To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3245 Latta Road in Rochester, New York, as the "Brian K. Schramm Post Office Building".

Madam Speaker, while my colleagues didn't need to listen to the remarks of my distinguished colleague, I know that they will very much want to hear my remarks. And so I would like to make a point of order that the House is not in order.

I just made it. I mean, you determine whether or not the House is in order, Madam Speaker. It didn't seem to me that it was.

Sure.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

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

I thank my friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

It sort of feels like Groundhog Day. We just completed debate on this same-day rule and now here we are proceeding with the rule on the budget conference report itself.

When we ended the debate just a little while ago, my friend was saying that those of us on this side of the aisle have no interest or desire to work with President Obama, that all we say is ``no'' time and time again. I have got to say that repeatedly we have come forward with alternatives, and we very much want to work in a bipartisan way. And so this notion of trying to claim that we as Republicans are saying ``no'' is preposterous. Everyone is aware of the fact in this House and in the executive branch that we have come forward with proposals, which is exactly what we did. We had two alternatives that were considered here on the House floor when we considered the budget, itself, and now we have this conference report.

I have got to say that the underlying budget conference report, itself, Madam Speaker, that is before us, to quote my friend from Worcester, is really the same old, same old, a term that he loves to use, as, really, it's the same package that we looked at just 4 weeks ago. Democratic leadership, I know, has tweaked a few things on the margins, but the exact same failed policies are still fully intact on this budget.

My friend correctly points to the fact that the American people are hurting. We know very well that we have a shared goal, but it's how we do it. Unfortunately, this budget recklessly spends money that we don't have, and it sets the stage for tax increases that we can't afford. It makes the fundamental mistake that led to our economic crisis in the first place--profligate, unaccountable and irresponsible behavior. And it allows the Democratic majority to ram through massive, complex legislation down the road without any pretense of consensus building.

My friend said again that we just say ``no'' to the President. We want to have what the President talked about in his campaign, what the Speaker has repeatedly talked about. We want to work to build a consensus here, but, unfortunately, the budget itself lays the groundwork to completely obliterate any notion of bipartisanship.

Apparently they are not content with merely shutting out Republicans from the legislative process. They are finding moderates within their own party, those who are interested in reaching across the aisle and finding commonsense solutions, and those people who want to do that apparently are being ignored in this process as well. They want to be able to steamroll any effort whatsoever to reach a responsible, bipartisan compromise on some of the most important challenges like health care and energy.

This conference report will let them do just that, to ignore the prospect of bipartisanship. The Federal budget may be a very complicated thing. We all know that. But the principles that should govern that budget are not. They are not complicated at all.

The budget should responsibly spend the taxpayers' money. Every program, Madam Speaker, should be held accountable to cut out waste, fraud and abuse. The budget should assume responsibility for today's challenges rather than pushing the hard choices and mountains of debt off into the future to our children and grandchildren. The budget fails on all these counts.

The longer that the American public has time to examine the level of wasteful spending in this budget, the more deeply concerned they are. They wonder how we can afford this right now, how much debt will be left to our children and grandchildren, and will our taxes be raised to pay for this?

Just a few weeks ago The Hill, the newspaper here, ran a story on the emerging consensus among economists of all stripes that the numbers just don't add up and taxes are going to have to be raised dramatically to pay for all of this government spending. According to these independent analysts, as reported by The Hill, this will mean taxes on the middle class. On middle-income wage earners, these analysts are saying that taxes will be imposed.

Martin Sullivan, a contributing editor at Tax Analyst publications, is quoted as saying, ``You just simply can't tax the rich enough to make this all up.''

Another economist, Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, said that, under the current tax structure, ``there's no way we're going to be able to pay for government.''

Now, Madam Speaker, these are not Republican operatives. These are independent economists, many of whom openly supported the President during the campaign, who were looking at the numbers and who are saying that this budget will make tax increases on middle-income working Americans, who are trying to make ends meet, inevitable.

This course of action is especially dangerous given our current economic crisis and its causes. Anyone with a little common sense can understand that reckless borrowing and lending led to our economic downturn. A little common sense is also all it takes to understand that raising taxes, including on middle-income wage earners, would be a disaster during tough economic times. Even Keynesian economists and economists of all stripes recognize that, Madam Speaker. Yet this budget continues that very reckless behavior and puts us on the path toward those middle class tax increases.

The most dangerous impact of this budget will come further down the road. This bill employs an arcane legislative trick that will allow the Democratic leadership to cram through massive health care legislation with little scrutiny and, as I said earlier, with zero bipartisanship. This provision we all know called ``reconciliation'' may be a very technical Beltway issue, but we can all understand its implications by simply considering that iconic

American image, Jimmy Stewart, as he played the role of Jefferson Smith, defiant on the floor of the other body on the other side of the Capitol in that movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.''

For many Americans, this is the classic image of public service at its principled best. However, had the Democratic leadership's budgetary gimmicks been in place, Mr. Smith would never have been able to make the stand that he did in that famous movie.

Instead, this budget ensures, Madam Speaker, that critical legislation can be rushed through without the hassle of principled debate. We've already seen what happens when 1,000-page legislation on very complicated issues gets crammed through the Congress. Look no further than to the hundreds of billions of dollars of bailout money that this majority has doled out, to the billions wasted, to the billions unaccounted for and with nothing to show for it.

The Democratic leadership's hasty and partisan approach has a very poor track record. Now they want to ensure that they will be able to approach health care reform in the exact same way, health care accounts for nearly one-fifth of our entire economy, and is one of the single, most important factors in an individual's and in a family's quality of life.

Will Americans be able to continue to choose what doctors they go to? Will they be able to consult their doctors on which treatments are best for them? Can we make health care more accessible and affordable without compromising quality and personal choice? These, Madam Speaker, are the incredibly critical questions that should be addressed in the health care reform debate.

You know, if the Democratic leadership has its way, there won't even be a debate. They want to be able to handle it like they've handled nearly every other important bill: written behind closed doors and crammed through without an open debate. Madam Speaker, this budget puts the rules in place that will allow them to do that. It will also allow them to attach dramatic new energy taxes on every household in America in order to pay for their health care proposals.

The Democratic leadership, when confronted with a question of a new cap-and-tax program, insisted that it is not contained in this budget. What they are hoping the American people will not find out until it's too late is that this budget will allow new energy taxes to be attached to the Democrats' health care legislation. Their energy tax proposal would mean hundreds and even thousands of new taxes each year on each and every single household in this country, and it's all made possible by this budget conference report that we're going to be voting on tomorrow.

The Democratic leadership likes to defend their procedural tricks by saying that Republicans used the same tactics to enact welfare reform and tax rate reduction. I'm very proud of the fact that we were able to reduce the size and scope and reach of government; that we were able to make welfare programs more accountable; that we were able to let the taxpayers keep more of their own, hard-earned money; and that we were able to implement growth policies that gave us 55 months of job creation and sustained economic expansion. That was the right thing to do. The Democrats, on the other hand, would like to use this procedure to dramatically expand government bureaucracy and tax the American people during an economic recession. This is an absolutely disastrous budget under any circumstances, but it is equally and especially dangerous during challenging economic times.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject reckless, wasteful spending; to reject tax increases for the middle class; to reject a hasty and partisan process for crafting health care and energy legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying conference report.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I would like to simply say to my colleague who brought up this issue of

reconciliation that we were very proud of the fact that we were able to get people from welfare rolls to the working side of the economy in the mid-1990s, and we did use this procedure. I can time and time again remember instances of people who were saying they were so proud to be able to have a job. In the mid-1990s, the Republican Congress did bring about a bold reform of our welfare system, and it was a great, great accomplishment as it was in the early part of this decade when it was used to allow people to keep more of their own, hard-earned money in 2001 and in 2003.

At the same time, we were doing everything that we could to ensure that we had pro-growth economic policies because we were dealing with an economic recession then, of course with the aftermath of September 11 of 2001, with corporate scandals, and as I said, with an economic recession. We did put into place pro-growth policies, and yes, we used that procedure.

The really difficult thing for us to fathom is the fact that we're now seeing this process utilized to dramatically expand government to the point where this budget has, itself, got a deficit that is larger than what the entire Federal budget was just 10 years ago.

I would very much like to yield to my friend. I told the gentleman from Springfield I would.

Okay. I would be happy to yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, I totally agree on the issue of health care reform. That is a very high priority for us, and my friend knows that we have a solutions working group that is focusing on this issue, and it is a priority that does need to be addressed.

With that, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

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

I say to my very good friend from Connecticut that it's fascinating that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to talk about nothing but the last 8 years. And I find it interesting because no one seems to be willing to talk about what it is that's before us: a budget that is dealing with the next 5 years. It's a $17.8 trillion budget over the next 5 years. That's what we need to focus on. That's what this debate is all about.

With that, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking and very thoughtful chair of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

I yield my friend an additional 2 minutes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, Mr. McGovern went through this litany of options and the challenges that we have faced and things that should be done. He never mentioned that the solution that is being put before us is to dramatically increase the size and scope and reach of government, to impose taxes that will--as these independent economists about whom I referred earlier have said--will impose this tax burden on middle- income wage earners.

Madam Speaker, at this juncture I am happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking friend from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, I yield my friend 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend from Savannah.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute

to our colleague from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting debate that has preceded, and I have to say that I believe that there is great bipartisan concern about where this country is headed. Democrats and Republicans alike both want to get our economy back on track.

As I look at small businesses in Southern California, it's not a Democratic or Republican issue. Small businesses are closing down and people are suffering. As I look at homeowners who are losing their homes, it's not a Democratic or Republican issue. They very much want to be able to enjoy the American dream of owning their home. As I look at people who have lost their jobs, it's not a Democratic or Republican issue. So I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike want us to make sure we get this economy growing again. The question is how do we do it?

It's fascinating as I listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle decry deficit spending under President Bush and then argue that we should dramatically increase the size and scope and reach of government. And very sincerely that is what they've done. As I listened to my friend from Ft. Lauderdale, that is what he has just advocated. I congratulate him for being consistent in making that argument. But there are others who say that the policies of the past 8 years have created the problem that we have right now.

I also want to clarify the record on issues that were raised. I have argued that we could have done better during the time that we were in the majority. But, Madam Speaker, I think it's important to note that with the exception of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and veterans, there were real dollar spending cuts that took place in appropriations bills over the last few years when we were in the majority. I think that the record needs to show that. We did work to try to reduce spending. We could have done better than we did. I will acknowledge that.

But, again, here we are looking at a proposal which dramatically increases the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government.

And I know that President Obama is popular. I like President Obama. I've been enjoying working with him on things in the past. But I'm very troubled in seeing the implementation of what he calls the ``transformation,'' the ``transformation of government.'' I don't believe that it's what the American people want. What they want to do is they want to see us implement policies that will create jobs, that will allow them to keep their homes, that will keep small businesses thriving. That's what they want to see happen. The best way to do that is to use the model that was put forth by John F. Kennedy when, in 1961, he said, you can't encourage economic growth by increasing public expenditures; you can only do it by increasing private investment.

Reject this rule and reject the underlying conference report.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 371 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honored to stand here today in support of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution conference report.

I want to thank my friend, the Budget Committee Chairman, John Spratt, for his incredible work on this budget. He is smart, he is fair, and no one cares more about these issues.

I also want to thank Ranking Member Paul Ryan. I believe he is a thoughtful and bright Member of this House, even though we usually disagree on most of the issues of the Budget Committee.

I also want to thank the staff of the Budget Committee, Democratic and Republican, for their tireless effort and their commitment to public service.

Madam Speaker, the budget conference report that we are considering today represents so much more than a clean break from the past. It is a blueprint for the future. It is a roadmap for economic recovery and for investing in national priorities that will provide the American people with shared prosperity in the years and decades to come.

The conference report lays the groundwork for health care reform, clean energy and quality education. It will create jobs, support working families, strengthen our national defense and renew America's global leadership.

By cutting taxes for the middle class, $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for over 95 percent of the American people, Madam Speaker, and investing in affordable health care, education and clean energy in a fiscally responsible way, we are taking the first critical steps to lifting our economy out of recession and creating good jobs for America's workers. For the last 8 years, President Bush flat out mismanaged the Federal budget. How? By enacting huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that led to skyrocketing deficits, by spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without paying for them, and by refusing to invest in the American people.

This budget cuts the deficit by more than half by 2013. And in order to get us back on a fiscally sustainable path, the budget provides a realistic assessment of our fiscal outlook. Unlike the Bush administration, we actually budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of hiding them under the emergency spending categories. We budget for natural disasters that inevitably will occur.

This conference report cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Let me repeat that, because we will hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side about taxes.

This budget cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans. It provides immediate relief from the alternative minimum tax, it eliminates the estate tax on nearly all estates, and works to close corporate tax loopholes.

You see, all of us believe in altering the Tax Code. We believe that we should reduce the tax burden on the middle class and those trying to get into the middle. We believe that corporations shouldn't be allowed to shirk their responsibility by hiding their profits in offshore tax havens.

The other side believes we should reduce taxes for the very wealthiest. It's a simple difference in philosophy. Most importantly, this budget, the Democratic budget, actually invests in the American people. What a welcome change from the past 8 years.

We invest in health care reform, not just to improve health care quality and improve coverage, but to reduce the crushing burden of health care costs on American businesses. Everybody likes to talk about health care reform. This budget actually lays the groundwork to get it done.

We invest in clean energy in order to create jobs, improve the environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Everybody likes to talk about energy independence, but this budget actually lays the groundwork to get it done.

And we invest in education to reclaim our place as the best-educated workforce in the world. We work to expand early childhood education and to make college more affordable. Everybody likes to talk about improving education. This budget actually provides the basis to get it done.

And this is a budget that will allow Congress, if and when the time comes, to vote up or down on health care reform and education reform and avoid

the infamous obstructionism so characteristic of the other body and the other side of the aisle. It certainly doesn't guarantee passage of such reforms, but it will allow for and require a straight up-or-down vote in each Chamber.

Now I know that change is hard. I know some of my colleagues want to cling desperately to the failed policies of the past. But the good news is that despite all the nasty press releases and television ads and talk radio attacks on the President, the American people still support President Obama's vision for America.

That's why this budget is so very important. This is a budget with a conscience. It is a budget that believes in the American spirit, and it's a budget that fulfills the promises that the President made to the American people.

Madam Speaker, we are at a crucial moment. Our country can meet its potential, our children can have a better future, our economy can once again create good-paying jobs. But in order to make that happen, we need change. We need to move in a bold, innovative new direction. We need to pass this budget.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

I just want to point out, Madam Speaker, that, notwithstanding the constant attacks on President Obama that have come from the other side of the aisle on this floor since he was elected, since he was sworn in as President of the United States, notwithstanding the constant attacks by the patron saint of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, and notwithstanding the attacks by former Speaker Gingrich on every TV show that will allow him on, a poll done by CBS recently showed that, by a 56-32 percent margin, the American people believe that President Obama's budget sets the right priorities.

I believe in the American people. I believe in their instincts. I think they know what they want better than my friends on the other side of the aisle.

I will also point out--and my friend admitted to this because, when it comes to reconciliation, they like to cherry-pick--that their budgets in 2001 and in 2003, which allowed for these massive Bush tax cuts and which nearly bankrupted us--the tax cuts that went to the wealthiest Americans--had reconciliation instructions. In 2005, with reconciliation instructions that allowed them to make deep cuts in Medicare, they increased the deficit by an aggregate of $1.8 trillion. That's what they did to the economy. That's what they did to the American people. So we don't want the same old, same old.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the Budget Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Would the gentleman yield?

I just want the gentleman to know there are 40 million Americans without health insurance, and if we can get a health care reform package that covers them, I would be proud to cast a vote for that.

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

First of all, when people talk about partisanship, I recall my friends on the other side of the aisle giving us the prescription drug bill, which was probably one of the most partisan health care votes I can recall ever having here. Our hope is not to have a partisan health care bill. President Obama has already had a summit at the White House where he invited not just Democratic leaders but Republican leaders to come and to provide their input to try to figure out how we can do this together.

But the deal is we are going to get health care reform this year. My friends on the other side of the aisle, they have had 8 years. If it's such a priority, why haven't they done it in 8 years? The number of people that have fallen into the ranks of the uninsured has increased dramatically while they were in control of the Congress and the White House. So no one's talking about trying to create a partisan vote.

What we're trying to do is get what the American people want accomplished. And, quite frankly, I think the onus is on the other side of the aisle to demonstrate that they are, in fact, sincere about working in a bipartisan way. I think this President has done everything humanly possible to reach out the hand of friendship and bipartisanship to try to work with the other side of the aisle.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Let me say to the gentleman from Indiana, whom I respect, I agree with half of what he said. I agree that his party did mess up and leave us with a terrible economy at this particular juncture. But I think here's where we may disagree philosophically. The question is, how do you dig yourself out of this ditch? Is it more cuts? Is it throwing more people off the health care rolls? Is it creating more joblessness? Is it cutting back on educational programs? Is it cutting back on infrastructure programs? I mean, is that how we get out of this? Or, as I think we are suggesting, is it that maybe in the short term there needs to be some investment upfront to try to stimulate and resuscitate this economy, to create more jobs, to create more revenue, to try to get this economy back on the right track?

We are in deep trouble. We have inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Now, the gentleman and others have spoken as if we are not concerned about the deficit or the debt. First of all, we have joined with the gentleman from Indiana over the last 8 years complaining about the size of the debt. And we were told repeatedly by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle that the deficits don't matter, the debt doesn't matter; well, now all of a sudden it does.

The fact of the matter is, in the budget that we are proposing, we cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds in 4 years. That is our promise. That is our pledge in this budget.

I will briefly yield to the gentleman from California.

I reclaim my time. First of all, there is not a single tax increase in the budget. The budget that we propose cuts taxes for middle-income families by more than $1.7 trillion over 10 years. And again, our budget cuts the deficit by nearly two-thirds in 4 years.

I am proud to defend our budget. I have talked about how it is going to create jobs. I have talked about how it is going to cut taxes. I have talked about how it is cutting nondefense discretionary spending. I have talked about how it is going to invest in affordable health care and college affordability and clean energy. I am out here very proudly defending this budget that we have.

So all I am simply saying is that what the other side has proposed, quite frankly, in our opinion, is unacceptable. It will hurt more middle-income families. It will cause more people to fall into the ranks of poverty, more people without health care. It will cut back on education, on investments in our infrastructure. Those were the proposals that were presented. I think that is the wrong way to go.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you have had your chance. We did it your way for 8 years, and we have the worst economy since the Great Depression. We have more people in poverty, we have the worst job creation since the Great Depression, we have more people who are hungry in America, we have more people without health insurance. I mean, give me a break.

The bottom line is we have tried it your way for 8 years, and you have failed. And the American people sent my friends a message loud and clear on Election Day that enough is enough.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time. Yes, the Democrats did, but unfortunately with a President who vetoed every decent piece of legislation that we tried to pass, vetoing children's health care, and a whole bunch of other things that would have helped the economy.

Right now we have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, and we are going to pass a budget that reflects what the American people want, the values of the American people. We are going to get this economy back on the right track. Enough. Eight years of failed policies is enough. The same old, same old doesn't work anymore.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Madam Speaker, President Kennedy also said if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. And that's been the problem over the last 8 years is that the emphasis has been on the rich. The tax cuts, the extravagant tax cuts, for the wealthiest individuals that have contributed to our deficit; spending on the war that they wouldn't even pay for that was covered up under emergency spending procedures so it would mask the size of our growing debt. Yes, they made cuts in programs that helped kids and veterans and our elderly and investments in job creation and things that would help stimulate this economy. I don't think that's a record to be proud of.

So we're turning the page. We're actually going to a new chapter here. We have a budget before us that I am proud to defend. This is a budget that creates jobs with targeted investments in affordable health care, clean energy, education. It cuts taxes for middle-income families by more than $1.7 trillion over 10 years. It cuts the deficit by nearly two-thirds in 4 years, and it paves the way for an affordable health care plan.

Forty million of our fellow citizens are without health care. That's a national scandal. And you know what? That reality is one of the reasons why health care costs are soaring. We need to get that under control. We need to deal with the issue of college affordability so we have the best trained, best educated workforce in the entire world. We need to invest in clean energy so we can actually make this transition to clean, renewable sources of energy so we're not dependent on foreign oil, we're not dependent on the same old, same old kind of energy that we have here, that we have relied on for so many years in this country.

So we can either do what my friends on the other side of the aisle have done for 8 years or we can go in a very different direction. And I urge my colleagues that it's time to move in a different direction.

Madam Speaker, I will be offering an amendment to the rule. The amendment provides for timeout authority in this rule which will allow the debate on this conference report to take place over 2 days, giving Members adequate time to read this important report before voting. I hope Members will vote ``yes'' on the amendment and on the previous question and on the rule.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McGovern

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 44) to implement the recommendations of the Guam War Claims Review Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act.

First, I thank Chairman Nick Rahall and former Ranking Member Don Young for their leadership on this issue, for their support in passing the bill in the last Congress, and for bringing it back to the floor today given that the other body was unable to pass it before adjourning last year.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 44, is the same bill that was passed by the House of Representatives with broad bipartisan support on May 8, 2007. I have reintroduced it with the support of many colleagues.

I want to thank also Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Chairman John Conyers of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Ike Skelton of the Committee on Armed Services, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for their steadfast support of this bill.

H.R. 44 implements the recommendations of the Guam War Claims Review Commission, which was authorized by Public Law 107-333, to review the war claims program for Guam that Congress provided for following the occupation of Guam from December 8, 1941, to July 21, 1944.

The review commission, Mr. Speaker, which was appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, in September of 2003, was mandated by Congress to determine whether there was parity of war claims paid to the residents of Guam under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act as compared with awards made to similarly affected United States citizens or nationals as a result of the hostilities during World War

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Wilson for his very supportive words on this bill.

At this time, I would like to recognize my dear colleague from the United States Virgin Islands, the Honorable Donna Christensen, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now recognize the distinguished gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for as much time as he may consume.

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

Yes, I do. Guam is strategically located in the Pacific. And at this particular time, we are looking at a large military buildup in Guam.

Yes.

The value?

It's priceless.

In the billions.

That is correct.

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

I would like to yield the balance of our time to our next speaker, who is the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pedro Pierluisi).

I have no further speakers, but I do want to go on record to thank you, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), for the courtesy of giving us extra time on this side. Thank you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I want to take this moment just to read a passage here: ``Why is the United States Government, not the Government of Japan, paying for these war claims? This may be a question that many would ask. Well, following World War II, American nationals and citizens were awarded some compensation from the Federal Government for certain war-time losses, yet Guamanians were excluded.

``In 1945, the United States Congress acknowledged and attempted to remedy the needs of Guamanians by passing the Guam Meritorious Claims Act within weeks after the cessation of hostilities. The bill was an attempt to provide immediate relief to the people of Guam for the sacrifices and the sufferings they endured during the Imperial Japanese occupation of the island. Unfortunately, the intent of the legislation was never fully realized. Then, the United States signed a treaty of peace with Japan on September 8, 1951 which precluded American citizens from making claims against Japan for war reparations.'' I think that's very, very important; it precluded American citizens from making claims against Japan for war reparations.

``The treaty closed any legal mechanism for seeking redress from the Government of Japan. And moreover, bureaucratic bungling of the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945, post World War II, hindered many Guamanians from receiving the appropriate level of support. Since Guam had no representation in Congress until 1973, it was difficult for Guamanians to advocate for better implementation of the legislation.''

So, again, I thought it was important to explain this. Many people have asked why isn't Japan responsible for this. And so I thought I would include this in the Record, Mr. Speaker. And I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill, H.R. 44.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying budget conference report that we are considering today.

As a member of the Budget Committee and a budget conferee, I was proud to have worked with Chairman Spratt and the other members of the committee on a 2010 budget resolution that reinvests in America and reinvests in hardworking middle-class families that make up the backbone of this country.

As we all know, the voters spoke this fall overwhelmingly, voting for change and a reorientation of our priorities so that, in fact, we are strengthening the middle class and making the critical investments needed to build a better tomorrow.

We began to bring that desired change with the economic recovery program, and we continue on that path by providing a blueprint in this budget that will bring tax relief to hardworking families across this Nation and make investments in health care, education, energy, and elsewhere that are needed to move this economy from recovery to long- term growth.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle will decry this budget claiming that it will burden future generations with crippling debt. But let's be clear. It was under their leadership that a $5.6 trillion surplus turned into the historic budget deficit that President Obama and this Congress inherited, a deficit of well over $1 trillion in 2009. If you listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they were missing in action over this last 8 years. It is hard to believe that they were in charge. It is a little bit like ``see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.'' They were gone from the playing field over these last 8 years.

We will also hear the other side rail against the instructions that are included in this resolution--to bring about what? Education and long-awaited health care reform, despite the fact that they used this same procedure to pass massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this Nation.

When it comes to health care reform, the American people have watched as Congress has failed since 1993 to make a serious attempt to fix our broken system. Health care reform, making health care coverage affordable, available to all, improving safety and quality, and providing Americans with a choice of health plans and physicians, including the choice of keeping their current health plan, is long, long overdue.

We will work to craft bipartisan legislation, but the American people are not interested in process. They are interested in results. We will not let a party of ``no'' stand in the way of a reformed health care system that the majority of Americans so desperately want.

Along with health care, this budget also invests in education by expanding access and increasing funds for early childhood education, creating a new tax credit to help cover college costs, and raising the Pell Grant award.

It invests in energy, builds a framework for developing and producing new energy and jobs, modernizing the electricity grid to make it more efficient, secure and reliable, increasing the efficiency of Federal buildings, and helping to make State and local governments more energy efficient.

This conference agreement invests in rebuilding America, including the establishment of a national infrastructure bank which would allow the government to objectively consider a wide range of infrastructure projects and leverage the private sector to fund those with the most significant economic, social and environmental benefits.

Finally, this budget plan reflects on the economic recovery program that we passed, including its provisions to provide tax relief to middle-income families. This includes room to expand the refundable child tax credit. By lowering the eligibility threshold to $3,000 in the Recovery Act, we provided relief to the hardworking families of nearly 16 million children, including 5.5 million newly eligible children.

This budget builds on our efforts to create jobs and rebuild the economy through the economic recovery plan by providing a forward- looking economic blueprint that makes the strategic investments necessary to move from recovery to long-term economic growth while putting us back on a path to fiscal sustainability.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule, to support the underlying resolution and do not let our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who had 8 years--and what did they do in those 8 years? They brought this Nation to its economic knees. It's time to look to the future. Support this resolution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I must say that if I had just arrived here from out of town, I would think I was in a college literature class listening to Orwellian doublespeak at its best and examples thereof.

When they talk about investments, this new big government order, that really means tax increases and increases in spending. When they talk about bold, swift action, that means more ``big government'' power grabs. When they talk about probusiness regulation and modernization of energy, that is just more government dictating to the private sector. When they talk about rebuilding America and new modern job creation, those jobs are coming from the government. Those are government jobs. They talk about health care reform. That is just plain old socialized medicine.

And then they talk about cutting the deficit, but they don't tell you it is their own deficit. If the gentleman from Massachusetts can tell me what the deficit is today, as I sit here and listen, then all I have to do is divide that by half. But that is not true at all. What you are doing is increasing spending and then, based on some phony ``we're going to grow the government next year by 4 percent, then we're going to cut the deficit,'' come on, guys, that doesn't sell and you know it.

And we hear over and over again this is George Bush, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, Blackwater, and everybody else's fault but the Democrat Party. But who has been in charge for 2 years? It was you guys, that under your watch, $29 billion spent on AIG; $200 billion last year on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; $168 billion for a stimulus bill last year, a year ago; $85 billion going up to $140 billion for AIG in September; $700 billion in October for Wall Street; and then, just in January, $790 billion for a stimulus bill followed by a $410 billion omnibus bill which had over 9,000 earmarks--which the new President was going to cut every earmark out and not accept any.

At what point are Democrats going to go ahead and admit, you own the House, you own the Senate and the White House? This stuff all happened under your watch. Get over George Bush. You are now in charge.

And I want to say this, as an Appropriations Committee member during the period of time when George Bush was President and we were in the majority----

We never had one appropriation bill that spent enough money for you guys. And you know it. And the records show it in the appropriations debate over and over again; it didn't spend enough money.

So now we are hearing that your fiscal discipline--I just think it is laughable to think about this--your budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. We will be borrowing more money from the Chinese. Indeed, the new Secretary of State's first trip was over to China to say, please continue to lend us money. The deficits that go on will never fall below $500 billion. But I understand you are going to jack up spending so you can say you have cut it in half, and that's the way you want to do business.

Tax increases; $1.5 trillion in tax increases. And a lot of it will fall on the backs of farmers and small businesses, the very people you have the nerve to say that you are trying to help. And the total spending outlay of $3.5 trillion in the year 2010.

This budget should be rejected. It spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Will the gentleman yield?

Who took over the Congress in 2006?

I thank the gentleman from California.

I was going to ask my friend from Massachusetts, is it not true that the President vetoed Democrat spending, and did come to compromise on things like children's health care, but the first go-round you guys spent too much money, and that is why he was vetoing it? I mean, I can see, blame it on the President and Republicans for 6 years, fair and square. But you guys have been in charge for 2 years now, and the only vetoing that he did was when you were spending too much money.

I just think it is time to go ahead and say, you know, we are in charge, we are going to take responsibility. And, if anything, we need to start talking checks and balances in this town because I don't think we have any with all this runaway spending.

Again, I think this budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. And I thank the gentleman from California.