Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012.

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

I would like to start off by congratulating Chairman Spratt and the majority staff on the Budget Committee for reaching this point in the budget process. This is not easy. And they are to be commended for getting the budget up to this point.

I have long believed that the budget resolution is an important statement of congressional policy and a critical act of governing. So in a sense, I am glad to see this conference report here today. And the gentleman from South Carolina deserves credit for that.

That said, the choices in this budget, or some would argue, the complete lack thereof, represents an enormous missed opportunity, an enormous missed bipartisan opportunity.

The Democrats' fiscal year 2008 budget sets off a vicious cycle, Mr. Speaker. Higher taxes fuel higher spending and greater spending demand. In order to meet this appetite for greater spending, we are going to have to raise taxes again and again and again. Let's take a look at how this will work.

First, the linchpin of this budget, and numbers do not lie, check with the Congressional Budget Office, its only one binding fiscal policy is the same one that Democrats have been bringing to the floor time and again, ``raise taxes.'' This budget will raise taxes on the American economy and American workers by at least $217 billion. That is the second largest tax increase in American history. And to be clear, their $217 billion tax increase is just an opening bid. It will last only until the majority can raise the ante.

As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the House Democrats wanted and included in their budget a $400 billion tax increase. That would have been the largest in history. But the Senate made it clear by a vote of 97-1 that they would not accept the House's number. So from this conference report, it would initially appear that the House Democrats receded to the Senate's smaller tax number, the smaller tax increase, that's according to the CBO, that is, until you take a closer look at some of the procedures and gimmicks included in this report.

First let's look at the trigger. There is this so-called tax trigger. In short, this trigger will provide the majority with an immense loophole allowing them to renege on their promise to protect certain high-profile tax benefits, and they can do it without leaving any fingerprints because it would all be automatic. All the Democrats have to do, believe it or not, is spend too much money, and that will set off the trigger and raise those taxes.

Mr. Speaker, they are saying in this budget they want to extend marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit and the 10 percent bracket. But if they spend too much money, guess what happens automatically? Those tax cuts go away.

Then there is the $190 billion worth of unfunded spending increases promised in this budget's 23 reserve funds. If they actually deliver on these promised 23 wish list reserve funds, that's another tax hike.

Mr. Speaker, even their version of PAYGO, which they touted as proof of their commitment to fiscal discipline, is just a means to make it easier to raise taxes. What happens if they raise mandatory spending, Mr. Speaker? You guessed it. They have to raise taxes to pay for it.

So again, this $217 billion tax hike is just the starting bid. You can expect them to draw from that well again and again and again. Why is this a problem? Why do we have this huge difference of opinion, difference in philosophy of ideology of economic doctrines? Because the enormous tax increases will threaten the economic and fiscal progress our Nation has made these past several years.

As I have said many times before, the tax decreases, the tax cuts we passed in 2001 and 2003 have turned this economy around, it brought us out of recession. It improved job growth, GDP growth. It lowered the unemployment rate. Business investment and the entire market rebounded. And all that growth has led to surging revenues coming into the Federal Treasury. Three years of double digit revenue growth at these lower tax rates. The tax hikes contained in this budget threaten to reverse all of this.

And think of the impact this tax hike will have on the small businesses that it hits. Our small businesses, who are already paying the second highest tax burden in the industrialized world, will be told that they are just not paying enough. In this increasingly global economy, where these companies are struggling to compete with China and India, imposing an even larger tax burden will be crushing. It will severely threaten our ability to compete, and let alone lead, in the global economy.

So what will taxpayers get in return for sending Congress ever higher cuts of their paychecks? Better working, more efficient, less wasteful spending? No. The majority doesn't even pretend they are going to control spending.

There is no control on the existing trajectory of spending we have in this budget. We are only 5 months into this Congress, and at every opportunity the new majority has chosen the path of higher spending. They increased discretionary spending by $6 billion in the omnibus, another $20 billion or so of extraneous spending in the supplemental, and now they're increasing nondefense discretionary appropriations next year by another $23 billion.

For all we've heard about how the Democrats had to clean up the mess the Republicans gave them, their only response to this seems to be spend more and tax more. This formula has never worked for getting control of the budget in the past, and it won't work now. It's also the reverse of what's going on in the rest of the world. Across Europe, governments are moving away from their welfare state, big government tax policies and toward more market-oriented policies. For instance, the latest, most clear example. But here in the States, where we should be leading the tide toward free markets, Democrats are taking us in the other direction.

Finally, I think the biggest failure of this budget is not what it does do, it's what it doesn't do. This budget does nothing to reform entitlement programs, to extend their solvency. We had a parade of witnesses from the left and from the right, Democrat witnesses, Republican witnesses, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the OMB Director, the CBO Director, all come to us and say, you've got to get a handle on entitlements. You have to reform the entitlement programs to make them more solvent, to stop this enormous unfunded liability that is hitting American taxpayers.

Even with the Democrats' $400 billion tax increase, they had in the House-passed version, that would quickly outpace revenues, entitlements would swamp us.

So Mr. Speaker, even if we hit a temporary balanced budget, as this might achieve, it will be temporary because you can't raise taxes enough again and again to outpace the trajectory of entitlement spending growth. We will go back into deficits because this budget does nothing to control spending.

So why have the Democrats failed to even address this dire situation? Because as Senate Budget Chairman Senator Conrad told 60 Minutes, ``It's always easier not to. It's always easier to defer, to kick the can down the road, to avoid making choices.'' ``You know, you get into trouble in politics when you make choices.'' I appreciate that sentiment, but we all know that is not what budgeting is about. Budgeting is about making choices even when they're tough, even when they are not politically popular because that is what we came here to do.

In closing, I believe this budget fails to make any real choices, let alone the right ones. It will impose on American families and businesses at least the second largest tax increase in American history, if not the largest, add immense new government spending, and put off critical entitlement reforms for at least another 5 years. Our House Republican budget proved we can balance the budget without raising taxes and stop the rate on Social Security.

It is my genuine hope that the House will vote today to change this dangerous course and send the Democrat budget back to the drawing board.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification. I think the gentleman said that our budget did not extend the tax cuts. It did. In fact, it extended all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. I just wanted to state that for the record. That is all.

Well, I can go back into that, but I think we have belabored the point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to ask a rhetorical question, if the Democrats chose to extend some of the tax cuts in this budget and therefore not all of the others, how is this not a tax increase?

If the Senate said that the Democrat House budget raised taxes and they didn't want to raise them as much and they forced the conference to negotiate to keep some of the tax cuts at bay, how is this not a tax increase? If they are saying they are preserving some of the tax cuts, then by definition they are raising the other taxes.

You can't have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a young, earnest, conscientious Republican leader, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds simply to say that's correct, the majority did make choices. They chose to raise taxes, they chose to raise spending, and they chose to violate their own PAYGO rules.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, given the stated concerns about borrowing by the majority, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that pursuant to rule XXVII of the rules of the House, upon adoption of the conference report by both the House and the Senate, the Clerk of the House will be instructed to prepare a joint resolution adjusting the public debt limit; is that correct?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Am I further correct, that by operation of rule XXVII, upon adoption of this conference report by both the House and the Senate, this joint resolution adjusting the debt limit will be considered as passed by the House and transmitted to the Senate?

Will there be a separate vote in the House on passing this joint resolution adjusting upwards the debt limit?

Mr. Speaker, by operation of this rule, will the vote by which the conference report is passed by the House be considered the vote on passage of the joint resolution adjusting the debt limit?

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have just learned is that if a Member votes for this conference report, and it is adopted by the Senate, then they will be recorded as having voted for the joint resolution raising the public debt limit to $9.815 trillion, an increase in the public debt of borrowing of $850 billion. If a Member votes against this conference report, and it is adopted by the Senate, then they will not be recorded as having voted to increase the debt limit or borrowing by $850 billion.

So it's very clear that the passage of this budget increases borrowing by $850 billion and that is, in fact, the effect of this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, is he the last speaker on their side? You are reserving the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chief minority whip from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

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

Mr. Speaker, let's just be really clear. You are hearing this debate about taxes. Nowhere is the difference between the two parties ever clear than it is right now. We brought a budget to the floor that not only did not raise taxes, it kept taxes low, and it reduced spending, and it balanced the budget, and it finally stopped the raid of the Social Security Trust Fund.

That's what we proposed. We are not in the majority. Our view did not prevail. The Democrat budget did prevail. What did that budget do? It passed the largest tax increase in American history. That's not what we say, that's what the Congressional Budget Office says, our scorekeepers.

So what did they do in conference? They decided to accede to the Senate and have a slightly smaller tax increase. They started off with the red line, largest tax increase in American history as measured by the Congressional Budget Office. No matter what you say, the numbers in the budget just don't lie.

Then they said, let's have a trigger. If we don't spend too much money, and if the surplus is big enough in 2010, then maybe some taxpayers could get some tax relief, and we won't raise all of their taxes. We will extend the marriage penalty and the child tax credit, 10 percent bracket, but will all the other tax increases occur? So we will have the second highest tax increase in American history.

That's what their proposal does. They simply cannot have it both ways. They cannot say there is no tax increase in this budget and then say we are preserving some of the tax cuts and not others. You can't have it both ways.

Here is what this budget does. It puts us on a vicious cycle of taxing and spending. They start off by spending $24 billion, next year, brand new spending.

Then they have a $217 billion tax increase. Then they have 23 reserve funds, 23 wish lists, which equal $190 billion in new spending. Then they have no entitlement reforms, which means our entitlement programs are going to grow and grow and grow at unsustainable rates. Guess what, $190 billion in wish lists, 23 new wish lists of spending. What do they get? If they get the spending, they get another $190 billion tax increase to pay for it, a vicious cycle of new spending.

The trigger tax says we would like to give some people some tax relief, but if we continue to whet our appetite, taxpayers won't get it. All this trigger says is it puts the taxpayer at the back of the line and the government and spending at the front of line. We have a different core set of values.

We believe the money that people make is their money, not the government's money. If you are making money, working hard and paying taxes, that's your money, not ours. We have a different set of beliefs. They believe the opposite. They believe that more and more and more money ought to come out of workers' paychecks. They believe that they can spend your money better than you can.

That is not what we believe. The reason that we don't believe it is because if you have more money in your paycheck, you have more for yourself and more freedom for your family, we know, by golly, the American economy grows. We succeed. We improve in the global economy.

We created 7 million new jobs since this last run of tax cuts. We increased revenues to the Federal Government from these lower tax raises, 3 years in a row, double digit revenue growth. Let's not turn that recipe upside down. Let's not ruin a good thing.

Defeat this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished minority leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 409, I call up the conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012.

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

This budget resolution which we present today did not come easily. It comes from months of hard work, hearings, and negotiations. The end product is a good budget, not perfect, I will admit. Not complete but worthy of support. Indeed, it requires our support if we do not want the process to fail again, as it did last year when no concurrent resolution was passed and only two of 11 appropriation bills were enacted.

This budget moves us to balance over the next 5 years. Along the way, it posts smaller deficits than the President's budget. It adheres to the pay-as-you-go principle and contains no new

mandatory spending that is not paid for, and it funds ``program integrity initiatives'' to root out wasteful spending, fraud, and tax evasion.

Within this framework, our budget does more for veterans' health care, more for children's health care, and more for education. Here in a nutshell are the basics of this budget:

This budget comes to balance in 5 years and runs a surplus of $41 billion in the year 2012. Contrast that with the President's budget, which remains always in deficit. This budget allocates $954 billion to discretionary spending, or about $75 billion more than this year, of which about $50 billion is for national defense. This total includes $450 billion for nondefense discretionary, or about $23 billion more than this year.

This budget not only abides by the PAYGO principles, it extends them, establishing a Senate PAYGO rule and calling for statutory PAYGO as well.

The concurrent resolution before us, like the House resolution, sets defense spending at levels the President requested, though it targets resources to the troops and conventional forces. It provides more for homeland security than the administration requested, and it funds the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. So it is strong on defense, internal and external.

This budget does all of the above, and I would emphasize this, it does all of the above without raising taxes. The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 all remain in force, unaffected in any way by this resolution. As originally written and enacted, most of the tax cuts expire on December 31, 2010. In our budget resolution, we separated out the middle income tax cuts and made it the policy of our resolution to extend those tax cuts when they expire.

In this concurrent resolution, we go even further. We install a trigger that facilitates the extension of these tax cuts so long as the House waives its PAYGO rule and so long as the tax cuts extended do not exceed 80 percent of the surplus projected by OMB for the year 2012.

This budget's basic objective is to get back to balance. That is the bottom line. In such a budget, we can't have everything we want, but we do believe that some promises should be kept above all others, for example, the promises we've made to our veterans. This resolution increases funding for veterans health care in 2008 by $6.7 billion, 18.3 percent above the current year.

We also do not believe that children's health care and education should be sidetracked while we seek to work out ways to balance the budget. This budget accommodates an increase of $50 billion to expand the Childrens Health Insurance Program, so-called SCHIP, and cover millions of uninsured children. This budget also provides $4.6 billion over current services for education, job training and employment services. That includes more money for No Child Left Behind, for special education and student loans.

Lacking any other arguments, our friends from across the aisle, our Republican adversaries, will claim that this budget resolution raises taxes, as they have repeatedly and wrongly. Let me answer that claim emphatically. This budget does not raise taxes by one penny. Period. Not by one penny.

On the contrary, the 2008 budget resolution accommodates the extension of the middle income tax cuts, pays for a 1-year patch to prevent the AMT from coming down on middle income taxpayers, and calls for reform of the AMT, consistent with PAYGO principles, to save middle income taxpayers from this stealthy tax.

This budget is fiscally sound, a solid framework, is balanced from the top line to the bottom, and I urge support for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the majority leader, let me set the record straight with respect to revenue flows.

If you look in the Congressional Budget Office projections of revenues in the budget, you will see that for the period 2008 through 2012, cumulative revenues are projected to be $15.3 trillion. If you subtract 176 for that to account for the agreement we've made with the Senate, which will facilitate the adoption and extension of the middle income tax cuts adopted between 2001 and 2003, then our number for total revenues, according to CBO is $14.828 trillion. The President's budget, total revenues are $14.826 trillion. We are $14.828 trillion, the President is $14.826 trillion; $2 billion difference. This is the biggest tax increase in history? Give me a break.

And how about the Republican's own revenue stream. You start from the same baseline. They have to use CBO numbers too. $15.3 trillion. Deduct from that $447 billion, which they have in tax cuts during that period of time, the baseline number for them becomes $14.556 trillion. That is a difference of $272 billion over 5 years, less than $50 billion a year over that period of time. This is absurd. This has gone on and on and on, as the speeches claim, and we will refute it every time it's raised today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), the distinguished chairman of our caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the Chair how much time is left and who has the right to close?

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

We can't have this debate without having a few charts on the floor, and it always bears reminding what's happened over the last 6 years because it is truly a fiscal phenomenon.

When President Bush came to office in 2001, he had an advantage that few Presidents in recent history have enjoyed, a budget in surplus. I'm talking big-time surplus, $5.6 trillion by his estimate, over the next 10 years, $5.6 trillion. That was the year 2001. In the previous year, a Clinton year, we ran a surplus of $236 billion.

By the year 2004, under the stewardship of this administration and this Congress, because Republicans controlled the House, controlled the Senate and controlled the White House, under their stewardship, the $5.6 trillion surplus was converted to a $2.8 trillion deficit, enormous swing of $8 trillion in the wrong direction, and that $236 billion surplus in the year 2004 became a deficit of $412 billion.

Incredible, but that is what we have had for the last 6 years. That's the record over the last 6 years which cannot be denied. Here it is right here.

As a consequence of the deficits that have been run, this simple little chart that I bring down here again and again, because it bears reminding everybody what's happened over the last 6 years, shows that when Bush came into office we had a debt of $5.7 trillion. The debt today is over $8 trillion, $8.8 trillion. That means there's been an increase in the national debt of $3.1 trillion, and if we continue upon the fiscal path that this administration has taken, by the time they leave office the debt of the United States will be $90.6 trillion.

Look at the accumulation of debt over this 8-year period of time. We've never seen anything like it. These are the people who would criticize what we are doing.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about tax increases. Let me show you this little chart here, because it shows graphically, and emphatically, something called debt service. The increase in the interest on the national debt that has to be paid, talk about entitlement reform, this is the one true entitlement. It's obligatory, it has to be paid. Interest on the national debt has increased from about $156 billion a couple of years ago to $256 billion, and it's on its way north to $300 billion in a short period of time. This is a debt tax.

Yes, you may have cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, but, because you have borrowed to make up for the loss of revenues and added to the debt of the United States, you, we, our children and their children, will be paying this debt for years to come, and compare this huge mountain of debt service, interest on the national debt, to other priorities.

Education, the light blue block; veterans health care, the green block; Homeland Security, the blue block, all of them are dwarfed by interest on the national debt. So here is the debt tax that you have left us owing, left our children owing, left generations to come owing.

This is the debt tax that will have to be paid because it simply cannot be cut. That's what we are struggling with today because of the fiscal management of this government over the last 6 years.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a good budget. I would be the first to say it is not a perfect budget, but I would be the first to argue that it is worthy of our support.

Indeed, I think it requires our support if we don't want to see the budget process fail abjectly once again, as it did last year under Republican control when no concurrent budget resolution was ever enacted, passed, and only two of 11 appropriation bills were passed.

The bottom line, this budget moves us to balance over the next 5 years. Along the way, it posts smaller deficits than the President proposes, it adheres to the pay-as-you-go principle, which is the rule of this House, contains no new mandatory spending that is not paid for, and it funds five program integrity initiatives to root out wasteful spending and fraud and tax evasion.

Within this framework, it does more for veterans health care, far more, more for children's health care, far

more, and more for education, lots more.

Here in a nutshell are the basics of the budget: This budget runs to surplus of $41 billion in the year 2012. Contrast that with the President's budget which is always in deficit. This budget not only abides by pay-as-you-go principles, it enhances them by establishing a new Senate PAYGO rule and calling for reinstatement of the statutory PAYGO rule as well. This budget does all of the above, I will say this emphatically one last time, does all of the above without raising taxes.

The tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 remain in full force and effect, unaffected in any way by this budget resolution. As enacted and originally written, most of these tax cuts expire on December 31, 2010, and that has nothing to do with our budget resolution.

But in our budget resolution, we identified all of the middle income tax cuts, many of which we supported at the time passed, and we made it the policy of our resolution to extend these tax cuts when they expire.

In this concurrent resolution, we go even further. We install a trigger that will facilitate the extension of these tax cuts so long as, number one, the House waives PAYGO; and, number two, the tax cuts extended do not exceed 80 percent of the surplus projected by OMB by the year 2012.

This concurrent resolution in other respects sets defense spending levels that the President requested. Why is spending so high? It contains $145 billion in supplemental expenditures.

And let me say one thing about the argument one of the leaders of the other party made on the House floor just a few minutes ago about the amount of debt that is being added to the national debt. What we are talking about is taking a big battleship and turning it around slowly. We have inherited the basics of this budget. Much of the spending that we are carrying forward was dictated over the last 6 years. The same for the revenue flow of the budget we are undertaking. It is going to take time to turn this big battleship around. But as we do, the best we can do is, number one, have a concurrent budget resolution with the binding effect of budget law for the first time in a long time; and, secondly, this concurrent resolution which will put us back on the path to a balanced budget.

For those for whom a balanced budget is something of a moral imperative because of the debt we are leaving our children, the right vote today, the only vote today is the vote for this budget resolution, and I commend it to every Member of this House, Democrat and Republican, and urge their support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the time, the gentlewoman from Ohio, my friend on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to the outrageous tax increase conference report that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, once again, we will reiterate, the Democrat Party says it's not a tax increase, but if it's not a tax increase, then it's several hundred billion dollars more worth of spending. It's one or the other, because what we see here today is exactly that. They are going to give us the largest single tax increase in the history of this country, and even though they say it's not a tax increase, then it's going to be an outrageous spending spree because they intend to spend more money or have more taxation, and that's why we're opposed to this bill.

I wish I could report to my colleagues that the majority Democrats had seen the downside of their tax-and-spend ways since the House last considered the budget in March, but on the positive side this budget does contain a 1 year Alternative Minimum Tax patch which prevents over 20 million middle class Americans from being slammed by this tax.

And this tax in this budget also represents the largest tax increase in history, not the first anyway, but I'm sorry to report that it's about as good as it gets from here because the massive and irresponsible tax increase included in the House budget would still be the second largest in American history, weighing in at least $217 billion over the next 5 years.

It also contains a trigger that could nearly double it by including increases in taxes in marginal rates, capital gains and dividend taxes, among other tax relief that was provided previously by the Republican majority.

As further evidence that the Democrats continue to ignore their campaign trail promises to demonstrate fiscal discipline, the additional spending envisioned by this plan will trigger an automatic tax hike that will affect every single taxpaying American.

This means that as Democrats continue to implement their true tax- and-spend agenda, important middle class tax relief provisions passed by the Republican majorities of the past, such as the marriage penalty and the child tax credit, will shrink or disappear, raising the Democrats' tax increase right back to the original House-passed level of $400 billion, or restoring it to its historic infamy, which it would truly be, as the largest tax increase in American history.

And if this insatiable appetite for taxing were not enough, Democrats leave themselves enough room in this budget to raise taxes even further to pay for more than $190 million of additional, unfunded spending promises.

This budget also promises and provides for a massive new spending spree by increasing nondefense appropriations by $22 billion over 2007 levels. This is in addition to the $26 billion that they have already proposed to spend outside the normal appropriations process through the omnibus and supplemental legislation that they have forced through the House.

This conference report abandons the emergency set-aside fund included in last year's budget and opens the way for unlimited future spending by dropping any limitation on what can be considered emergency spending. But it has new funds for peanut farmers and spinach growers, so I guess that's a good thing.

But in a surprising bit of consistency, the Democrats do hold true to their pay-for rules and allow the 23 shell reserve funds to spend an additional $190 billion, as soon as appropriate because these will be tax increases that they intend to identify and then pay for.

This irresponsible budget continues to ignore the brewing entitlement crisis and puts off any major reform for at least another 5 years. This is despite the fact that around 77 million baby boomers will be retiring in the near future and will begin collecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Funding this new spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era, and it is a challenge that the Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore while going on their own spending spree everywhere else.

And what's worse, this budget completely shirks its oversight responsibility to root out waste, fraud and abuse in Federal spending by providing only $750 million of reconciliation spending out of an $8.5 trillion Federal budget. This is the legislative equivalent of checking under the seat cushions to pay the Federal Government's rent, and I believe, for one, that the American people deserve better.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, despite these massive tax increases, the Democrats fail to provide a surplus large enough to halt the raid on Social Security, directly contradicting their previous campaign trail promises to do precisely that. This is something that the Republican budget provided a surplus large enough to do starting in the next 5 years, and it did so by controlling, among other things, spending, not raising taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the voters watching this debate on C-SPAN can understand what these tax increases will mean for our economy and for our ability to compete globally. I think that they can see through this charade, and I know that they deserve better than this massive tax increase and spending spree that is on their dime and against the future of our children.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying tax increase.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do have an additional speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

I thank the inquiry from the gentlewoman. I will assume that the gentlewoman is still going to hold her time with no additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I may offer an amendment to the rule, which will stop this Chamber from hiding behind a cheap procedural maneuver invented by former Democrat Majority Leader Dick Gephardt. This rule allows Members to duck the responsibility of taking a vote on raising a limit on a public debt, a painful but necessary exercise of this Chamber's legislative responsibilities.

Because of this rule invented by Democrats, Members who vote for this underlying conference report will also be recorded as voting to raise the public debt. Members need to be aware of this. They need to know exactly what they are voting for.

For a long time, Members on both sides of the aisle have been appalled by this practice. Members of growths as ideologically diverse as the RSC, Blue Dogs and the New Democrat Coalition alike have called for its repeal. It's time for members of the Blue Dogs and New Democrat Coalition to demonstrate the courage of their convictions and end this bait-and-switch practice.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here today is the largest tax increase that will take place in American history. As the Republican majority has done for a number of years, we recognize that America needs to be more competitive with the world in cutting taxes, making sure that the budgets, very clearly, help protect this country, help protect the men and women of the United States military. They are doing their daily job in trying to not only protect this country, but to defeat terrorists all around the world.

Today we have an opportunity to stand very clearly, talking about what a budget does. We have heard it's a moral piece of paper. It defines very clearly about what someone's priorities are. Well, we know what those priorities are. They are tax and spend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority a few years ago heard the American people loud and clear that they wanted America to be competitive with the world. We were tired of losing jobs overseas. That is not happening. It has not happened in a couple years. As a matter of fact, there are signs all over this country that say ``workers needed.'' We need more workers in this country. And that comes as a result of the tax cuts that were offered to allow American business, corporations become competitive with the world, an opportunity to attract new capital, to retool our companies here in this country to give us the newest tools and the tool kits that are available.

We have a strong and vibrant economy. We have a strong and vibrant economy because we have people who have money in their own pockets creating jobs. We have some 5 million new jobs just in the last few years, 7 million since 2001, that have been created.

This economy is doing the right thing. It is giving the Americans their own dreams, their dreams to not only have their own homes, the highest level ever of people who own their own homes, but it is also giving America to save for our future because our stock market is back.

Just a few years ago, after 9/11, everybody was worried about their retirement. Big worries. At that time, what did we hear from the Democrat Party? Raise taxes. But that is not what the Republican majority or President Bush did. We cut taxes; we grew our economy. We have a strong and great economy today.

The Republican Party stands forth today on this day in Washington, D.C., to say we will vote against the largest or second largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America.

This budget that comes from the Democrat Party will raise taxes and raise spending. The Republican Party disagrees with that. The Republican Party disagrees with saying that we will have taxpayers who will be without jobs in this country, because we will take away the investment and the opportunity that goes forth to make investment possible to where jobs are available. The Republican Party stands today and says we are opposed to this new bill because of what it does by having all sorts of special accounts, just spending opportunities that sit out there in the future, undefined, but ready to spend money if the money comes in.

We believe that we should have had more responsibility, as we have tried to do for years, to do something responsible about Social Security. But we have heard from the Democrats for the last 6 years, there is nothing wrong with Social Security. There is no problem. Mr. Speaker, we disagree with that. Republicans are going to oppose this today. I ask my Members to join me in defeating the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, a budget is a moral document that demonstrates our values and priorities. This budget Conference Report, brought to us by Chairman John Spratt represents values I can be proud of. This budget makes real investments in education, healthcare, housing and research and development while bringing the budget back to surplus by 2012.

At a time when more than ten percent of students drop out of high school before graduating and only four out of ten children eligible for Head Start are able to participate, this budget reverses the Administration's policy of under-investing in education for our children. The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding for the Department of Education by $1.5 billion below the 2007 enacted level and to eliminate 44 entire programs. It instead provides for substantial new investments in vital programs such as Head Start, special education (IDEA), Title I and other programs under the No Child Left Behind Act. The bill also funds an increase in Pell Grants so that high school students will know that if they work hard, they can go to college.

The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding for the Community Development Block Grant program by $1.1 billion below last year's level, and instead provides for the first CDBG increase since 2005. The cut advocated by the President would endanger job creation, economic development, and affordable housing efforts, cutting CDBGs for nearly 1,200 state and local governments.

This budget rejects the President's proposal to cut Child Care Development Block Grants and Social Services Block Grants by $520 million below the 2007 level. The President's budget would lead to a decline in valuable assistance for child care that allows many working parents to earn a living. The Conference Report would allow for the first increase in this funding since 2002.

Further, knowing that we now have more uninsured Americans than six years ago, this budget blocks the President's proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. These cuts would have made healthcare less affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. This budget ensures that up to $50 billion over the next five years will be devoted to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) so that millions of uninsured children can be covered. New Jersey is a national leader in covering children through the SCHIP program and this additional funding is desperately needed to ensure our state's good work, and that of other states, can continue.

This budget reverses the President's dangerous cuts to our nation's first responders. What sense would it make to cut the Local Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program, Firefighter assistance grants, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, or the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program? Our budget stands up for first responders and ensures that each of the programs receives appropriate levels of funding.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Spratt and the Budget Committee conferees for demonstrating that we can provide for our nation's defense in a responsible way--both fiscally and from a policy standpoint. This budget will provide $507 billion in Department of Defense budget authority, an $18 billion increase over the President's request. This budget also emphasizes the right priorities for meeting our security needs.

For example, this resolution opposes TRICARE fee increases and calls for a substantial increase in the veterans' health care system. The budget resolution notes the upcoming recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors and other government investigations in connection with the Walter Reed scandal, and allows funds for action when those recommendations are received. To help protect our nation from a terrorist-sponsored nuclear attack, non- proliferation programs such as the Cooperative Threat Reduction program are given greater priority and higher funding.

This budget also helps us keep our promises to our nation's veterans. I'm pleased the committee has recommended increasing discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs from $36.5 billion to $43.1 billion--a $6.6 billion (18.1%) increase over FY07, and a $3.5 billion increase (8.9%) over the Administration request for FY08. This budget provides a far more realistic spending plan than the President's proposal. Our proposed increase in this area will help meet critical needs, including ensuring that medical inflation does not erode VA's ability to deliver quality health care to our veterans.

In order to maintain American competitiveness, we must make substantial investments in scientific research and education. The budget provides funding for initiatives to educate new scientists, engineers, and mathematicians in the next four years, and places more highly-qualified teachers in math and science K-12 classrooms. It makes critical investments in basic research, putting us on the

path to doubling funding for the National Science Foundation, and bolstering investments in research and development throughout the budget.

America's dependence on oil endangers our environment, our national security, and our economy. A sustained investment in research and development is crucial to creating cutting-edge technologies that allow us to develop clean, sustainable energy alternatives and capitalize on America's vast renewable natural resources. The budget provides increased funding for basic and applied energy research.

For the first time in 6 years, the Budget Resolution reflects a real commitment to protecting our most valuable natural resources by providing needed funding for our National Parks, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the national wildlife refuge system. H. Con. Res. 99 provides a total of $31.4 billion for environmental programs, which is $2.6 billion more than the President's request. I have been an advocate for the Land and Water Conservation Fund since I came to Congress eight years ago and I am pleased that we are finally at a place where the budget includes adequate funding for both the state- side grant program and the federal program. LWCF and the Forest Legacy program have done tremendous work in states across the country, including New Jersey, to protect open space, restore wetlands, and conserve forests lands. In the face of mounting evidence on the perilous state of our environment, it continues to amaze me why President Bush continues to turn a blind eye to our growing needs in this area. Finally, we have a budget that realizes how important this investment is to preserving our natural resources and promoting conservation.

This budget achieves all of these objectives and investments without an increase in taxes. The budget would accommodate immediate relief for the tens of millions of middle income households who would otherwise be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), while supporting the efforts of the Committee on Ways and Means to achieve permanent, revenue-neutral AMT reform. Unless the AMT is reformed, 19 million additional families will have to pay higher taxes in 2007. The budget would also accommodate extension of other middle-income tax relief provisions, consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go principle that include: the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent bracket, and the deduction for state and local sales taxes.

The past 6 years of fiscal irresponsibility have caused America's national debt to increase by 50 percent, an amount of nearly $9 trillion, or $29,000 for every American. Our ability to invest in the Nation's shared priorities is constrained by the cost of the debt run up over the last 6 years, when the administration and its partners in previous Congresses turned the largest surplus in American history into a record debt. About 75 percent of America's new debt has been borrowed from foreign creditors such as China, making our fiscal integrity a matter of national security. Over the last 6 years, President Bush has borrowed more money from foreign nations than the previous 42 U.S. Presidents combined.

Mr. Speaker, this budget reflects values that we can all be proud of. It meets the basic needs of Americans, invests in priorities important to our future while putting us on the path to fiscal responsibility. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Budget Conference Report.

Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report because it will begin the process of changing our budgetary course. While it is not identical to the version passed by the House earlier this year, like that resolution it is clearly preferable to budgets adopted by the House in previous years.

For the 6 years before the convening of this 110th Congress, the administration and the Republican leadership insisted on speeding ahead with misguided fiscal and economic policies. Ignoring all warning lights, they plowed ahead, taking us from projections of surpluses to the reality budgets deep in deficit and heaping higher the mountain of debt that our children will have to repay.

Many of us said it was urgent to stop persisting in that error and voted for alternatives, including those proposed by the Blue Dog Caucus.

But year after year our Republican colleagues insisted on taking their marching orders from the White House, moving in lockstep to endorse the Bush administration's insistence that its economic and fiscal policies must continue without change.

I admired their discipline, but I could not support their insistence on driving us deeper into the swamp of fiscal irresponsibility that has left a debt burden of more than $30,000 for a typical middle-income family of four in Colorado.

But that was then--and now, in this new Congress under new management, by passing this conference report we can begin to undo the damage they have done. The conference report is better in its fiscal responsibility and in its priorities.

It follows the tough ``pay as you go'' budget rules to begin to reverse the budget deficits and to put us onto the path to a balanced budget. And under this plan, by 2012, domestic discretionary funding would fall to the lowest level, as a share of the economy, in at least a half century while spending as a percentage of GDP will be lower in 2012 than it has been in any budget adopted under President Bush--1 percent lower than it will be this year and lower than it has been in any year since 2001.

Despite assertion by its critics, the conference report does not include any tax increases. To the contrary, it supports tax relief that would benefit the middle class--including extension of the child tax credit, 10 percent bracket, and marriage penalty relief--and provides for estate tax reform.

And it provides for immediate Alternative Minimum Tax relief, preventing more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from being hit by the tax. This is important because while in 2004 only 32,000 Colorado families were subject to the AMT, if nothing is done, this year that number will rise to 234,000 families in Colorado and hundreds of thousands more in other States.

At the same time, it takes steps to crack down on wasteful or fraudulent spending in Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance programs and it supports actions to collect unpaid taxes as well as providing additional resources to reduce claims backlogs in the Veterans Administration, Social Security Administration, and other agencies.

Further, it directs House committees to identify wasteful and lower priority spending that can be cut. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am particularly glad to note that the conference report is also realistic and responsible about the need to maintain our national defense and honor our promises to our troops and veterans.

In addition to meeting the needs of the active-duty force, it allows for increasing funding for veterans' health care and services by $6.7 billion above the 2007 enacted level, and $3.6 billion above the President's budget.

This is a priority for me, because it will help ensure that the 427,957 veterans in Colorado receive care worthy of their sacrifice. It is also critical for the 17,419 Coloradans, who have served their country in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001, many of whom will need VA health care services.

It also provides more funding for urgent homeland security needs and to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. In doing so, it rejects cuts to vital first responder and terrorism prevention programs that would happen if we adopted the President's budget for fiscal 2008.

Like the House-passed version, it recognizes the importance of research, development, and education in keeping our economy strong and our country secure. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee and chairman of its Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I am particularly supportive of it for that reason--and as one of the Chairs of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I welcome its support for research and development of renewable and alternative energy technologies.

As for education, the conference report allows for substantially more funding for helping Colorado's public elementary, middle and high schools educate the 768,600 children now enrolled, with more resources to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, special education and Head Start. By contrast, if we followed the President's budget, 31,296 Colorado children would not receive promised help in reading and math and the Head Start program--which serves 9,820 Colorado children--would be cut by 1.5 percent below the 2007 level.

These investments to a growing economy for America's families are needed because, according to the Census Bureau, family income in Colorado has dropped by $4,041 since 2000, while health care and energy prices are climbing. But still more is needed.

So, I am glad that the conference report provides for increasing funding for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--to help cover the 176,230 of Colorado's children who do not have health insurance. And because it is so important for Colorado's ranchers, farmers, and rural communities, I strongly support the part of the conference report that supports policies to strengthen the farm bill's economic benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Bush Administration does not like this conference report. After all, it rejects the Administration's misguided priorities. But it's disappointing that so many of our Republican colleagues still are so willing to unquestioningly follow the President's lead. And, while I suppose it's to be expected, it's particularly unfortunate that they have decided to attack this conference report by resorting to recycling the old, tired and false claim that it is ``the largest tax increase in history.''

But the facts are otherwise. The conference report does not affect the top-heavy tax cuts

the Bush administration and the Republican leadership pushed through since 2001--they remain in place as they stand, which means they will not expire for 4 years.

I did not vote for all of those tax cuts, but I did support some that are most important for middle-income Coloradans. So, I am glad that the conference report provides for extensions of those in 2011, including an extension of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the ten percent individual income tax bracket. And when the rest of the tax cuts come up for reconsideration, Congress can and should consider whether to extend them, as they are now or in modified form.

I support that approach, which is quite different from the alternative approach that would have been taken by the Republican alternative that the House rightly rejected earlier this year. It would have insisted on locking in all of the Bush tax cuts--the ones I did not support as well as those I did--and would have put top priority on making them all permanent.

I did like some things in the Republican alternative--including a constitutionally-sound line-item veto similar to my Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (``SLICE'') legislation--but overall I thought it was not a responsible approach and I could not support it, just as I could not support the other alternatives debated in the House.

Regarding one of those alternatives, in reviewing the formal record of rollcall 209, the vote on the Kilpatrick substitute, I found I am recorded as having voted ``yes.'' However, I had intended to vote ``no,'' and my recollection is that I did vote ``no.''

Unlike all those alternatives, and like the resolution passed by the House, this conference report is well balanced in its combination of fiscal responsibility and refocusing priorities. I will support it and I urge its approval by the House.