will incur an average tax increase of over $3,000. Taxes will increase by an average of $2,323 for 43 million families with children. Some 12 million single women with children will see their taxes increase on average by $1,091. For 18 million elderly individuals taxes will increase by an average of $2,181. Tax bills for 27 million small business owners will rise on average by more than $4,000. And more than 6 million taxpayers who previously owed no taxes at all will become subject to the individual income tax as consequence of these tax increases.

Mr. Chairman, we had an opportunity here. We had an opportunity to do something that I felt would be good and bipartisan. I've heard my colleagues on the other side talk about the need to do this.

We had all these witnesses come to the Budget Committee, saying we've got to get our fiscal house in order, that we owe the next generation a debt-free Nation, that we owe them the mission of health and retirement being fulfilled, which means reforming our entitlement programs.

This budget says for the next 5 years, let's not do any of it. Let's make sure that we're on the glide path so that our kids will pay literally twice what we pay today in taxes, just for our Federal Government today to be there for them when they're our age.

This is a lost opportunity. Under this budget, the unfunded obligation that are Medicare and Social Security themselves go up 37 percent, $14 trillion. I'm upset at the debt that was racked up lately, but it pales in comparison to the debt that this budget proposes to rack up.

So what we really ought to be doing, Mr. Chairman, is we ought to be fixing this budget process, having real budget discipline, real spending caps. We ought to be making reform decisions. And the last thing we ought to be doing in this time of high prices, a tough standard of living to maintain, in this time of economic downturn which quite possibly could come into recession, the last thing we ought to be doing is raising taxes. That is what this budget does.

We will propose a different alternative tomorrow. We will propose a budget that balances the budget without raising taxes by controlling spending. And even in doing that, spending will still go up one year after the other. Instead of spending $15.8 trillion over the next 5 years, we're going to propose to spend $15.3 trillion. And by simply doing that, by simply exerting a little bit of discipline, we're going to make sure that we're not raising these taxes, and we're going to repeal the alternative minimum tax.

One more thing, Mr. Chairman. This earmark problem is getting out of control. Earmarks are an abuse. Some are worthy, some are right, but a lot of them aren't. We've got to control this. We are proposing a real earmark moratorium.

More importantly, we are saying let's take a timeout from earmarks and let's save that money. Our proposal tomorrow will not only have an earmark moratorium, it will save the money from an earmark moratorium. And if Congress just says no to earmarks for 1 year, you know what we can do? We can make permanent the child tax credit and the repeal of the marriage tax penalty. We can say, pass up your earmarks for a year in Congress and don't tax people for getting married. Pass up your earmarks for a year in Congress and don't cut the child tax credit in half.

These are the choices we are being confronted with. These are the choices that we must make. These are the values that we believe. We believe we owe our children a growing economy, a future of a higher prosperity, of a higher standard of living, and one in which the promise of health and retirement security is actually sustainable, is actually made good upon.

That's not what this budget does. There's no way you can split these hairs with the reserve funds, senses of Congress, flowery Washington rhetoric. This budget contains the largest tax increase in American history, not just on wealthy people, on all people. That's wrong. It's not right. We shouldn't do it because Washington doesn't have a tax revenue problem, Washington has a spending problem. Unfortunately, the Democrat budget makes it worse by spending even more money.

There is waste in Washington. There is waste in earmarks. There are entitlements that are out of control. We should confront those, instead of just throwing more money at Washington, because you know where that money comes from? It comes from the hard working men and women of America. It comes from families, it comes from entrepreneurs, it comes from small businesses, it comes from the individual of this country. That's wrong. They should be able to keep more of their own money and we should be able to clean up government.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 14 minutes.

Madam Chairman, today we take up the budget resolution. Passing it, like many things in this House, is never easy, and sometimes contentious. But it is crucially important if we care about fiscal soundness and the future of our country.

Our country faces right now a host of different challenges: the specter of recession, a crunch in the credit markets, rising unemployment, declining family income, constant inflation in the cost of health care, aging infrastructure, and a porous safety net. And that is not to mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing us close to $200 billion this year, and even more dearly in human lives and wounded.

The President's budget for 2009 does little to turn this tide. In fact, the policies of the last 7 years have created some of these problems and compounded others. Eight short years ago, in 2000, our budget was in surplus, big-time surplus. In that year, we had a surplus of $236 billion. Having worked for years to bring the budget to this status, we warned the President and our colleagues across the aisle not to bet it all on a blue-sky forecast; but it was to no avail.

The President's economists looked out 10 years and saw nothing but surpluses, $5.6 trillion in all. We worried that if these rosy projections didn't pan out, we would be right back where we had been, deep in deficit.

Well, the President told the country, in effect, that we could have it all, guns, butter and tax cuts, too, and never mind the deficits.

I'll have to admit it looked as though we were sitting on an island of surpluses, but, in truth, we were surrounded by a sea of debt, of long-term unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, coming due just over the horizon.

Seven years later, under this administration's policies, those surpluses are history. They're gone, vanished, replaced with record deficits and mounting debt.

This one chart here which shows in tabular form the increase in the debt over the last 8 years, says it as simply as we can on one piece of paper. When the President came to office, the debt of this country was $5.7 trillion. When he leaves in a few months, it will probably be close to $10 trillion, more than $4 trillion in debt accumulation on the watch of the Bush administration.

The budget we take up today is no grand solution, I'll grant you that, but it moves us in the right direction. It restores fiscal responsibility, but not to the exclusion of other values that

we hold dear such as our children's education and their good health care. And that's why, right off the bat, we part company with the President's budget and with Mr. Ryan's substitute.

We think Medicare is one of our country's crowning achievements, so we reject his cuts that would emasculate Medicare, in the President's budget, $556 billion over 10 years, and we reject his cuts in Medicaid, $118 billion over 10 years.

The Ryan substitute over 5 years would cut Medicare by $253 billion by our calculation, and Medicaid by $116 billion. We can't vote for that.

We would not wipe out the Social Services Block Grant or cripple the Community Services Block Grants as the President proposes, because we have seen in our own communities the roles they play. They hold up the safety net in an economy where it's sorely needed. And with fuel prices at record highs, the last thing we would slash is LIHEAP and low-income home weatherization. These are minimum benefits for Americans with maximum needs.

Ten years ago when we first ran a surplus, we resolved in both Houses to use some of that surplus each year to double the resources of the National Institutes of Health, the NIH, over a period of 5 years. We reached that goal in a bipartisan way, only to backslide year by year in this administration. In our budget this year we stop the backsliding at NIH, and we restore the President's cuts at the equally important Centers For Disease Control.

Our budget targets other resources to strengthen our economy and our society. We invest more in innovation, more in energy, more in infrastructure, and we provide $7.1 billion more than the President for education.

To move our country one step closer to health care for all, we facilitate up to $50 billion to expand SCHIP, the children's health insurance program, consistent with PAYGO, requiring that the costs be fully offset. We also accommodate fiscally responsible relief from the alternative minimum tax in order to shelter those middle-income taxpayers for whom it was never intended.

To make America safe, we fully fund defense, and we keep our promises to those who have fought for our defense, providing $3.6 billion above current services for veterans health care.

Now Mr. Ryan puts another billion on top of that in his budget, but he also puts in function 920, this is budget esoterica, but he puts in function 920 a call for $400 billion in undistributed cuts. One of those cuts would likely be that apparent increase in veterans health care.

Although we fix the AMT for another year, providing a tax cut of $70 billion to middle-income Americans, our Republican colleagues will accuse us of raising taxes. You've already heard it. The fact is, our budget doesn't raise taxes by one penny. But don't take my word for it. Stop by the manager's table right here on the House floor and read the letters that we've received from groups like the Concord Coalition, or look at the posters that we just posted here.

Here's what the Concord Coalition says: ``Allowing some or all of the tax cuts to expire would not be the result of Congress raising taxes; it would be the result of sunsets that were included when these tax cuts were originally enacted to avoid the level of fiscal scrutiny that PAYGO is designed to ensure.'' That's what the Concord Coalition has to say about our resolution.

If you want to see more, turn to section 501 in our budget resolution, title 5, section 501, and we enumerate, from item A through H, child tax credit, marital penalty relief, the 10 percent bracket, estate taxes, extension of research experimentation tax credit, extension of the State and local sales tax deduction, extension of the deduction for small business expenses and it goes on. These are the tax cuts that we embrace and commit ourselves to seeing renewed when they do eventually expire.

We believe that tax relief can come in a deficit-neutral tax bill in some cases, and we offer the AMT as an example. On more than one occasion, high-ranking officials in the Bush administration have testified before our committee, and when they're asked about the AMT and its impact on middle-income taxpayers, they've insisted that they could fix the AMT with changes in the Tax Code so that there would be no net loss of revenues.

For example, in February 2006 Josh Bolten was the director of OMB. He told our committee that the AMT could be corrected in the context of overall deficit-neutral tax reform, his words.

In February 2007, his successor, Rob Portman, told the Budget Committee, ``Our budget assumes it will have a revenue-neutral correction to the AMT.''

The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, has taken the same stance, but Mr. Rangel has delivered. He's put a revenue- neutral bill on the table to kindle the debate. The Bush administration asserts it too has a plan, but has failed to follow through by disclosing any plan of its own.

One of the first steps that we took in the 110th Congress was to restore the pay-as-you-go rules that had helped us in the 1990s turn record deficits into record surpluses. This resolution fully complies with the PAYGO rule.

Partly because we've held mandatory spending in check with PAYGO and, at the same time, kept domestic discretionary spending close to the rate of inflation, this budget returns to surplus in 2012. Our bottom line beats the President's budget going away. Between 2009 and 2013, our net deficits are $262 billion. Over the same period the President's net deficits are $674 billion. And using CBO's latest forecast, our budget should be in surplus by 2012 in the amount of $178 billion. And from 2012 through 2018 our cumulative surplus should reach $1.4 trillion, all told.

Now we could have used the lion's share of those surpluses to offset the revenues lost to renewal of expiring tax cuts, and surpluses of $1.4 trillion would indeed offset a huge amount of revenues forgone. We chose instead to leave those decisions to a time closer to December 31, 2010, when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. But when the time is right, if those surpluses materialize, they can be used to offset the renewal of numerous expiring tax cuts, disproving our opponents' claim that we don't intend to renew and extend any of the expiring cuts.

In our resolution we also provide $940 million for program integrity, much of it going to the Internal Revenue Service for audits and compliance. The Commissioner told us not so many months ago that there's a huge tax gap, maybe $500 billion, between taxes owed and taxes paid, the so-called tax gap. If we can close that gap just a bit, we can raise tax revenues without raising tax rates. These funds can likewise be used as offsets.

So there are many ways to look at tax cuts in the code. And what we are saying here is that we should use the next several years, before the tax cuts expire, to do all of the above so that we will have the revenues to renew many of these tax cuts and restructure the AMT in keeping with PAYGO principles. That's simply what we are proposing.

Our budget parallels the President's budget with respect to national defense. It funds the basic defense budget at the levels the President requested for 5 years, but does not include supplemental funds beyond the $700 billion sought by the President. The President's budget for 2009 does include a $70 billion item which the Pentagon calls a placeholder. To compare our budget to the President's budget, apples to apples, our resolution includes a $70 billion placeholder equal to the President's request for overseas deployments and activities in theaters that include Afghanistan and Iraq. This budget resolution is not an authorization bill. It's not an appropriations bill, and therefore, it cannot prescribe how much should be spent for these activities or specify where the funds should be spent. Those decisions are left to the authorization and appropriation process, in committee and on this floor. These funds, however, can be used for whatever purpose the Congress eventually chooses in authorizing and appropriating legislation.

When we set out to do this budget, our overriding objective, Madam Chairman, was a balanced budget, because we're appalled at the amount of debt being left our children, and at our stature in the world as the greatest debtor nation. But we want more than arithmetic balance; we want our priorities balanced; we want a budget that does more for our children's education and their health care as well, a budget that

makes our workers more competitive and our scientists more innovative.

We want to revive America, restore our fiscal soundness, reclaim our future. This budget is just one step, but it's one step in the right direction.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 14 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 12\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

If the gentleman wants to yield, I will gladly respond to his question. The gentleman keeps throwing these rhetorical questions.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I am sorry that my friend from New Jersey has apparently left the floor. No, I see him there. We had the occasion to debate this budget earlier today. I believe that he just said every Republican voted against OBRA in 1993 and that is what unleashed economic growth, but if I did my homework correctly, I think the gentleman from New Jersey voted against it as well. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman if I was incorrect in my assertion.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Well, I thank the gentleman once again for yielding.

There is a big question again about tax increases, and I have heard many of my friends on the other side of the aisle argue that there is no tax increase included in their budget; yet, Mr. Chairman, they claim that they are going to balance the budget in 2012. Well, the only way they can do that is by capturing all these tax revenues.

Now, some of them use very clever Washington language. They say, well, we are not raising taxes on working men and women in America. We are just letting tax relief expire.

Well, that is a very fine distinction that is lost upon the working men and women of America. I mean, there is this odd quirk in Washington that somehow spending is forever and it grows exponentially at the expense of the family budget, and yet tax relief somehow is temporary.

The bottom line is that very soon, within two budget years, there is going to be a massive tax increase upon the American people. There will be, again, the largest single tax increase in American history. Now, we were just talking about the earlier record when the Democrats were in control of Congress of $241 billion. The tax increase they are proposing now will dwarf that, $683 billion, the largest tax increase in American history.

Again, they want to claim credit for balancing the budget, and I certainly salute their goal. The Republican budget, it balances the budget without tax increases. But if you look and actually read the numbers, and ultimately the numbers are the only thing you can count on in a budget, well, Mr. Chairman, this is their budget right here.

That is them taking in all of these tax increases. That is how they claim to balance the budget. So, again, there is going to be huge, massive tax increases, scheduled, automatic tax increases. The Republican budget prevents those tax increases from coming into fruition.

Now, I have heard our chairman, and I have the greatest amount of respect for the chairman, say on many occasions, well, you know, this is the way the law was written. But, Mr. Chairman, if I did my homework correctly, there have been at least 21 different occasions over the last 5 years to make sure that these automatic tax increases on hardworking American people didn't take place. And as I look at the voting record, the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted to make sure that these tax increases do take place, so I am sure they don't want to admit to the American people that they are raising taxes. But they are.

So, Mr. Chairman, what is going to happen? Well, let me tell you what is going to happen under this Democrat budget.

Number one, 116 million taxpayers will see an average tax increase of more than $1,800 per year.

More than 6 million low-income individuals and couples who currently pay no taxes, no taxes, will no longer be exempt and will have to start paying income taxes.

A family of four earning $50,000 will see their taxes increase by $2,100.

Low-income families with one or two children will no longer be eligible for the refundable child tax credit in 2011.

Tax bills for an estimated 27 million small business owners will increase by more than $4,000 each.

Mr. Chairman, I was a small businessman before I came to Congress, and let me tell you, excess taxation prevents small businesses from creating jobs. A job is the greatest housing program, nutritional program, and educational program in the history of mankind. It is a paycheck, not a welfare check. Yet the Democrat tax increase is a dagger aimed at the heart of small business throughout our Nation.

The capital gains tax is going to go up 33 percent, the capital of capitalism. If you want to be able to have job growth, you have to have capital. Taxes on dividends go up 164 percent under their plan.

Mr. Chairman, the death tax, that is a tax that is immoral. It ought to be illegal. It goes away, and under this Democrat budget, it comes back as high as 55 percent.

The child tax credit is cut in half. The lowest tax bracket is increased 50 percent.

These are just the tax increases that have been passed into law. How about the others that the Democrats attempted to pass? H.R. 6 attempted to increase taxes $7.7 billion. H.R. 976 attempted to raise taxes $1.4 billion; H.R. 3963 tried to raise taxes $71.5 billion.

Now we have Chairman Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee wanting to raise taxes trillions of dollars in the years to come for the AMT. We have a 50 cent increase in gasoline tax recommended by the Energy and Commerce chairman, Mr. Dingell of Michigan, and an additional 5 cent increase per gallon gas hike proposed by Representative James Oberstar, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

There is no getting around it. This is the largest single tax increase on American history. It is going to cost American families an average of $3,000 a year as they try to educate their children, as they try to keep a roof over their head, as they try to realize their American Dream.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. I have listened with great interest as my friends from the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, attempted to do everything they could to distance themselves from their single largest tax increase in American history contained in their budget.

Again, Mr. Chairman, here are $683 billion worth of tax increases. This is what we call the CBO baseline, the Congressional Budget Office, which assumes that, as current law says, we are going to have huge automatic tax increases, most of which kick in in 2011. That is this red line.

Well, our friends on the other side of the aisle claim they are balancing the budget in 2012, but they can only do it through these huge, automatic tax increases. And this isn't my baseline. They appointed the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, so if they have some problem with this particular revenue curve, they need to take it up with him. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim you are not increasing taxes and at the same time claim, claim that you are balancing the budget in 2012.

Now, I listened very carefully when my distinguished chairman said that he wants to prevent these tax increases. I know he wants to prevent it. And I listened to the gentlelady from Texas saying that she endorses middle income tax relief. But they just don't seem willing to vote that way, Mr. Chairman.

If I did the math correctly, there have been at least 21 occasions over the last 6 years when Democrats could have voted to prevent these huge, automatic tax increases, which will amount to an average tax increase on the American family of $3,000 a year. So the rhetoric is nice. The language is comforting. But when will somebody on that side of the aisle put their vote where their rhetoric is? I don't see it, Mr. Chairman. It reminds me of the old adage that your actions are so loud I can hardly hear your words.

Now I hear a lot of talk on the other side of the aisle about how compassionate their budget is and somehow our budget is not compassionate. I'm not sure what is really compassionate about raising taxes on hardworking American families because, Mr. Chairman, every time you plus-up the Federal budget, guess what, it comes out of some family budget. And I hear from those families. I hear from the families in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that I have the honor of representing.

I heard from the White family of Mesquite, Texas: ``Regarding the news that the average Texas family may soon be burdened with extra taxes, it is not good news to a family with $24,000 a year in income and two expensive stroke-prevention medications, among other critical medications to maintain.'' Their $3,000 a year tax increase, the largest tax increase in American history, is going to decimate the family health care budget.

Now, I heard from the Sessions family in Quitman, Texas, also in my district: ``Any increase in income taxes would cut into my Social Security money so much, to such an extent I would not be able to purchase my medications.'' Again, their single largest tax increase in American history is going to decimate the family health care budget.

Mr. Chairman, I heard from the Swanson family from Wills Point, Texas: ``A tax increase of that size will prevent me from receiving the medications necessary to prolong my life.''

Once again, the single largest tax increase in American history are decimating, will decimate families, not just in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, but all over America. I wish that my friends on the other side of the aisle would just take a moment and think about who has to pay all of these taxes while Americans are struggling to pay for their health care bills and to make sure that they keep a roof over their head, to send their children to college, to fill up their cars and pickup trucks, to try to start small businesses. How are they going to be able to afford the single largest tax increase in history? Where is the compassion in taking money away from these hardworking families?

What does it do to their housing? Well, I heard from the Stevens family in Mesquite, Texas: ``I wanted to let you know that I am a single mom that does not receive any type of child support, and an increase of this amount would break me. I would be at risk of losing my home with this type of increase.''

The single largest tax increase in American history, an average of $3,000 per American family, most of it due to hit right there, 2011, coming very soon to a neighborhood near you. It is going to decimate the housing budget. It is going to decimate the health care budget. It is going to decimate the education budget of hardworking American families all across the Nation.

Where is the compassion there? There is no compassion there.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1036, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2009, introduced by my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Chairman Spratt.

This Rule will allow this body to debate the economic goals and policies of this great Nation. At a time, when this country is on the verge of a recession and the housing market is at one of its worst points in history, there is little else that is as important as our Nation's fiscal security.

A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the maintenance of historically Black Colleges and Universities. This budget provides greater funding to our Nation's schools and colleges.

We must not only be economically healthy, but assist in the physical health of our citizens. This budget will properly fund SCHIP, to help one of our most vulnerable populations--children. Our President proclaims his support for securing our Nation's current and future economic success. However, it is our children that will bring forth a successful future. We need to invest in tomorrow by investing in them today. This starts with their physical well-being. Children, who cannot see the doctor when they are sick, will not be in anyone's classroom.

For African Americans, health and education concerns spill beyond budgetary issues into the criminal justice consequences. In Texas, over 87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately 48,000 African-Americans attending college or university.

The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus the number of young people in college, particularly in the African- American community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education continues to be one of the main pathways to social and economic mobility, particularly in the African-American and Hispanic communities.

Under the Republican Budget the national debt continues to explode. The gross federal debt reached $9.0 trillion at the end of 2007. The CBO projects that the debt will rise by a total of $3.9 trillion at the end of 2008. This unprecedented rise in debt puts our President in the history books. During the seven years of the current Administration, the government has posted the highest deficits in this Nation's history.The President's 2009 Budget continues the failed policies that brought us to this point.

The amount of foreign debt has doubled since 2001, with most of this increased debt purchased by foreign lenders. Since 2001, the increases in foreign holdings of Treasury securities account for over 80 percent of the newly accumulated public debt--a trend that has more than doubled foreign holding of Treasury securities.

This high level of indebtedness to foreign investors heightens the economy's exposure to potential instability with additional burdens on our children and grandchildren.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to claim that the budget resolution being considered on the floor this week raises taxes, when in fact, the budget resolution does not raise taxes by one penny. The budget resolution accommodates tax cuts and indeed prioritizes tax cuts that would benefit middle-income families, while ensuring that the burden of paying for the tax cuts will not fall undeservedly on our future generations.

Section 501 of the budget resolution specifically calls for additional middle-income tax relief subject to the pay-as-you-go rule, including but not limited to:

AMT relief (both immediate/temporary, and more permanent reform measures);

Extension of ``middle-class'' elements of 2001 tax cuts: child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and 10 percent bracket;

Eliminating the estate tax on all but a minute fraction of estates;

Extension of the research and experimentation tax credit;

Extension of the deduction for state and local taxes;

Extension of small business expensing;

Enactment of a tax credit for school construction bonds; and

Tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy which are accommodated in a separate deficit-neutral reserve fund.

The budget resolution honors PAYGO and the new House rules on using reconciliation in a fiscally responsible way. By abiding by the pay-as- you-go principle, we immediately begin digging our way out of the mountains of debt that have accumulated as a result of the Bush Administration's fiscal policies.

The President's budget and the Republican alternatives violate PAYGO and the fiscal responsibility that reconciliation is intended to achieve, by proposing tax cuts that are not offset.

The sunsets for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were part of the tax legislation which Republicans voted for and passed. The expiration of the tax cuts is their policy. The Democratic budget actually calls for the extension of many of these tax cuts, but responsibly requires that tax cut extensions, like other policies, must be fiscally sound, and not make the deficit worse.

This important piece of legislation gives us a budget that is balanced fiscally and morally.

It does not sacrifice the many programs and services that this Nation needs for a war that the President seems never to end.

Defense of our Nation is important; however, we must not support only one portion of the budget to the detriment of everything else. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1036 and the Democratic Budget for FY2009.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1036 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before

consideration of any order of business other than one motion

that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a

procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign

intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment

thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the

Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate

amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without

intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and

the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Could the Chair please inform us of the time allotted to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), how much remains available.

I yield to the gentleman the balance of his time.

That was one amendment that was agreed to in the markup, and I think it would behoove us all, the gentlelady particularly, if we get together and see if we couldn't move the legislation. That would be great.

Does the gentlewoman require further time?

I yield to the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I have sat here all afternoon, and last week through the markup, listening to this mantra about tax increases, all of which is a fabricated argument, and could not and cannot avoid the conclusion that to some extent this is a red herring.

It's a way of distracting attention from the real problems at hand, a way of avoiding discussion of a $236-billion surplus, which is where our economy and our budget stood in the year 2000, the year before Mr. Bush came to office, the $4 trillion in debt added by the Bush administration over the last 7 years, over median family income which has fallen under the Bush administration, avoiding discussion about a debt-burdened economy, which is losing steam near a recession and a dollar, a mighty dollar, which is plummeting, avoiding all of that so that we can talk about something that is not going to happen.

First of all, we made it as clear as we possibly could that we have endorsed, embraced and pledged to see continued the middle-income tax cuts which are included in the 2001-2003 tax cuts. They add up for the renewal over a 5-year period of time to $230 billion. If we follow our budget resolutions we have laid out, we will have a surplus in 2012 of $178 billion.

By 2018 the cumulative surfaces will be at $1.4 trillion. If we choose then, and we are not making the decision now, but if we choose then that will offset the extension of most of the taxes, most of the tax cuts that were adopted in 2001 and 2003.

We have put that in black and white, title V policy, policy on middle income tax relief, and we have laid out from item A through item H the different tax cuts that we support and are pledged or seeing renewed and extended. We can't make it any clearer than this.

Let me say something else for anybody listening wondering whether or not his taxes are about to shoot up and whether he should go cash in some stocks and bonds and get ready for this huge tax increase, it's not coming. Even if we adopted something that called for it to happen, it would have to go through Ways and Means. It would have to go through Senate Finance. It's a long way from ever being passed.

We simply say in our budget resolution, as we get ready for 2010, let's see if we can't have a conservative budget that will move us toward surplus so that some of that surplus, at least, can be used to offset some of these tax cuts. Let's see if we can't put some money into program integrity with the Internal Revenue Service and shrink the tax gap so we can use some of the money there, raise tax revenues without raising tax rates, use some of the money thus gained to offset some of these tax cuts when they come up for renewal.

Go through the code as we did in 1986, give it a good closet cleaning. It needs a scrub down as an accretion of the deductions and credits and exemptions and preferences, all of these things. If we muster our efforts, if we marshal our efforts, we can do and lay the basis for the renewal of many of these tax cuts in 2010.

But we primarily delayed the decision about those tax cuts in 2010 on the basis that we need to know more. What will be the state of the economy? Will we still be in two different theaters, Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting a war that is costing $12 billion a month? Will we still have an enormous deficit or will we be in surplus?

Better that we determine it than guess at it now. We are simply saying we would lay the basis. First of all, we would lay down the principle that we would protect these middle income tax cuts. Second, we will put the budget in place to begin generating surpluses so that they can afford the renewal of some of these tax cuts.

That can be done in this budget resolution. We are not pushing the biggest tax increase in American history. I don't know even where the numbers arrived from in the first place. I don't think it's supportable, but it is totally fantastic. It's an argument that is a complete red herring and a complete deviation from what we are all about today.

We should be talking about the savings rate in this country, about what deficits are doing to our economy, our country, and our standing in the world. There is plenty to talk about that is relevant. This subject is not because it's not about something that is about to happen.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Dr. McDermott.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I can return all the compliments that Mr. Ryan paid to me. He's a pleasure to work with, and I have great respect for him.

But there's one thing he didn't mention at all in his presentation all afternoon and that is his budget substitute. And I think one of the reasons he didn't do it is that it won't bear scrutiny.

If you look at the Ryan substitute, the Republican minority substitute, you'll find, if you look very closely and know where to look, something called function 920. Now, function 920 is the catch- all. When you can't assign some expenditure or revenue raiser somewhere else, you put it in function 920. It means really we haven't yet completed the job.

When you look at 920 in this case, the minority has assigned $817 billion in undefined savings or at least $405 billion in discretionary spending cuts which are undistributed. They haven't been assigned to the Veterans Administration or to the Defense Department or to the Transportation Department. They are undistributed cuts, $405 billion. I've never seen in all my years in the Budget Committee, anything that has a function 920, this catch-all in cuts of $405 billion.

But in addition to that, it calls for $412 billion in mandatory savings. Now, we don't know for sure where mandatory savings are coming from, which

programs are in jeopardy. But when Ways and Means is directed to reconcile $253 billion over 5 years, the Energy and Commerce Committee is directed to reconcile $116 billion over 5 years, we know the resolution has Medicare and Medicaid in its bore sights and the likely cuts are substantial. $368 billion. We've never done anything that approaches that magnitude at Medicaid and Medicare cost reduction. Indeed, during the Gingrich era, Republicans were pushing something of that size. It never got off the ground, and it wouldn't here either, let me tell you. So that's unrealistic. And the 405 is unrealistic because the work hasn't been done.

And then finally Mr. Ryan calls for, in his resolution, $1.2 trillion in tax cuts over the next 5 years. If you extend these tax cuts out, and you consider what he's doing, he wants to extend all the expiring tax cuts and, on top of that, also repeal the alternative minimum tax, just repeal it. The likely impact on revenues is about $2.5 trillion over 10 years, which blows a big hole in the bottom of the budget. And I don't think that's realistic either. It certainly isn't realistic if we're in earnest about seeking a budget that will balance. And so here, buried in the budget resolution, which he's not mentioned all afternoon, are three major problems with his budget resolution. He hasn't done his work. He hasn't distributed the cuts. And I'll tell you what that does. When you have $405 billion in function 920 undistributed, you can say to the veterans who come to you, we've got $1 billion covered for you. You can say to others, with plausible deniability, oh, you won't be cut, you won't be cut. But in truth, $405 billion is 20 percent of nondefense discretionary spending. That's where the cuts are going to fall every year at 20 percent. I don't believe it's going to happen. I don't think therefore that what he's presented is a valid, reasonable, defensible alternative to the budget resolution, and it strikes me as passing strange that we haven't discussed it all afternoon.

Now one final shot across the bow, one final statement about the mantra we've heard all afternoon. We do not propose to implement, in this budget resolution, any tax cuts whatsoever. We're laying down the policy as clearly as we know how in title V on middle-income tax relief, and specifying very clearly and pledging ourselves very, very committedly to the enactment, preservation and extension of these tax cuts. That's the policy of this budget resolution. Everyone should bear it in mind.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I'd first like to begin by sincerely congratulating the chairman of the committee and the ranking member from Wisconsin for, I think, a very thoughtful and substantive approach to a very serious set of problems. I think that the tone and quality of the debate on the House floor this afternoon has served the country well and has served the institution well, and it is entirely owing to the leadership of the chairman and ranking member and the men and women who serve the Members' committee so well, and I appreciate that.

I strongly support the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget. I think it's the right thing for the country based upon an analysis of facts, choices, and consequences. The most important factual reason that the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget benefits and strengthens families in our country is it operates on the principle that American families operate under, which is you can't live on borrowed money forever. You can't run your credit card up forever and hope that you win the lottery someday to get yourself out of that mess. The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget, just as American families do across this country, recognizes the reality that you have to make choices.

Now, the other fact that I think is very important that Members realize is that this budget does not have a tax increase for anyone this year or anyone next year or anyone last year. One of our friends on the other side, Mr. Chairman, said that this was deja vu, this budget. She was exactly right because most of us were here almost exactly a year ago and heard a ritualistic incantation from the minority side that this was the largest tax increase in American history, the largest tax increase in the history of the world, the largest tax increase in the history of the universe, the largest tax increase in whatever's larger than the universe.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just invite the people of this country to evaluate the validity of that claim. When they sit down and fill out their tax return this year, they should ask themselves the question, did my income tax rates go up? No, they didn't. Did the capital gains tax rates go up? No, they didn't. Did the excise taxes go up? No, they didn't. And the same answer would be true for this year and the year after that.

Now, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that people listen to this debate and they say, how can this be that the Democrats get up and say there are no tax increases in this budget and the Republicans get up and say it's the largest tax increase in the history of civilization or whatever the latest version of it is? Here's the answer:

In 2010 the tax cuts enacted earlier in this decade expire, and the Congress will have to make a choice. Until then, there is no tax raised on anyone for anything. When that day occurs, this budget contemplates that we will do what families across the country do and make an intelligent decision. If the economy bounces back and grows, there's a very good chance there will be plenty of revenue to renew all of those tax cuts. If it doesn't, then the Congress has the choice of reducing spending in given areas to finance tax cuts for all or some of the people who would be affected.

But what we will not do is what the erstwhile majority elevated to an art form during its reign, which is to borrow the money to pay the bills. We won't indebt the children of this country to the People's Republic of China and our other creditors because we don't have the discipline to make a decision here.

There's a big choice. Our budget believes that the economy grows and American families prosper by stopping the practice of borrowing money to run the government, by investing in the education and health care and development of our people, and by expanding economic opportunity. We believe that works.

The other side, with great sincerity, believes that massive tax breaks for the wealthiest people will trickle down to the rest of us and that will work.

This is the big choice we have to make, but there is a record for this choice. We do not have to make this choice in the empty vacuum of political theory. You see, because we tried their way for 6 years when they had control of both Chambers and the White House, and our strategy of stopping the practice of borrowing money, investing in people, expanding economic opportunity is what we tried for most of the 1990s, and there's a record. They created some jobs through their strategy. But for every one job they created, we created five. There was some economic growth under their strategy, but for every dollar of economic growth they created or facilitated, we created a dollar and a half.

What was the impact of their strategy on the American families that this budget supports? Well, over a 6-year period, the purchasing power of a typical middle class American family shrunk by $1,100. During the years in which our strategy was the policy of this country, the purchasing power of a middle class family increased by $6,000.

I yield briefly to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, it's also the case that every single Republican there in 1993 voted against the plan that put that into effect and, therefore, they have no ownership.

So I would say the record is very, very clear, that I think our friend from Wisconsin and his fellow colleagues on the committee are very well intentioned about the policy they followed to help American families. I just think they're wrong, and I think the record shows that they're wrong.

Now, what are some of the consequences in this budget between their way and our way? Well, one of them is the issue of middle class tax cuts. Now, they are going to say that all these middle class taxes are going to go up.

Here's the reality: The budget contains what we call a reserve fund for the purpose of financing middle class tax cuts. And, again, when we reach that point, we will make a decision as to how best to preserve those, either based upon growth in the economy, which we certainly hope will occur, in offsets in spending, which we are prepared to make, or in other sources of revenue which we have brought to this floor before.

Look at the issue of children's health care. Last year, we attempted to provide health insurance for 5 million additional children. These are the children of people that work in convenience stores, gas stations and retail stores. These are very hardworking people who are struggling to get ahead. And there is a program that has worked very well since 1997 to help those families and their children. Now, we wanted to expand that coverage to 5 million more children, and we paid for it. A great number of Members on their side voted for this, and a great number of Members of the other body on their side voted for this, but not quite enough, because we ran into a Presidential veto, and we couldn't quite override it here.

Our budget will do the same thing. It will say let's find health insurance for

5 million more children who do not have it, and let's pay for it. Let's not pay for it by borrowed money.

For those who are trying to live by collecting child support enforcement, there are more resources for it. For those women who are pregnant or have small children and want to promote their well-being, there is more money for it. For Americans struggling to deal with getting by and paying the grocery bills on food stamps, there is more resources for this. Public health issues, whether it is the spread of disease or the prevention of disease, there is more resources for this, as well.

This budget proceeds on the powerful principle on which American families proceed. Don't try to survive on borrowed money forever. It puts us in position to make difficult and sometimes unpopular choices. It does not raise taxes on anyone in the fiscal year that is in front of us, and it makes investments in the strategy for economic growth that has worked in the past and we believe will work again.

I know that the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) who is new to the institution, but in no way new to serving her constituents, has a special concern about block grants. I would like to encourage her to engage in a colloquy at this time.

Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying that a budget is a moral document. It shows what we care about. I couldn't agree more.

The majority's bloated budget blueprint is a clear demonstration to families across America that the Democratic majority in Congress is intently focused on dipping its fingers into their pockets to take more and more of their hard-earned money. It shows that the Democratic majority will raise taxes, without hesitation, to support its addiction to spending. And it shows that Democrats in Congress are not interested in making difficult choices, setting priorities, or rooting out waste in government spending.

What we are considering today is the Democrat majority's ``more, more, more resolution.'' More spending, more budget gimmicks, and more taxes.

As my colleagues well remember, we held the line on spending last year thanks solely to the President and Republicans in Congress. The President's budget requested this year $59 billion, or a 6.3 percent increase, in discretionary spending over the present fiscal year. Most people would think $59 billion is plenty, but it's not enough for the ``more, more, more budget.''

We hear our Democrat colleagues pay a great deal of lip service to the poor. But here's what failing to extend these tax cuts in the years ahead will do to the poor:

Six million low-income American families will no longer qualify for earned income tax credits;

Low-income families with one or two children will no longer be eligible for the refundable child tax credit;

Roughly 12 million single women with children will see their taxes increase by $1,100 a year.

As disconcerting as all of this may be, the real 800-pound gorilla sitting in the corner of the room is the problem, and that is entitlement spending. Presently, mandatory spending and interest on the national debt consumes nearly two-thirds of the Federal budget, and it is rising at an alarming and unsustainable pace.

If we ignore the 800-pound gorilla, we are walking away from the dire needs, desperate needs, of the American public.

Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying that a budget is a moral document--it shows what we care about. I couldn't agree more.

The majority's bloated budget blueprint is a clear demonstration to families across America that the Democrat majority in Congress is intently focused on dipping its fingers into their pockets to take more and more of their hard-earned money. It shows that the Democrat majority will raise taxes--without hesitation--to support its addiction to spending. And, it shows that Democrats in Congress are not interested in making difficult choices, setting priorities, or rooting out waste in government spending.

What we are considering today is the Democrat majority's ``More, More, More Budget Resolution''--more spending, more budget gimmicks, more taxes. For the first time in history, the discretionary budget that is being proposed by this majority will exceed one trillion dollars.

As my colleagues well remember, we held the line on spending last year thanks solely to the President and Republicans in Congress. In spite of the desire of our Democrat colleagues to spend far more, this Congress passed appropriations bills that totaled roughly $933 billion in discretionary funding.

The President's budget requested a $59 billion, or 6.3 percent, increase in discretionary spending over the present fiscal year. Most people would think that a $59 billion increase in spending would be enough. But not this majority. They are proposing a whopping $82 billion, or nine percent, increase over current year levels.

In addition to the tens of billions of additional taxpayer funds they're proposing to spend next year, this majority intends to play budget games and increase advance appropriations by another $2 billion above what was provided this year.

The notion of advance appropriations is arcane budget talk so I'll try to break it down into real English. The majority is committing an additional $2 billion in funding for next year--remember, we don't pay for it this year, we pay for it next year.

My colleague from New York, Mr. Walsh, correctly pointed out during consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Labor/HHS bill that advance funding is a dangerous proposition because if Congress does not keep providing at least the same level of advance funding year after year, drastic cuts will be needed to live within the allocations each appropriations subcommittee receives.

I want to address another troubling aspect of this budget proposal. We have heard--and will continue to hear--our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about how this budget cuts taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. By failing to make permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, this budget actually increases the tax burden on American citizens by $683 billion over the next five years.

That's a pretty big number, but let me break this number down in a manner that makes sense to the average family sitting around their kitchen table. Under this budget, the average American family of four that earns $50,000 per year will send an additional $2,100 to Washington in 2011.

We hear our Democratic colleagues pay a great deal of lip service to the poor, but here's what failing to extend these tax cuts does to low- income Americans: 6 million low-income Americans will no longer qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit; low-income families with one or two children will no longer be eligible for the refundable child tax credit; roughly 12 million single women with children will see their taxes increase by $1,100 per year; and about 18 million seniors living on fixed incomes will be subjected to tax increases of more than $2,100 per year.

As disconcerting as the rampant spending is, let's not lose sight of the fact that this budget ignores the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the corner of the room--entitlement spending. Presently, mandatory spending and interest on the national debt consumes nearly two-thirds of the Federal budget and it is rising at an alarming, unsustainable pace.

In 1990, we spent the equivalent of $893 billion of today's dollars on entitlement programs--mostly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Today we are poised to spend $1.6 trillion on those same entitlements. For those who like to talk in percentages, that represents a 74 percent increase in inflation adjusted dollars. We ignore this sleeping giant at our own peril.

So my friends, let's ask ourselves this question: who will pay for this budget? The simple answer is our children and our grandchildren.

They will pay for it in the form of higher taxes because this budget refuses to make permanent the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 that spurred roughly 6 years of economic growth.

They will pay for it in the form of reduced future prosperity because Government will continue to spend and spend and spend.

They will pay for it because their Government would consume more and more of what they earn rather than allowing them to invest, create jobs, and improve their quality of life.

In short, Mr. Chairman, this ``big government, Washington-knows- best'' budget suggests that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington are better stewards of the public's money than the very families who send it here.

My advice to the American taxpayer is this: Hold onto your wallet because the big spenders in Congress are coming to take more of what you can earn.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the majority's bloated budget resolution. It's time to put Uncle Sam on a diet.