Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 70) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 2013.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1214 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1214.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1214 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009.

House resolution 1214 is a traditional conference report rule. It waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents. They are more than just an accounting of expenditures and revenue. They are statements of our national values and priorities. For too long Congress passed budgets with the wrong priorities. For too long the budget put the interests of the powerful before the needs of working families and those going through hard times. And for too long the budgets of the past pretended that people who were struggling didn't even exist, let alone matter.

That has changed now. This Congress, the New Direction Congress, is saying that we value our families and their economic future. This Congress will fight to make sure that their hard work is rewarded and that the American Dream is renewed.

This 5-year budget conference agreement charts a new way forward for the country. It makes investments in energy, education, and infrastructure. It provides tax relief for the middle class. It returns the budget to surplus in 2012 and 2013. And it remembers those whose service and sacrifice here at home and abroad provide the rest of us with security and peace of mind. Mr. Speaker, this is a budget with a conscience.

Today, as we move to pass this conference agreement on the budget, our country faces major challenges: an economic recession, a crisis in the credit markets, a plunging housing market, rising unemployment, declining family income, skyrocketing costs in health care, aging infrastructure, and a safety net struggling to keep up with the growing number of Americans unable to meet their most basic needs.

Faced with these challenges, President Bush and his Republican colleagues proposed the same tired, failed economic and fiscal policies. After 7 years the Bush legacy is the highest deficits in our Nation's history. The Bush legacy is the greatest national debt in our Nation's history. Future generations, our children and our grandchildren, will be forced to pay the

price for this unprecedented rise in debt, a legacy of President George Bush and the Republicans' reckless and irresponsible policies.

With this budget resolution, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are ready to take the necessary steps, as difficult as they may be, to regain our economic health and reclaim our children's future. It is a balanced budget with balanced priorities.

It returns the budget to balance with projected surpluses in 2012 and 2013 by adhering to fiscally responsible policies. It strengthens the U.S. economy over the long term while calling for funds to help Americans struggling in the current economic downturn. It rejects, and I repeat, it rejects the Republicans' harmful cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the Community Development Block Grant program, and LIHEAP. And it protects priorities like SCHIP, infrastructure needs, homeland security, innovation, energy, education, health care, veterans, and the environment.

This budget agreement does not include any tax increases, despite the overheated claims of the other side. Quite the contrary, it supports significant tax relief, including extension of marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, and allowing for estate tax reform. It includes an additional year of relief for the alternative minimum tax that is fully paid for, Mr. Speaker. And it provides for property tax relief, energy and education tax relief, and extenders.

Finally, this budget remembers those who serve at home and abroad. It provides strong and substantial funding for national defense, including quality of life for our troops and their families. It provides more funding for homeland security programs, including first responders, more than the President would. It provides for the care and treatment of all of our veterans but most especially our newest generation of veterans, those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom are grievously wounded and thousands who will require treatment for posttraumatic stress and serious depression. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it rejects President Bush's cynical new fees for veterans health care.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this budget charts a new direction for a stronger, safer, more compassionate America.

Mr. Speaker, there are two significant differences between the House- and Senate-passed budgets which this conference report resolves. First were the reconciliation revisions to the alternative minimum tax. And the second is the level of nondefense discretionary funding.

On reconciliation, the conference agreement drops the House-passed reconciliation instructions. Instead, it provides for 1 year of AMT relief that is fully paid for. The House will continue to work with the Senate to identify how to pay for permanent relief of the AMT. In the House such a solution is subject to our PAYGO rules of order and must be fully offset. With the passage of this conference report, any AMT fix offered in the Senate that increases the deficit by $10 billion in a year will also be subject to a Senate point of order.

On nondefense discretionary spending, the difference between the House and Senate budgets was $3.6 billion, and the conference agreement splits the difference. By holding most nonsecurity spending to a modest 1 percent above inflation, we are able to move the budget out of deficit and into surplus by the year 2012 while still providing substantially greater investment in education, income security, veterans, and natural resources.

I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to adopt this rule and to approve the conference agreement on the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record a statement by Robert Greenstein, the Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The statement calls the claims by my friends on the Republican side that somehow this is a tax increase in this bill, he exposes it as being inaccurate.

Center on Budget

and Policy Priorities,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2008.

Statement By Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, on Misleading Claims That Congressional Budget Plan Calls for ``Largest Tax Increase

in History''

Some claim that the budget plan of the conferees--which the

House and Senate are

scheduled to consider this week--would constitute ``the

largest tax increase in history.'' This claim is inaccurate,

just as the same claim was inaccurate with regard to the

budget resolution that Congress adopted last year. This

year's budget plan does not include a tax increase. It

actually calls for a $340 billion reduction in revenues,

reflecting its assumption that Congress will extend some

parts of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts without offsetting the

costs.

The charge that the conferees' plan includes a large tax

increase arises not from any policy changes that the plan

proposes, but instead from policies enacted in 2001 and 2003.

Those policies put in place tax cuts that President Bush

proposed, but also provided for those tax cuts to expire at

the end of 2010. The budget plan assumes that Congress will

amend current law to extend some of the expiring tax cuts

(especially those affecting middle-class families) and make

other changes in tax policy, but it also assumes Congress

will partly offset the cost of such changes. The plan does

not assume that Congress will increase total revenues above

what the federal government expects to collect under current

policies--to the contrary, it assumes Congress will reduce

total revenues below what is expected under current policies.

The President's tax cuts expire in 2010 because their

supporters deliberately designed them that way, in order to

fit the tax cuts within the cost constraints imposed by the

budget resolutions that Congress adopted in 2001 and 2003.

While acknowledging that their real goal was to make the tax

cuts permanent, supporters of those measures opted to

``sunset'' the tax cuts before the end of the ten-year budget

window, partly to avoid recognizing the cost of permanent tax

cuts. Now, a few years from the tax cuts' expiration, some of

these same supporters are acting as though the tax cuts are

already permanent and that any proposal to offset any portion

of the cost of extending them is a ``tax increase.''

To extend the tax cuts without paying for them--and to

attack those who simply seek to require that Congress at

least partially pay for any extension of the tax cuts--

further heightens the irresponsible fiscal nature of the

original actions.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that George Bush and the previous Republican Congresses have created a mess. We are faced with the largest deficits and debt in the history of our country, thanks to their fiscally irresponsible policies. We have more people in this country who are in poverty because of their policies of neglect. We have more people in this country who are hungry because of their policies of neglect. Our veterans are finally, at long last, because of Democratic policies, getting the benefits and the funding that they have earned. But for years, because of Republican policies and because of the misplaced priorities of this White House, they have been short- changed.

We have more people without jobs today because of their neglectful policies. Our infrastructure is falling apart. I come from Massachusetts. We have an aging infrastructure. We have bridges in my State that are older than some of the other States in this country, and the Federal response has been to provide less and less and less funding. The infrastructure is crumbling. It's a danger to people. But those burdens, the cost burden has fallen on the States and our local communities.

So I can go on and on about their policies, which have literally created a mess, including these high gas and oil prices that we are paying right now because they didn't think it was important to invest in alternative renewable clean energy sources. So here we are, and thankfully, Mr. Speaker, thankfully, the American people get it, as we have seen in the recent elections where, in traditional hard-core Republican areas of this country, voters have said, Enough. We have had enough. And they have voted for Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this budget that we are talking about here today is that it rejects the President's harmful cuts in a number of programs that people in this country think are valuable. This conference agreement on the budget rejects the President's deep cuts affecting a wide range of services and constituencies, including $479 billion of Medicare cuts and $94 billion to cuts in Medicaid over 10 years. That was the Presidents' priorities. That was the Republican's priorities. This budget, the Democratic budget, rejects those cuts.

It also rejects more than $18 billion over 5 years in new fees for veterans and military retirees. How in good conscience could anybody propose that, given the fact that our men and women are serving with such great distinction in Afghanistan and Iraq. They deserve better than more fees.

This budget also rejects cuts to services that help our communities, including the community development block grant and the low-income home energy assistance program, which is so important in the Northeast and in other parts of this country.

This budget, the Democratic budget, rejects the President's call for the elimination of several State and local law enforcement programs, including the State criminal alien assistance program, Byrne Grants, and the COPS program. This Democratic budget also says no to the President's cuts to EPA grants that help protect public health and maintain environmental quality.

So we have different priorities as Democrats than the Republicans have put forward over the years. The budget that we are proposing strengthens our economy. It provides crucial funding for the Democratic Innovation Agenda and the America Competes Act to enhance our competitive edge. It increases funding for math and science education and research.

We understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to invest in our educational institutions. It is important to invest in math, science, and engineering now so that we can be competitive in this global economy, so that we can be the place where the jobs of tomorrow locate.

This budget that we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, increases funding for efficient and renewable energy programs. It rejects the President's cuts to research, as well as his proposed cuts to weatherization assistance for lower income families, and it invests in renewable clean energy alternatives. This budget invests in education, as I mentioned. It provides significantly more than the President proposed. And it invests in infrastructure, in our highways, water, and other infrastructure by providing sufficient funding in a reserve fund to facilitate new initiatives in a deficit-neutral manner.

On a whole range of issues, Democrats have decided to chart a very different course than what the Republicans have proposed for the previous years. I am proud of the fact that we are moving this country in a different direction, and the sad part is that we have to dig ourselves out of this mess that they created.

This is a budget that I think we can be proud of, and I would urge all my colleagues to support it.

I reserve my time at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply respond to the gentleman by saying we have proposed many meaningful measures to try to deal with not only the current energy prices but also to come up with a long-term plan so that we are not so reliant on foreign oil. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get things done with Republican obstructionism and a President who vetoes everything. Any good idea to invest more in renewable clean alternative energy sources, to further develop second or third generation biofuels, this President objects to. The only thing he likes is if we give more to the oil companies.

We had the Dick Cheney ``secret energy task force,'' which we don't know all the details because the public was denied access to this information. But we do know this, that the outcome of that was more of the same. More drilling, more drilling, more reliance on oil, more reliance on oil. The same old, same old. We are done with that. We are done with that.

I should remind everybody that when George Bush became President, a gallon of gasoline was $1.47. Now it's in excess of $3.79. In some places, over $4. So that is what has resulted from their policies and their obstructionism. As I said before, and I will say it again, the good news is the American people get it. They are tired of it. That is why we are seeing in hard-core Republican congressional districts Democratic victories. Things are changing.

I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I would just respond by saying to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you have had your chance. You were in control of this institution for many years and you had a Republican President, and what you did was create a situation, the one we are in right now, where we have the largest debt in the history of the United States of America.

The American people have rejected very clearly your policies and they are looking for a new direction, and that is what Democrats are going to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, a member of the Budget Committee, Ms. Schwartz.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the budget. It is amusing to hear my friends on the Republican side try to offer solutions on how to deal with the energy crisis, when they created it. This is their responsibility. This is a direct result of their failed policies; not investing in clean, renewable alternative energy sources; not building the necessary infrastructure to cultivate these new forms of energy; not investing in second and third generation biofuels. Instead, their policies have been the same old, same old.

My friend from Florida talks about ANWR. Boy, what a creative idea. Let's rely on the oil companies, the same companies that are gouging American taxpayers each and every day, making record profits. Let's do what they want us to do. Maybe the time has come to set a new direction.

With regard to this budget, our budget I think represents responsible governing. Their budgets, when they could ever actually pass budgets-- and, by the way, when they were in charge they very rarely did; they especially couldn't muster votes during an election year--represent what I believe is irresponsible governing. They spent a ton of money. They spent too much money, by the way, on oil company subsidies and tax breaks, more and more to the oil companies. They spent too much on the wealthiest Americans, who didn't need any help, who weren't struggling. They spent too much on a misguided war in Iraq that we should never have fought to begin with. And they paid for all of this by passing the costs on to future generations by borrowing from other countries. We are more in debt because of their leadership to China and to India and to other countries.

Enough is enough. Again, that is why you are seeing in these hard- core Republican congressional districts Democrats winning, because the American people, Democrats and Republicans and independents, have had it with the Republican priorities.

Let me just close by reminding my colleagues that within this budget there are important investments, smart energy investments. This conference agreement on the budget provides $7.7 billion in funding for renewable energy, energy efficiency and other energy programs, which is, by the way, $2.8 billion more than the 2008 level. This budget, this Democratic budget, rejects President Bush's budget cuts to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including his proposed cuts to the solar energy program, and we reject his suggestion that we terminate the weatherization assistance program. Boy, talk about going in the wrong direction.

This budget, Mr. Speaker, invests $2 billion to create ``green collar'' jobs in our Nation's communities, because Democrats understand that not only do we need to be better stewards of our environment and become energy independent, but we also realize that there is the potential to create countless jobs in the area of environmental technologies. And this budget, Mr. Speaker, also includes a deficit neutral reserve fund to accommodate legislation that provides tax incentives for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

This is a good budget. If you want to deal not only with the short- term issues involving energy, but the long-term issues, then this is the budget you should vote for.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 1214 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker

shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the

House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the

state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5984)

to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the

limited continuation of clean energy production incentives

and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to

prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a

lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall he

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After

general debate the bill shall he considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill

shall be in order except any amendment which the proponent

asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the

national average price per gallon of regular unleaded

gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of

oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge. Such amendments shall be considered

as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject

to a demand for division of the question in the House or in

the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such

amendments are waived. At the conclusion or consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

First off, I want to start by congratulating Chairman Spratt. I mentioned this last time, but I think it is worth repeating. It is never easy to bring a budget conference report to bear, particularly in an election year, and Congress has had a pretty splotchy, spotty track record on this lately, and the chairman deserves accolades for keeping this process going, keeping this process alive.

We've had problems with the farm bill, and this bill being on the floor today is real proof of the skill and determination by the Budget chairman, and so I want to give him the compliment he deserves for bringing this to the floor.

It's important that we have a budget process. It's important that we recognize the need to budget in this institution, and doing this today recognizes that. But at the same time, Congress actually should budget, and I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that this budget is really nothing more than the congressional baseline with about a quarter of a trillion dollars slopped on top of it for the Appropriations Committee.

And so what is the opportunity we have here today if we were actually really budgeting? I think there's three things that we ought to be doing in this budget in this Congress.

One, let's have solid growth in our economy, and let's make sure we put ourselves in the position to lead in the international marketplace by having an economic policy that puts America ahead, in the lead and in a position to win in this era of global competition.

Number two, we need to reform our health and retirement security programs so we can fulfill the mission of our health and retirement security programs in this country. The government is making promises to people right now in health and retirement security that it knows it can't keep. We all know this here. We know, Republicans, Democrats, that our government is making promises to a generation of Americans and another generation of Americans that we know are unsustainable. So we need to come up with a plan to make good on that promise, which right now is not being fulfilled.

And number three, while we do that, we have got to lift this burden of debt

on the next generation. We, with this budget, are going faster down the pathway of sending a crushing burden of debt and taxes on the next generation. Both parties are to blame for this. So I'm not simply saying that all of the sudden now the Democrats are running Congress it's all bad. Both parties have been responsible for not addressing these problems. But now that my friends on the other side of the aisle are in the majority, this is their opportunity. This is their chance and opportunity to actually address this problem and take it head-on. And what are they doing? Nothing about it.

Here's the problem, Mr. Speaker. Not only does this budget propose to do nothing to address these issues, it makes them worse. Because by doing nothing, we're going deeper into debt.

Under this budget, what this budget proposes we do for 5 years, by doing nothing to address the two biggest problems we have, the two biggest programs we have, the two biggest unfulfilled promises we have, namely, Medicare and Social Security, this budget proposes to go $14 trillion deeper in debt to just those two programs alone; by doing nothing for 1 year according to the trustees of Medicare and Social Security, $2 trillion deeper into debt. This budget, $14 trillion increase.

But here's also what this budget does propose. What it does propose is the largest tax increase in American history, $683 billion over the next 5 years. That equals about $2,000 in per year tax increase on the average American family, and there's no effort to cut wasteful spending in government whatsoever.

We've heard about the Bridge to Nowhere. We've heard about the $50 million rain forest museum. We heard about the bill passed 2 weeks ago to give $250 million for one earmark from a Senator from the other side of the Rotunda for one company. We're earmarking ourselves to oblivion in this Congress, and this bill does nothing to curtail that. This bill basically assumes that there's no waste in the Federal Government, that every taxpayer dollar is being spent well and wisely and with full accounting and full transparency, and because of that, this ought to give the government even more money to spend on top of the baseline.

This bill will push the appropriations above the $1 trillion mark in the next coming year. That's an increase of $80 billion, an increase of 9 percent over last year. This bill, as a consequence of giving this 9 percent increase in discretionary spending, will lead to the largest annual increase in the debt in our Nation's history.

And so for all the talk of fiscal conservatism, for all the talk of fiscal responsibility we're going to hear in the next hour, this bill right here we're debating, right here, largest increase in debt in our Nation's history, exceeding the $1 trillion mark in government agency spending.

And this bill does absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, to address the upcoming entitlement crisis. As I mentioned, this bill adds to the entitlement crisis. It increases the entitlement liability in this country by 37 percent, $14 trillion increase in unfulfilled promises and contingent liability, a 37 percent increase.

Now, given the fact that this bill does nothing to address the long- run problems in this country, what about the short-run? What about the problems in the short-run? This bill does nothing to propose any new energy policy whatsoever.

We have $4 gasoline, and this is where it really hits close to home. This is where I really have a personal problem with the fact that we're doing this bill. You know, just 2 days ago in my hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, General Motors just announced they're shutting down the factory there, the factory that has produced the Yukon, the Tahoe and the Suburban. And the reason they're shutting down the factory at the end of this model year is because of $4 gas. It costs a hundred bucks to fill up a Suburban, and people aren't buying them. Thirty percent decline in sales just this year alone, and people are scratching their heads and wondering how did this happen, how did this come to be, why do we have $4 gas.

Well, here's the problem, Mr. Speaker, we're 60 percent dependent on foreign oil, and you know what's so galling about that is the fact that we have about seven times the amount of oil under our ground in this country than Saudi Arabia has under theirs. Yet it's all off-limits.

We have got 16 billion barrels of oil up in ANWR that are off-limits by Congress. We've got 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf off-limits by Congress. We have 2 trillion barrels of oil in the Intermountain Region in this country, all off-limits by Congress.

We know how to drill in a very safe and environmentally sound way. And what's more galling from that is the Congressional Research Service is now telling us, just passing the ANWR legislation, the smallest of these three fields I just mentioned, would get us about $191 billion in revenue to the Federal Government over the next 10 years.

Imagine what we could do with that. Imagine the deficit reduction that could occur as a consequence of that. Imagine the hydrogen, the fuel cells, the research that we could do to actually invest in a Manhattan Project to get us off of oil itself. But unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle are not doing anything.

So while I'm happy we have a budget resolution on the floor, I'm very dispirited and very disappointed in its content. Largest tax increase in American history. Absolutely nothing to confront the entitlement crisis in this country, a 37 percent increase in this liability. Largest increase in national debt in the American history. And nothing to address the long-term and nothing to address the short-term by making us less dependent on foreign oil.

I find it interesting that our friends on the other side of the aisle are so critical of our foreign policy as being too unilateral; yet what we're simply saying to other countries is we're going to drill for oil in your country and buy that from you and not explore it in our own country. A little bit of a hypocritical stance, I would argue.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me inquire as to how much time remains for each side.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Conaway.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Barrett from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) be allowed to manage time for our side for a moment of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, what this is all about is priorities, that

is what budgets are, and when you take a look the priorities in this budget, it is a huge missed opportunity.

I started the beginning of this debate by complimenting the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina for bringing a budget to conclusion, and I really sincerely mean that. I am from Wisconsin. I didn't really know what the definition of a ``distinguished southern gentleman'' is. I do now know by serving with John Spratt, and he deserves credit for bringing a budget resolution to the floor in an election year, which is something that is not often done around here. So I sincerely want to compliment the gentleman for that.

But what about the budget we have here being brought to the floor? I see some young people in the audience here, some young people in the well here. I have some young people in my family. I have a daughter who is 6, a son who is 5, and a son who is 3 years old, and by the time my three kids are exactly my age, this Federal Government will be doubling their taxes.

The pathway that we are on right now with the unsustainable fiscal crisis in this country is one in which, instead of taxing 18.3 cents out of every dollar to pay for the Federal Government, which is what we have been doing for the last 40 years, the next generation, my children's generation, when they are raising their kids will be paying 40 cents out of every dollar just to pay for this Federal Government.

We know for a fact that we are shackling the next generation with a mountain of debt and taxes that is unsustainable. We are bequeathing this to the next generation, unless we fix this, unless we step up as every preceding generation has done in this country and make things better.

What does this budget do? Not only in a time of economic recession, not only in a time of $4 gas prices, not only in a time where the grocery bill is twice as high as it was last year, we are raising taxes across-the-board the most we have ever raised them before, taxes on marriage, taxes on having children, taxes on making money, taxes on starting small businesses, taxes on pensions, taxes on retirement. This budget does that. But what is even worse than that is that this budget proposes to increase this debt, this legacy of debt to our children and our grandchildren, by $14 trillion for just two programs alone. It is unconscionable.

Both parties lay blame, but should claim responsibility for getting us to where we are. I am not simply saying here that Republicans have always been pristine and Democrats have always been bad. We got into this together. We are going to have to get out of this together. The problem is, this is no way to go. We shouldn't be doing this to our grandchildren, to our children, to the ``X Generation.''

That is what this budget does, the largest tax increase in American history, which is going to hurt our economy even further and cost jobs. When you raise taxes, you lower jobs. When you raise taxes, you take money out of paychecks. You hurt families. You don't give them the ability to get going, to succeed. Their paychecks don't get stretched farther, they get stretched shorter.

And when you consign the next generation by simply walking away from the problem and saying to our kids and our grandkids, instead of giving you a $40 trillion debt for Medicare and Social Security, we are going to give you a $54 trillion debt for Medicare and Social Security, each household today, if we want just these two programs to work, would have to set aside $353,000. What this budget says is each household will have to set aside $474,000.

We are abdicating leadership in this budget. It is wrong. What we need to do is come together, both sides, recognize this problem, and realize that the way to prosperity in this country is not to tax our way out of this problem; it is to address this spending problem in this House, address the culture of earmarks, address the spending that we have here and get it under control so that the next generation can be better off.

That is what my folks told me the legacy of this country is all about. Each generation rises to the challenges in this country and leaves the next generation better off. Well, what we are doing with this budget is we are severing that legacy. We know for a fact, it is guaranteed, it is statistically a truism by all sides of the aisle, we are going to sever that legacy and we are going to give the next generation an inferior standard of living, unless we defeat this budget.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1214, I call up the conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 70) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 2013.

Mr. Speaker, every year the Budget Committee has one all- important task, and that's to outline a budget for Congress to follow. Today, we do just that as we pass the conference agreement on the budget for fiscal 2009. The Senate passed the conference agreement just yesterday.

Passing a budget is never an easy task. This, in fact, will be the first time in 8 years that Congress has passed a concurrent budget resolution in an election year. Our conference agreement charts a new course. It returns the budget to balance reaching a surplus of $22 billion in the year 2012 and staying in surplus through 2013. Our budget adheres to pay-as-you-go

because we believe in it. It embraces middle-income tax cuts and holds non-defense domestic discretionary spending to an increase of about 1 percent over inflation.

Our budget begins by undoing the damages done by the President's budget to services that people depend upon.

Take Medicare and Medicaid, for example, pillars of medical care for millions of Americans. The President would cut Medicare by $479 billion over the next 10 years and Medicaid by $94 billion. We reject those cuts. We restore Medicare and Medicaid to current services, and we accommodate adding up to $50 billion more for the Children's Health Insurance Program, fully offset, to reach the millions of children who are eligible but not yet enrolled in CHIP.

The President proposes $18 billion in cuts over 5 years in new fees on military retirees and veterans, actually increases in fees of $18 billion. We reject those fees and add $3.7 billion above current services to the veterans' health care system.

The President even digs into education, cutting Function 500, education, training, employment and social services, not only next year but over the next 5 years by $32.7 billion. We reject the President's cuts in education and, in particular, his elimination of 47 educational programs. Instead, we make significant increases for education every year over the next 5 years.

Our budget supports not just investments in education as such, but in research and development and science and innovation, through NIH and NSF and other entities, providing substantially more than the President requested.

Finally, since strong countries are made up of strong communities, we believe that law enforcement grants and community development grants and transportation grants are part of the Federal role. We, therefore, reverse the President's deep cuts in the community development and social services block grants and in LIHEAP and law enforcement, and our budget invests in the Nation's infrastructure.

Because this budget upholds all of these priorities, it has drawn support from dozens of nonpartisan groups, from the AARP to the American Legion to the American Hospital Association. All of them and many more have sent us letters of support, and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

We face in this country not just this budget deficit, not just a trade deficit, but an energy deficit that is on the minds of us all. Read the President's budget, however, and you will find little that's new about skyrocketing energy costs, renewable energy, clean fuel technology, conservation, and efficiency. What you will find are heavy hits on LIHEAP, the one program that helps families weather the high price of fuel oil, heat their homes in winter and cool them in summer. Our budget restores LIHEAP to a level that's $3 billion above the President's budget. And for funding development of alternative fuels, renewable energies, and other energy initiatives, our budget provides $7.7 billion.

As I mentioned, this conference agreement extends tax cuts to help middle-income families caught in the current slump. For example, we protect 20 million middle-income households from being hit by the alternative minimum tax, 20 million Americans for whom it was never intended. We accommodate the extension of the middle-income tax cuts, the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent individual income tax bracket.

Our colleagues on the other side will claim, however, that this budget raises taxes. Let me say emphatically, this budget does not raise taxes. But don't take my word for it. Here's what outside experts say.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: ``The conference agreement does not raise taxes.''

The Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution: ``The budget would not raise taxes.''

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: ``This year's budget does not include a tax increase.''

There is one other criticism our colleagues across the aisle may make but cannot sustain as to this conference agreement. In terms of national security, we provide the same dollars as the President's base budget requested, except that we call for better stewardship and better priorities, such as nonproliferation, supporting nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and materials, maybe the most menacing threat facing us.

If anything, our conference agreement protects the homeland and internal security more than the President's budget because we reverse his cuts in local law enforcement and firefighters and the Coast Guard and the first responders. Most important of all, we do everything that I have cited within the context of a balanced budget.

When President Bush took office in 2001 the budget was in surplus by $236 billion. His economists looked out over 10 years and saw nothing but surpluses, $5.6 trillion in all. President Bush told the country we could have it all, guns, butter and tax cuts, too, and never mind the deficit. Now, almost 8 years later, we see the disastrous consequences. Under the fiscal policies of this administration, the Bush administration, our national debt has mushroomed, increased from $5.7 trillion in 2001 to $10 trillion in 2009.

Since the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the White House during much of this time, they cannot escape responsibility for these abysmal fiscal results.

Faced with these grim facts, what does the President's budget propose for 2009? More of the same. He is still in effect saying that we can have the guns and the butter and the tax cuts, too, and that deficits don't really matter because foreign investors will keeping buying our Treasury bonds.

In contrast, the budget before us is a step in the right direction. It may not be the grand or final solution, but this budget moves us in the right direction, enforcing fiscal responsibility, though not to the exclusion of other values that we hold dear.

I urge support for this conference agreement by all Members of the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds before yielding to the gentleman from Texas.

Let me just make clear, this budget moves us to balance in 2012. And the fact of the matter is, the plain history of the matter is that when the Republicans took the White House in 2001, the budget the year before was $236 billion in surplus. By the year 2004, they had made that surplus advantage to where we had a deficit of $412 billion, a swing of $648 billion on their watch. They controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, they controlled the White House; and they've added $4 trillion to the national debt.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the committee, Mr. Scott.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), also a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's newfound concern for the budget deficit, but let me remind him from 2001 through 2007, his party controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House and accumulated a record debt and record deficits, and it takes a long time to turn this battleship around, but that's what we do in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of our caucus, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, to close the debate, I now yield the balance of our time to our distinguished Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, there are only two ways to balance the budget: You can either spend less or you can increase the amount of money coming in.

The majority, as reflected in their budget, have rejected the first option and instead have chosen higher spending, higher taxes, and a bigger Federal Government.

Republicans have chosen a more responsible approach by committing to spending less and letting workers, families, and small businesses keep more of their hard-earned income to save, invest, and spend as they see fit.

While Republicans have faith in the ability of workers and families to decide how best to use their paychecks, the majority budget reflects the majority's belief that the Federal Government can make better choices at spending money than individual Americans.

That is a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. In order for the majority to fund their government spending, their budget raises taxes by two-thirds of a trillion dollars over the next 5 years. That is almost $700 billion. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Two-thirds of a trillion dollars.

At a time of an economic slowdown and increased cost of living, American families everywhere are tightening their belts and carefully budgeting their hard-earned money. This is not the time for the majority to be forcing American families to send more of their hard- earned money to Washington. Instead, we should be passing pro-growth policies to help create jobs and economic prosperity. Mr. Speaker, tax increases are not a pro-growth policy. They are anti-growth, anti-small business, anti-job creation, and we should reject them.

Now you can call this a tax increase or you can call it letting tax cuts expire, but the reality is that under the majority's budget, every American will pay more of their paycheck to the Federal Government. That includes many middle class families, small business owners, and entrepreneurs.

Although Democrats try to claim otherwise, the numbers in their own budget document show that taxes will increase nearly three times more than when the largest enacted tax hike to date was passed, making this the largest tax increase in American history. While the majority claims their budget will protect middle class families, their budget numbers tell a different story.

Under the massive tax increases in the majority's budget, the average taxpayer in the State of Florida, for example, will see his or her annual bill increase by over $3,000. The majority's budget lets the current tax cuts expire, and some of those tax cuts are very important to Americans, to our economy.

For example, seniors could see taxes on their investments and savings income double. Forty-eight million married couples could once again face a marriage tax penalty, costing them $3,000 per year. Young families could see a reduction in the child tax credit. States such as Florida may not get an extension of the State sales tax deduction.

The majority's budget may even manage to resurrect the death tax. This will particularly hurt the small businesses in the district that I'm honored to represent, which provide the majority of the community's jobs. It may even hit 26 million additional middle class taxpayers with the alternative minimum tax. Their budget also assumes that 6 million Americans who currently do not pay any taxes, will once again have to pay taxes.

Mr. Speaker, in order to boost our economy, increase investment in the United States, create jobs, Congress should not be raising taxes by the largest amount in history.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis of California.

(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

It has been an interesting debate. Basically I have heard two contradictory arguments. One is that when the Republicans were in the majority, we didn't spend enough on social programs. I remember every year of our majority, for example, increasing veterans spending. As a matter of fact, there has been significant criticism of Republicans when we were in the majority for too much spending globally and in general. I have heard basically two different theories. So I wish that our friends on the other side the aisle would kind of choose which of the two scripts to read. Either we spent too much, or we spent too little.

The reality is that in the Democrats' budget, basically it is a blindfold budget, Mr. Speaker, because the minefields that are laying before the future of this Nation, the needs that we do have to look at and see how we are going to address, the major problems facing this Nation, for example, entitlement reform, all the objective, nonpartisan economists and other experts will tell us that we need to look at such matters in the future of this Nation. But they are not even touched upon, not even mentioned, by the majority in its budget.

Obviously they have a tremendous amount of increased spending. It is evident. They don't call them tax increases, they call them the end of tax cuts. But there are massive tax increases that will be required to fund the Democrats' budget, and then the great problems facing this Nation are simply in blindfold fashion ignored. So it is a very shortsighted budget, it is fiscally irresponsible, and certainly we hope that all Members will oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides obviously for consideration of the budget conference report. Budgets inevitably are a very important issue, and especially to many Americans who are taking nowadays a deeper, more careful look into their own budgets, because every day the rising cost of gasoline is taking more and more of their hard-earned income. Part of the reason that we are seeing increasing gas prices is because we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil while avoiding development of domestic energy sources.

I learned the other day how more than 80 percent of the electricity generated in France, for example, is from nuclear power. There is a very strong environmental movement in France, and yet in consensus fashion there they have moved forward with nuclear energy.

Imagine if we had built nuclear power plants. We haven't in about 30 years, nor any refineries. Imagine the amount of oil that we would be saving, how consumption would be reduced, if we also had had the vision and the determination to build nuclear power plants, safe, new nuclear plants in this country to substitute for oil. Well, we haven't. So part of the reason that we are seeing increasing gas prices is because we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil, while avoiding developing domestic energy sources.

Now, one important source of domestic energy is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. However, efforts to develop just a tiny portion of ANWR have been fought and blocked to the detriment of America's energy independence, even though the people of Alaska, Mr. Speaker, are overwhelmingly in favor of searching for energy there. With the price of gasoline reaching records every day, we should be looking to do all we can to lower the price of gasoline, and that includes domestic exploration, when the people of a State wish to search for energy.

Today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider an amendment that would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil, by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as the people of that great State and their Senators and Representative here in Congress wish to do.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and our reliance on foreign energy sources.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, a budget is a moral document that demonstrates our values and priorities. I want to congratulate Chairman Spratt for again bringing forth a budget that represents values of which we can be proud. This budget would make real investments in education, hometown security, veterans' programs, healthcare, and research and development while bringing the budget back to surplus by 2012.

I am pleased that this Fiscal Year 2009 budget continues to follow the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) principle that the House restored at the start of the 110th Congress. This ensures that every new dollar of spending is offset and will not worsen the deficit. Although the budget resolution does not set the taxes or appropriation money, it does lay out the plan for the coming years to spend money and to raise revenues.

The budget would require the Ways and Means Committee to find the savings required to prevent millions of new Americans from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which has slowly morphed into a middle-class tax hike. More families in Central New Jersey are affected by the AMT than anywhere else in the country. Last year, Congress prevented nearly 23 million Americans, including more than 88,000 in the 12th Congressional District, from paying the AMT in 2008. Without action on this issue even more Americans would be affected by the AMT in the future.

With the price of oil now over $130 a barrel, this budget would make a significant investment in our Nation's energy future by providing $7.7 billion for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other energy programs. This is $2.8 billion--or 55 percent--more than the Fiscal Year 2008 budget. In doing so, the budget would reject the President's budget cuts to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and instead invest $2 billion in new programs to create ``green collar jobs.''

Mr. Speaker, this budget honors our commitment to our Nation's children by investing in education. The budget would provide $8.4 billion above the President's request--new funding that could support vital programs like Head Start, special education, school improvement programs, and Title 1. The budget also would help make college more affordable and accessible for students in New Jersey and throughout the country by increasing funding that could support Pell grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and programs that broaden access to Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Facing difficult and uncertain economic times, this budget would invest in job creation and job training. In addition to investing in programs to create ``green collar jobs,'' we reject the President's cuts to Community Development Block Grants and his proposal to eliminate four job training programs. We also look to a long-term economic growth strategy, one that invests in science and research and development. This budget would support our Innovation Agenda by increasing funding for the America COMPETES Act, which authorized robust funding for research at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

Our budget also addresses the fact that our Nation has more Americans than ever living without health insurance, including over nine million children. We would include funding to provide up to $50 billion for children's health insurance. This would help insure millions of children. Likewise, our budget recognizes the importance of Medicaid and Medicare and would reject the President's harmful proposal to cut Medicaid by $94 billion and Medicare by $479 billion over ten years.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of this budget's commitment to making America more safe and secure. Notably, we would provide additional funding to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations, including required 100 percent screening for shipping and air cargo. We would also place a greater emphasis on funding nuclear nonproliferation programs, one of the most severe threats to our security.

Additionally, we would restore funding for vital first responder programs, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program (cut $705 million), Firefighter Assistance Grants (cut $463 million), Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (eliminated all formula funding), and COPS (cut $599 million).

This budget continues our commitment to fully fund veterans' health care by providing $48.2 billion for 2009, which is $4.9 billion (11.4 percent) more than the 2008 level. In fact, it would provide $3.3 billion more than the President's budget for 2009 and $39 billion more over five years. Consistent with past practice, the President's budget actually cuts funding after the first year. This budget also would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to treat 5.8 million patients in 2009, including an estimated 333,275 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, many of whom suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries, or blast-related injuries. Additionally, the budget rejects the health care fee increases imposed by the President's budget, which total $2.3 billion over five years, including a new enrollment fee and pharmaceutical co-payment increases. Finally, this budget increases funding to speed disability claims processing, so that VA can continue to reduce its backlog.

I would like to recognize the budget's impact on voting reform. Implementing a nationwide requirement for independently auditable, and audited, vote counts is a priority of mine. As such, I was deeply disappointed that the President's budget made no request for funding under Title II of the Help America Vote Act. Approximately $560 million of the funding authorized under that Title remains unappropriated, and jurisdictions across the country could use that funding to improve the accuracy, integrity and security of their voting systems, as well as improve the administration of elections generally. Additionally, I was disappointed to see that the President requested only half of what remains authorized to fund disability access grants to ensure polling place accessibility. As we continue to debate the budget, we should address these budget shortfalls.

Mr. Speaker, this budget reflects values for which we can be proud. We reject cuts to important healthcare, education, veterans, and national security programs while maintaining our commitment to fiscal responsibility. By adopting this budget and supporting the designated funding levels throughout the appropriations process, we would be investing in priorities important to our future.