Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 85) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 and 2011 through 2014.

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

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

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that we begin this April Fool's Day with the budget debate. You know, we have some very, very serious economic challenges here, and the sad thing from my perspective is the fact that this budget, which was just described by my friend as the Democratic-Obama budget, is not a joke.

The thing that is so incredibly ironic is that 45 seconds ago my friend just said we must get a handle on these deficits. ``We must get a handle on these deficits,'' is what my friend has just said, and yet this budget, this Democratic-Obama budget of which my friend is so proud in fact over the next 5 years doubles the national debt and over the next 10 years triples the national debt.

We all concur on this notion of trying to get deficits under control. It is a very high priority. Everyone says this. What we need to do is we need to work to rein in government spending rather than trying to bring about this transformation, this transformation in an economic downturn which dramatically expands the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government.

Madam Speaker, as every parent or small business owner knows, a budget is about choices. Often, it is about very hard choices that need to be made. During times of economic hardship or uncertainty, those choices get even harder, and that is clearly where we are today.

When we look at our expenses for the coming month or year, we have a number of factors that have to be taken into consideration as a family, as a small business person.

There are expenses that are absolutely mandatory, mortgage payments or meeting a small business payroll. There are expenses that are essential but can be reduced with greater flexibility and frugality, like the grocery bill. There are expenses for luxury items that are simply not affordable any longer. And then, Madam Speaker, there are those expenses that are important and worthy and useful, but just aren't possible when funds are tight. These choices are clearly the very hardest. We want to buy the kids a new laptop for college or build a new addition onto the house, but we know that the money just isn't there right now. So we tighten our belts, figure out a way to spend our money more wisely, and save for the things that are most important.

This is how America's families and businesses are dealing with the economic difficulties that we all face today. If only the Democratic leadership and this budget that my friend touts as the Democratic-Obama budget would do the same. They could learn a lot from the American people, Madam Speaker.

The Democratic budget before us today recklessly abandons any semblance of responsible decisionmaking. It spends as though the money is just flowing in, and it raises taxes as though American businesses and families have endless cash to spare. But we know all too painfully well that this is far from the case. Ask anyone out there. It is time for the Democratic majority to wake up to our economic reality.

This is not the time to raise taxes on small businesses and working families. They like to claim that their tax hikes will only hit the super-rich. They are wrong. Their income tax hikes will hit the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. And their cap-and- trade program, the great source of revenues, which is really a cap-and- tax program, will raise taxes on every single household in America. Families will get slapped with new energy taxes of up to $3,100 a year. Every time our constituents flip on a light switch or turn on the microwave or drive the kids to school, they will feel the pain of the Democratic tax plan.

This is also not the time to recklessly add hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending that our Nation cannot come close to affording. Republicans aren't advocating extreme austerity, but we are advocating a little common sense. We must own up to the hard choices that are a fact of life for the American people and should be a fact of life for their representatives here in this institution as well. After all, this is not our money. This is money that belongs to the hardworking people here in the United States of America.

We must be realistic about which expenses are mandatory, which leave room for greater flexibility, frugality and efficiency, which spending items are luxuries and which are worthwhile but simply not affordable at this time, just like the American people must do. We have to use the same kind of prudence when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars as people are as they face the challenges of today's economy.

Instead, what this budget does is shirk all responsibility for our tax dollars and bury the American people under a mountain of debt that won't be paid for generations. This is not just an issue of deficits. It's an issue of deficits so catastrophically huge that they threaten to put our recovery off for years to come and permanently saddle all of us with staggering amounts of debt.

In this year alone, the deficit, Madam Speaker, will be $2 trillion, that is trillion with a ``T.'' I know in this age of constant $100 billion bailouts, we have forgotten just how much money that is. Everyone has their illustrations of how to visualize $1 trillion. And I know that it seems a little gimmicky, but it is important to understand what we are talking about when we refer to $1 trillion. And let's remember that the deficit for this year under this budget is $2 trillion.

If we were to spend $1 million a day, a day, $1 million a day, it would take 5,475 years to spend our deficit for this year alone. Not our national debt as a whole, just the part, just the part that would accumulate this year. In other words, it would take until the year 7484 to spend our deficit if we were spending $1 million a day. Or put another way, we would have to go back to the 35th century B.C., the 35th century B.C., to spend the money by the year 2009, back to the rise of the early Bronze Age in order to spend $2 trillion at that rate of $1 million a day.

Now that's an awful lot of debt, Madam Speaker. That is an astronomical amount of debt. And that is what this budget leaves us with. It taxes recklessly, spends wildly and borrows almost too much for us to even comprehend.

Now I have talked a lot about hard choices. Now I want to say something about false choices. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to want the American people to face a false choice, the choice between their very dangerous budget and the status quo. They like to think that they can convince our constituents that their disastrous budget is the only option out there.

But, Madam Speaker, we clearly have an alternative. There is a commonsense way. Republicans, contrary to what our friends said about the lack of numbers in our budget, we have our budget. It was submitted by the 10 a.m. deadline to the Rules Committee. It is an alternative budget that will not tax small businesses and working families and will not balloon the deficit to untenable proportions. It is true that it will not entirely eliminate the deficit. That might not be possible during these very, very tough times. But it does own up to the hard choices that responsible legislators must make. It does accept our tough economic reality and it does exercise common sense and accountability in the spending of taxpayer dollars. And it does not punish the small businesses and working families who are already struggling with new burdensome taxes. Now, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to be drawn into the false choice that has been provided by the Democratic majority.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my friend for yielding.

And let me respond to his very thoughtful comments with a couple of points. First and foremost, we need to remember that it was a Republican Congress that got us back on the road of fiscal responsibility leading up to what President Bush did, in fact, inherit. And I'm not going to stand here as an apologist for spending that did take place. But we have to remember that most of the spending that took place dealt with the aftermath of September 11, 2001, when we saw dramatic increases in defense and homeland security spending. And in the last 3 years, there were actually real spending cuts that took place in every other appropriation bill at that time. And so the issue of economic growth----

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Clearly, I think we have a problem of maybe talking past each other. We all concur with the notion of getting the economy back on track. The question is do we grow the economy by growing the size, scope and reach of government? And that is what my colleague is arguing that we should do, that we should get the economy back on track by dramatically increasing the role of government. The exact opposite is the case.

Now as my friend said, that the same old same old of what we did in 2001-2003 with creating tax incentives for economic growth. That is, I believe, the single best answer to this challenge. Why? Well, remember what we faced in 2001. Many people thought after we had this unprecedented attack on the United States of America that we would see a huge economic downturn. We also were dealing at that point with corporate scandals that existed in the early part of this decade and a wide range of other challenges. And we had already had an economic slowdown. It was those policies of growth-oriented tax cuts that were able to see 55 months of sustained job creation and economic growth.

We all know that over the past year we have seen serious economic challenges, we are in recession and the American people are hurting. We also believe that we need to have priorities established like dealing with the issue, as my friend has correctly said, of building roads and bridges. That is what I'm saying. We are not talking about extreme austerity. We are talking about a commonsense approach. And we do embrace that.

But this notion of this huge expansion which doubles the national debt in 5 years and triples it in 10 years is, in fact, I believe, a prescription for disaster.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would inquire of my friend if he has any speakers on his side.

Would my friend like to yield me the balance of the time?

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to our friend from Stillwater, Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to say that this is incredibly ironic. Again, we're here on April Fool's Day, and I wondered if the statement that was just propounded by my friend was, in fact, an April Fool's statement.

He continues to use the line, ``We're tired of the same old same old.'' Well, the arguments that I just heard from my friend are the quintessential same old same old: Republicans don't care about children, about senior citizens, about the homeless. That is absolutely preposterous. We care, and we truly are compassionate because we want to ensure every American opportunity, and those who are hurt the most, those who can't take care of themselves, we clearly want to do everything that we possibly can to assist them. And to argue to the contrary is the standard class warfare, ``us versus them'' argument which is the epitome of same old same old.

And with that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Cherryville, North Carolina, Mr. McHenry.

Madam Speaker, I would inquire of my friend if he has any other speakers at all.

If not, I'm prepared to close if the gentleman will be the closing speaker after I speak then.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I will say that if my friend would like to interject any points during my remarks, I certainly would be more than happy to yield to him if he'd like to ask me any questions as I proceed.

As I look at last fall's election, the mantra, ``A change we can believe in'' was something that got a great deal of

attention. Well, Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend, I encourage him to change the talking points that he has provided because they are, in fact, the same tired old talking points that we've received for many, many, many years. Blame the Republicans for whatever difficulty we face. Don't work together in a bipartisan way for a constructive solution, which is exactly what we want to do.

I agree with my friend that we need to grow the economy to bring the debt down. We have this area of agreement. We all talk about and decry deficit spending, and we want to pursue this quest of trying to diminish that debt burden imposed on future generations. The question is, how do we do it?

Well, I'll tell you what the rest of the world has learned and what the United States of America has learned. What we have learned is that increasing taxes and spending and the reach of the Federal Government does not grow the economy. So if we can work together in a bipartisan way to do what my friend says we want to accomplish, and that is, growing the economy, so that we can reduce the debt, then let's recognize what it is that works.

And I think it's also important to note that, as my friend continues to point the finger at President Bush, he left office in January, I will say. And it's also important to remember that my friend and his colleagues have been in charge of taxing and spending for over 2 years now since they have had the majority. And so I think that it's a bit of a stretch for us to continue down this road of class warfare, us versus them, saying that Republicans don't care. It is crazy.

We know that the budget that's before us, as we've all been saying, taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much. And we know that, as the rest of the world has found, that it is a prescription for disaster.

Now, I hesitate, but I am going to proceed with quoting the President of the Czech Republic, Mr. Topolanek, who made it very clear, from the experience that they've had with the expansion and the reach of government, that he does not believe that that is, in fact, the answer for the future.

I met a year ago, a little over a year ago with the President of Peru, who had been President in the 1980s in Peru. And he embraced the very, very hard-left, Big Government policies. He's President today, and he said that the worst 5 years in modern Peruvian history were when he was President in the 1980s. He learned from that experience that dramatically increasing the size and scope and reach of government, increasing the tax and excessive regulatory burden has failed. The rest of the world has learned that it has failed.

And now, for this new majority to try and bring about a complete transformation of government with this budget that does, in fact, double the national debt in 5 years, and triple the national debt over the next 10 years, is a prescription for failure.

We have come forward, Madam Speaker, with a very positive, pro-growth budget. We focus on growing the economy, number one, and realizing that, as my friend has said, growing the economy can help bring the debt down. But we also know that one of the other ways to grow the economy is to diminish the reach of government.

And so we, over the next 2 days, are going to have a very clear choice that is put before us, as Members, and the American people. And I believe that an overwhelming majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents in the United States of America believe that a dramatic expansion of government is not the answer, and allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned dollars is, in fact, a better prescription to do what we all want to do, and that is to get our economy back on track.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that that outline that my friend has is very similar to the package that was presented by the President. And if you look at Page 3 of the Democratic budget that we had last week, it did not have any numbers on it either. This budget proposal was submitted at 10 this morning. It does, in fact, have these numbers.

And I thank my friend for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield very briefly for a question?

Is the gentleman trying to argue that we have not submitted a budget with real alternatives and simply provided a political statement?

Good. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a quick question?

I thank my friend for yielding.

When my friend began discussing the issue of agriculture spending cuts, I was struck. I was just provided a document here which shows that actually there are $2 billion in greater cuts in agriculture spending in the budget that my friend has propounded than in ours. And I wonder if those cuts are in food stamps, this is in budget outlays, if those cuts are in food stamps or other nutritional programs that my friend

has said himself. And I thank my friend for yielding.

Where in our budget does it say we are going after food stamps?

Will my friend yield for just one second?

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

Madam Chair, let me inquire about the time allotments. I realize we have 2 hours equally divided. It is my understanding the gentleman is going to do 10-minute blocks. Is that what the chairman is going to be doing? Okay. Let me ask, Madam Chair, how much time is remaining on their side.

I yield 10 minutes to myself to control that block of time. Madam Chairman, this is a big debate. This is a very, very significant debate. This is a debate about the budget of our country, the fiscal future of our country. It is a debate that is probably the biggest fiscal debate we have had in this country in decades.

It is 9 p.m. on a Wednesday night. This is a debate that is going to go on for 3 hours, into the late part of the night. I wonder why the majority decided: Let's have this debate when everybody is watching CSI. Let's have this debate when no one is watching C-SPAN.

If we are so excited about this budget, why aren't we having this debate in the broad daylight? If we really think this is the way forward for America, why don't we talk about it when America is watching? It is almost like a pay raise debate.

Now, let's talk about this budget. We need more than just 3 hours, I would say, to debate this budget. Let's look at just what this budget does.

Now, you are going to hear three phrases: Spends too much, borrows too much, taxes too much. That underscores what this budget really does.

Madam Chairman, the debt held by the public under this budget doubles in 5\1/2\ years, triples in a little over 10 years. Let's put it in a different way.

The kind of red ink this budget proposes for our children and our grandchildren, for our country, is more under this presidency than the presidencies of George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

We used to see these charts out in front of the offices of the Members who call themselves Blue Dogs, until the charts were banned out in front of offices, that said: Here is what the national debt is. Here is your share. It is shameful. It is terrible. We have got to get our debt. And yet, we are told that the Blue Dogs are marching in lockstep for this budget that doubles the national debt in 5\1/2\ years and triples it in 10\1/2\ years.

And one thing would be interesting, one thing would be a decent argument if all the tax increases in this budget, $1.5 trillion in tax increases, the biggest tax increase we last had was $345 billion. So $1.5 trillion in tax increases, small businesses, the assets that make up our pension funds, our 401(k) funds, our college savings plans, energy. One estimate from MIT says the cap-and-trade scheme could raise taxes on households by as much as $4,500 a year. The Congressional Budget Office says, no, it is more like $1,600 a year. The point is, a lot of taxes.

Are these tax increases being used to reduce the deficit? Are these tax increases being used to pay down debt like President Clinton proposed in 1993, the last time we had a really large tax increase? No. They are to fuel higher spending.

But what is worse than all of that from a fiscal recklessness standpoint is all these new taxes, $1.5 trillion, is to finance even more spending. So we are putting our country on this vicious cycle of chasing ever higher spending with ever higher taxes that never quite catch up with that spending to give us a record amount of debt. The problem is, one day maybe people won't buy our debt. What happens when that happens?

So we are going to hear from our colleagues over the next 1 hour, 45 minutes about all the great investments in education, the great investments in this and the investments on that, and spending money on this and spending money on that, and just how great and compassionate that is. I want to tell you one thing. I want to show you what the Congressional Budget Office just told us, and here is what they told us.

My three children, who are 4, 5, and 7 years old, when they are my age, here is the tax bill that will be due them--this is the Congressional Budget Office--if we don't get this under control. These are the tax rates that will be necessary to tax the next generation. When my kids are my age raising their kids in Janesville, Wisconsin, just like I am doing with my wife and myself, the bottom tax bracket for that generation if we pass this budget and pass this bill on to them, the 10 percent bracket goes up to 26 percent. Middle-income taxpayers who now pay a 25 percent income tax bracket pay 66 percent.

The upper bracket, which is the one that the small businesses pay, instead of paying 38 percent, or it is about to be 40, will pay 92 percent.

This is not some mythical pie-in-the-sky estimate. This is the Congressional Budget Office saying if you are going to raise taxes to pay for all this borrowing, here's what the next generation is going to get. We are passing on to the next generation the most reckless budget, the most reckless deficit and borrowing spree, in generations.

Here is my biggest concern, and I want to yield to some of my colleagues here. My concern is that at the beginning of this budget debate what we really ought to be talking about here is do we want the America we know and love, or do we want to take that system, put it aside and adopt another form of government, adopt a European-style system? Because that is, after all, what we are talking about here. Do we want to have our tax levels, our debt levels, the size of our government levels at these huge levels that we know very well from history's stories show us high unemployment, stagnant wages and lower standards of living?

I just find it so interesting and so ironic that European capitals are lecturing us today on fiscal discipline. It is kind of embarrassing actually. I find it amazing that the Chinese are lecturing us about getting our borrowing under control because they are worried about the value of our currency in our bonds. It is embarrassing. And yet, in the middle of the night, we bring this budget up that proposes this enormous gusher of more spending, more borrowing and more taxing. And we think this is the road to prosperity? This is the road to serfdom.

We will offer an alternative tomorrow. Yes, our friends on the left will disagree with that alternative. We want America back. We want the country we grew up in. We want the country that says we are going to have a safety net to help those people who cannot help themselves, help them when they are down on their luck. We don't want everybody laying in a hammock where they are dependent on the government. We want a country that rewards achievement, production, activity, working hard, improving your life, making life better for you and making sure in your generation you take on your responsibilities and fix the problems so your kids are better off. That is the America we grew up in. That is the America we want, and that is the America you are kissing away with this budget.

We are going to talk numbers. We are going to talk statistics. But at the end of the day, we are passing an unconscionable amount of debt on to the next generation. And it is going to kill our current economy. I'm not one who is typically that passionate. I am not one who typically comes down here and says things like this. But I have never seen a budget like this in my life. I have never seen the numbers quite this awesome in how big they are. This is a budget that should be rejected.

We want bipartisanship. But for the majority to have it, you have to collaborate with us. And we are asking the Blue Dogs, I know you're out there. I know you're thinking about this vote. I know you're listening. Help us. Do you want your fingerprints on this mountain of borrowing? Do you want to go home to your constituents whom you told you were going to be conservatives and say you signed up for this stuff? You have the votes to stop this. The people who call themselves Blue Dog Democrats can stop this bill. They have the votes to do that. Do it, and join us, and let's work together to fix this.

I want to close my comments the way I opened them in the markup. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is a true gentleman. He brings real definition to this northerner as to what it means to be a southern gentleman. I would love nothing more than to sit across the table from that

man and strike a real budget bargain that actually reduces our debt, that actually puts our fiscal house in order. Because that is the kind of man that could do that kind of a budget. He did it in 1997. I think he can do it again.

Unfortunately, this administration, this House leadership, is leading us off the leftward cliff. They are leading us off a leftward cliff. And it is in the power of those Democrats who call themselves Blue Dogs to stop it from happening. And I am begging you, please, stop this crime on the next generation.

Announcement by the Chair

Madam Chair, how much time do I have left in my allotment?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I will yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Austria.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.

At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, a member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Nunes.

Madam Chair, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Let me ask the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Madam Chair, I will yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Hensarling.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

At this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Jordan.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, a senior member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Garrett.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

At this time, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), our House Republican Conference Chair.

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

Madam Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

announcement by the chair

I'd be happy to step in for the gentleman if the chairman wants to yield me the 30 seconds from his time to explain how you're not cutting taxes by $2 trillion. I'd be happy to explain that.

If the gentleman will yield, that means if you don't think putting the alternative minimum tax on $26 million households isn't a tax increase, then maybe you're right. If you don't think raising the dividends tax by 100 percent, the capital gains tax by 33 percent, and income tax rates across the board is not a tax increase, then by your definition that might be a tax cut.

What you're doing is you're playing baseline mumbo jumbo. You're saying we're going to assume all these massive tax increases in America. Oh, and ours are going to be a little lower than that, but they're still going to be up, and it's a tax cut. That's baseline mumbo jumbo. The point is this--the budget you're bringing to the floor raises taxes.

Thank you for the 30 seconds.

May I ask the gentleman a question?

May I inquire, Madam Chair, as to how much time is remaining, because it's my understanding that we're in possession of a 10-minute block at this moment.

I will yield myself 1 minute to explain.

On January 1, 2011, income tax rates go up. That's a tax increase. On January 1, 2011, the capital gains tax goes

up. That's a tax increase. On January 1, 2011, dividend taxes go up. That's a tax increase.

On January 1, 2010, the alternative minimum tax hits 26 million taxpayers who weren't hit by it before in their budget. That's a tax increase.

You can't hide it. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to a gentleman from the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Madam Chair, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Hensarling.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Chair, let me read you a story about a project that is deemed shovel-ready that is getting funded in

the stimulus package in Wisconsin. The town of Arena, it is a beautiful small town in Iowa County, the town of Arena will get $426,000 to replace the River Road bridge. It averages about 10 cars a day. A quote from the town chairman, ``I was surprised as anyone when I got a call that the bridge was going to be fixed. I can tell you that the bridge is a very low priority for us.'' Stimulus package, shovel-ready project. If you think this is the kind of way we ought to be spending our taxpayer dollars, then vote for this budget, because they are going to do a lot more of this stuff. If you think that is the key to prosperity, borrow that money, build the bridge that gets 10 cars a day that the people from this town say is a low priority, then we are going to do more of that. Vote for this budget.

I want to speak not in numerical terms, not in statistics, but in history and morality. We are the greatest nation on Earth. We are an exceptional nation. And I want it to stay that way. History is replete with episode after episode of great civilizations and great nations not being defeated militarily, but being defeated by themselves, doing themselves in through atrophy and stagnation.

That is what could happen here if we don't watch it. The kinds of borrowing that is being proposed in this is staggering.

I want to ask you, how much money do you think I have in my wallet? I have $50,000,000,010 in my wallet. I've got 10 U.S. dollars and 50 billion Zimbabwe dollars. Ten U.S. dollars right now are more valuable than the Zimbabwe dollar. This is what happens when a country tries to inflate its way out of its debt. It's worthless.

I'm not saying we're going to become Zimbabwe. Far from it. But I'm saying our greenback is under duress. People are wondering if this is going to retain its value.

The question is, are we going to be able to keep finding people to buy all our bonds if we borrow and borrow and borrow? If, under this Presidency, as this budget proposes, we borrow more money than all prior presidencies combined, are we going to get all these people to give us that money?

And then guess what? Guess who pays for it? The next generation. Our children. Our children already are on a glide path to pay twice the level of taxes we pay today; that's if you don't pass this budget. It gets much worse if you do pass this budget.

We're going to debase our currency if we keep going down this path. Do you know what that means? I know that's wonky stuff. That means people lose their savings. That means senior citizens living on fixed incomes lose their savings. Their standard of living goes down. That means the middle class that's saving for retirement, saving for college, that gets wiped out.

It is getting to that kind of a serious moment in this country where, if we keep thinking we can just borrow and borrow and borrow, tax and tax and tax, spend and spend and spend, we're going to do it in to our own country. I don't want that to happen.

This is the greatest country on the planet. This is the land of opportunity. This is the country that has shown the world that we can reach unprecedented amounts of prosperity, where everybody can climb up that economic ladder.

We want a society where we equalize opportunity for all people. We don't want to pass this budget that says we're going to equalize the results of everybody's lives. We are going to micromanage their affairs.

We want America to succeed and to prosper, and that's why we want to defeat this budget.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 305 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes 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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 305 provides for general debate on H. Con. Res. 85, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2010. Madam Speaker, I am honored to stand here today to introduce the fiscal year 2010 House budget resolution.

I want to thank my friend, the Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, for all of 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 our ranking member, Paul Ryan. Even though I often disagree with him, I admire his intellect and his dedication to his principles. I thought we had a spirited, substantive debate in the Budget Committee, and I am sure we will have more of the same here on the House floor.

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

Madam Speaker, the budget before us today represents a clean break from the past. 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.

In November, the American people said ``enough,'' and they voted for change. They voted for new direction. And that is what this budget is all about. We are not only turning the page on the last 8 years, we are writing a whole new book, and our budget cuts the deficit by more than half by 2013. It cuts taxes for middle-income families by $1.5 trillion. It creates jobs by investing in health care, clean energy, and education.

Now, let me briefly outline those three areas: Fiscal discipline, middle-class tax cuts, and investments in the American people.

As I said, our budget will cut the deficit by more than half in 2013. 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, quote, emergency spending categories. We budget for natural disasters that inevitably will occur.

Our budget cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker, because we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side about taxes. The Democratic budget, the Obama budget cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans. It provides immediate relief from the alternative

minimum tax, it eliminates the estate tax in nearly all the States, 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 class. 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 is a simple difference of philosophy. And, most importantly, this 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, the Democratic budget, the Obama budget actually gets 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 gets it done.

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, but this budget actually gets it done.

So that is what we could do, and that is what we do. As for my Republican friends, it is more of the same. Last week, they made a big to-do when they introduced their own ``budget.'' In fact, it wasn't much of a budget at all, given the fact that it didn't include any numbers. What it did include was lots of empty rhetoric and a belief in massive tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Madam Speaker, the American people have seen this movie before, and they gave it two thumbs down. I know it is April Fool's Day, but don't be fooled by my Republican friends.

My Republican friends will talk a lot about the difference in economic growth estimates between the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, but here is the thing: There will be no growth unless we invest in the American people. There will be no growth unless we get a handle on these deficits. There will be no growth as long as health care costs and inadequate education and dependence on foreign oil keeps us down.

I know that change is hard. I know my Republican friends 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, by overwhelming margins, support President Obama's vision for America. That is why this budget is so very important.

We are presenting a budget, Madam Speaker, with a conscience. It is a budget that believes in the American spirit, and it is a budget that fulfills the promises that President Obama made to the American people.

We are at a crucial moment, Madam Speaker. Our country can meet its potential. Our children can have a better future. But in order to make that happen, we need a 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.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out for my colleagues one important fact that I think we need to keep in mind. When President Bush became President of the United States, he inherited a record surplus of $5.6 trillion over 10 years. He left us with a record deficit of $5.8 trillion, with double the national debt and triple the amount held by foreign countries. We were left with flat wages and the smallest rate of job growth in three-quarters of a century. We tried it the gentleman's way. And it failed. People do not want the status quo. They do not want the same old same old.

There is a general understanding amongst the American people that in order for us to be able to reduce our deficit and pay down our debt, we need to grow this economy. And you cannot grow this economy unless you invest in the American people and unless you invest in the economy.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that, and I would point to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that went mostly to the wealthy that bankrupted this Nation.

The fact of the matter is the gentleman's party controlled Congress for many years. His party controlled the White House for many years. And jointly, they have driven this economy into a ditch. I think there are philosophical differences here. And I think one of the major differences is that we believe that in order to be able to pay down the debt, we need to grow this economy. And to grow this economy in these difficult times means investing in our people and everything from education to health care to environmental technologies.

The Republican budget is really the same old same old, more tax cuts for the wealthy, and basically, an indifference towards some of the Nation's most pressing problems. You cannot rebuild roads and bridges for nothing. We can't just simply constantly put the burden of education, the cost of education, and special education in particular, on the backs of our cities and towns. There needs to be an understanding that in order to get this economy back up and running, we are going to need to invest. And that is what the Democratic budget does.

I stand before you proud to defend this budget, proud of the fact that we have a budget that has a conscience, proud of the fact that when this gets enacted, we are going to have a blueprint for this country that I believe will not only put us back on the road to economic recovery but will allow us to pay down our deficits and our debt.

As I said in my opening statement, the House budget slashes the deficit by nearly two-thirds over the next 4 years, from $1.7 trillion or 12.3 percent of gross domestic product in 2009 to $586 billion, or 3.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2013.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

Not at this time.

I will hold on just in case.

Madam Speaker, the gentlelady talks about compassion. I don't see a lot of compassion in the Republican budget. In fact, I haven't seen a lot of compassion in the Republican policies over the last 8 years. We are living in a country where there are 36 million Americans who are hungry, millions of whom are children. Where is the compassion? Where is the response? We have kids going to schools that are falling apart, where the heat works in the summer but doesn't work in the winter. Where is the compassion to make sure that our kids get the education that they deserve? We have a world where the environment is becoming the key issue, the issue of global climate change. We are giving our kids that kind of world? Where is the compassion there? If you want compassion, it is in the Democratic budget, which is not only compassionate but is fiscally responsible and will give our kids the kind of future they deserve.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman who just spoke that we've tried it his way and his way failed. Our economy is in the worst shape it has been in my lifetime, probably in the worst shape since the Great Depression. The policies that they have pursued for the last 8 years have failed. The American people, in the election in November, made it very clear they want to move in a different direction.

The budget that we are presenting here today, that the Democrats are proudly presenting here today, not only turns the page, but writes a whole new book on the way this country should move forward. We're going to tackle the big problems of global warming and of health care. We're going to deal with health care once and for all, and not only in a way that provides people with the quality care that they deserve and they are entitled to, but also helps control costs. We have ignored these big problems for far too long.

So I stand before you again, Madam Speaker, proud to say that the Democratic budget, the budget that has been inspired by President Obama, is the right budget for this country. And there is a clear choice. I mean, I think we could agree on one thing, that there is a very clear choice. We can either go the way the Republicans want us to go or the way the Democrats want us to go. And I think we have tried the Republican way, and it has failed.

I reserve my time.

No, I'm it.

Madam Speaker, let me reiterate that we find ourselves in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We find ourselves in this position in large part because of the very reckless policies of the last 8 years, policies that have been championed by President Bush and by the Republicans when they were in the majority.

And I want to commend the Republicans for actually introducing a budget alternative to the Rules Committee because, up until just today, what they handed out was a brochure with not a lot of numbers in it, a lot of criticism of Democrats. But I look forward to----

I am happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, what they did last week was produce a document that was basically a political piece that had no numbers in it and was basically an attack on the President and on the Democratic budget.

Now, we have been able to take a cursory look at some of the things that are in the Republican budget alternative, and if you would note-- --

I am happy to yield to the gentleman for a question.

I am saying that I am glad that the gentleman, the Republicans have submitted a budget to the Rules Committee today----

Because up until today we had a political brochure.

But anyway, a cursory look at what they presented, there are some substantial cuts in some very essential programs. They're talking about a $38.5 billion cut in agriculture. Well, what are they going to cut? Are they going to cut food stamps and nutrition programs to people who are suffering and struggling during these terrible economic times?

A $22.7 billion cut to education and labor. Are they going to cut schools more? Are we going to cut money for special education?

I mean, there are some significant programs that will have to be cut as a result of what they're proposing.

Energy and Commerce, a $666.1 billion cut. What are they going to cut, Medicare and Medicaid?

Billions of dollars in Financial Services. Where are the cuts going to come from? Housing for low-income people? Is that the idea of what a compassionate budget is about?

Ways and Means, billions and billions of dollars of cuts for the Ways and Means Committee, again, going into Medicare, you know, programs that help vulnerable senior citizens.

Madam Speaker, I think people are tired of the same old same old. And let me tell you what the old way was. The old way was to ignore health care. That's why we have such a mess with health care today.

The old way was to ignore education. That's why we have so many schools that are crumbling. That's why we're understaffed in terms of our teachers. That's why schools don't have the technology that they all should have.

The old way is to give tax breaks to millionaires. The old way was to continue to rely on foreign oil.

The budget that the Democrats are proudly presenting today puts us in a very new direction, in a direction that I think the American people are excited about. That is what this last election was about.

People will have their opportunity to vote for the Republican budget or the Democratic budget, whatever they want to do. But please know one thing. What they are proposing is what they have been proposing consistently for as long as I have been here.

I will be happy to yield.

Our budget actually goes after subsidies for wealthy farmers, but it does not go after food stamps for the vulnerable.

The Republican budget that has been proposed makes dramatic cuts in some of the most essential and valuable programs that serve the most vulnerable people in our country.

We are faced with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and what they propose is the same old same old. Enough. Enough.

Madam Speaker, the Democratic budget moves us in a different direction, in one that, I think, the American people want us to move.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, as Chair of the Joint Economic Committee, I am pleased to speak in the time reserved by the Budget Act for a discussion of economic goals and policies.

I rise today to put our fiscal problems into a broader economic context. Our budget is an important blueprint for getting our economy back on track by making critical investments in health care, clean energy, and education that will create jobs and enhance our global competitiveness. We will also restore fiscal responsibility by cutting the deficit by nearly two-thirds by 2013.

Throughout this budget debate, it has been generally acknowledged that President Obama inherited a fiscal mess. The previous administration had taken office facing a robust economy and a fiscally sound government. President Bush inherited a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. We stood poised to deal with the budget challenges posed by the retirement of the baby boom generation, and prepared to invest in improving the future standard of living of our children and grandchildren.

Under President Bush's management, our economy set record after record, but they were all the wrong kinds of records. His administration's policies produced historically poor levels of job growth, the greatest gap between the haves and the have-nots since the 1920s. Record number of uninsured Americans, 47 million in 2006. A record $10.6 trillion Federal debt when he left office, and the largest single-year deficit in U.S. history, $459 billion in 2008. And he left over $1 trillion in deficits in 2009. Record oil prices, record current account deficits, the broadest measure of our trade deficit, the largest in history, record declines in housing prices and home equity that have left families owing more than their homes are worth.

As you can see on this chart, through a series of disastrous choices and flawed policies, the Bush administration squandered surpluses and left us with record deficits. Here are the projected surpluses, but this is the reality of the actual budget deficits left us by the Bush administration. President Bush presided over a tragic and unprecedented reversal of fortune for our Nation and for our American families.

As this next chart shows, the 8-year tenure of President Bush was a period of the lowest and slowest job growth of any administration in 75 years. His administration left us with a mere 2 million more jobs than when he came into office. Compare that to the 8 years under President Clinton, where nearly 23 million jobs, more than 10 times as many, were created. You can see this small red bar. That's the jobs that Bush II created. Compare that to all the prior administrations that produced many, far many more jobs than this failed administration.

Despite his frequent assurances that his policies were working to make the economy stronger, President Bush earned the dubious distinction of presiding over not one but two recessions. After a jobless recovery from the recession in the first term, the economy fell back into recession in December of 2007, and has been shedding jobs at an alarming rate ever since.

By nearly every measure, the 2001 and 2007 recovery period was among the weakest in the post-World War II period. There were warning signs that all was not well. During the recovery, two important economic variables, growth, and the growth in fixed nonresidential investment, grew more slowly than during the other expansions. Both grew more slowly than they did during the expansion of the 1990s, when taxes were raised, not cut.

Consumption, net worth, wages, and salaries, and employment also grew at remarkably slower rates during the Bush recovery than during other expansionary periods.

The one bright spot for some in the recovery was the large growth in profits that went to corporations driven, in large part, by the ever- increasing productivity of the American worker. However, the increases did not translate into bigger paychecks for hardworking middle-class families.

Unlike the expansion of the 1990s, under President Clinton, where workers' productivity and compensation grew in tandem, during the 2000 recovery under President Bush, workers' compensation lagged far behind their robust productivity growth. The increased wealth just went to a very few

at the top of our economy, exacerbating the divide between the haves and the have-nots.

As this chart shows, the typical household income, after accounting for inflation, was actually $324 lower at the end of 2007, leaving them struggling to stay afloat, even before the current recession hit.

It is now all too clear that even the relatively weak economic growth during the Bush administration was not broadly shared and was built on an unstable foundation. The soaring housing prices that helped fuel our economic recovery now appear to have been a classic asset bubble. The disastrous effects of the collapse of that bubble have now spread throughout our entire financial system and around the globe.

When President Obama took the oath of office on the steps of this building just 2 months ago, he immediately inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion for Fiscal Year 2009, and trillions more in deficits over the next 10 years. He became heir to an economy in the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Almost 4\1/2\ million jobs have been lost in the last 15 months.

As this chart shows, in the waning days of the Bush administration, the economy shrank at an astonishing annual rate of 6.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, the fastest rate of contraction in over 25 years. In 2008, the final year of the Bush administration, $11.2 trillion of wealth simply vanished into thin air as housing prices fell almost 20 percent.

Our gross Federal debt stands at more than $10.6 trillion, nearly $35,000 per person in America. That is how much every person in America owes to the Federal debt. And as a share of our economy, that's the highest level since 1955, when we were still paying off debts from World War II.

This is the fiscal mess President Obama inherited, and we have our work cut out for us to clean it up. One year ago I stood here in this same spot, as part of this same process, and pointed out that when our opponents were asked how to address our financial problems, their answer was, to cut benefits for middle-class families and cut taxes for the wealthiest few. And our opponents still offer the same solutions.

We propose a different course. Restoring growth is key to getting our economy back on track, and spurring growth takes investment. Congress has worked closely with President Obama in his first 70 days to develop an integrated and multipronged attack to revive the economy.

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we have provided relief to middle-class, middle-income taxpayers, invested in infrastructure, renewable energy, and education to create and save millions of jobs and extend unemployment benefits for millions of jobless Americans.

Congress has also acted, with President Obama, to reauthorize and expand the Children's Health Insurance Program, so that it now covers 11 million low-income children.

The economic recovery packages we passed were aimed at boosting demand in the short term because consumers are reluctant to spend, but we were careful not to enact provisions that will exacerbate our long- term deficits and debt. This budget builds on those policies by making important additional investments that will strengthen our economy, invest in the future and put us back on the path of fiscal responsibility.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, ``rising costs for health care [are] the single greatest challenge to balancing the Federal budget.'' Clearly, containing health care costs is critical to addressing the country's long-term fiscal challenges, and we must act now. That is why a key priority of our budget is health care reform, which will expand coverage, improve the quality of care and address those skyrocketing costs of care that are weighing down our economy and are putting pressure on family budgets.

During the last administration, the growing cost of care pushed the number of uninsured Americans to record levels. At the end of the recovery in 2007, there were 46 million uninsured Americans, 7.2 million more than when President Bush took office.

I would like to thank Chairman Spratt and the Budget Committee for including a deficit-neutral reserve fund in the budget resolution for the 9/11 health programs, consistent with last year's budget conference agreement. This will provide some legislative flexibility for the Energy and Commerce and Judiciary Committees to pass H.R. 847, the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, and to ensure it is fully paid for under PAYGO rules. H.R. 847 would provide medical monitoring and treatment to World Trade Center responders and to community members whose health has been impacted by Ground Zero toxins in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. We have a moral obligation to care for the heroes and heroines of 9/11, and this reserve fund is an important step toward fulfilling that obligation.

Our budget makes investments in education a priority so that every child has the opportunity to receive a quality education. According to a report by the Education Trust, the United States is now the only industrialized country where young people are less likely than their parents to earn a high school diploma.

Improving education and training will prepare our children to compete and win in the global economy. This budget builds on investments with further support for early childhood education, setting high standards and providing the tools to achieve them for elementary and secondary school students. This budget reaffirms our commitment to making college affordable for every American by raising the maximum Pell Grant award to help more students obtain a college education.

Our budget also embraces the President's goal of increasing America's energy independence and energy security. Record gas prices last summer left Americans at the mercy of the gas pump. We build on the funding and tax incentives in the Recovery Act by expanding our investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency that will reduce America's dependence on foreign energy, and we provide new training opportunities to prepare workers for green jobs in a clean, green economy. Our budget is the blueprint for strengthening our economy and for putting people back to work. After 8 years of misguided policies, we must be mindful of the future as we take steps to rebuild our economy.

President Obama has called on us to address the systemic challenges facing our economy by making investments in accessible, affordable health care, energy independence and quality education. The investments we make now will pay off later as we emerge from this current crisis stronger and better prepared for challenges of the 21st century.

Thank you, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for 10 minutes.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, as we consider the budget proposal for the coming year, we are facing, really and truly, one of the most important votes in recent memory. We can choose now to honor the pledge we made to the American people in the last election and begin the process of health care reform, make investments that will lead to energy independence and invest the needed funds to reinvigorate our educational system or we can follow the same failed policies that brought us to the crisis we find ourselves in now. Our budget builds on our integrated approach to lifting us out of the recession, and it returns us to fiscal discipline by cutting the deficit by nearly two-thirds by 2013.

Now, the gentleman mentioned our tax plan. Well, I am very proud of the Democratic plan. Our plan makes permanent the $800 Making Work Pay tax cut while preserving all dedicated payroll taxes that go to Social Security and Medicare. This is a new tax cut President Obama promised in his campaign.

The Democratic plan expands the child tax credit helping millions of families with children. It makes the $2,500 opportunity tax credit permanent to make college more affordable. This is a new tax cut President Obama promised in his campaign.

It permanently protects millions of middle-class families from being hit by

the alternative minimum tax. It expands the earned-income tax credit by providing tax relief to families with three or more children and increasing marriage penalty relief. It provides for automatic enrollment in IRAs and 401(k)s and expands the current tax credit for saving for retirement. It eliminates capital gains on small businesses, cuts taxes for 95 percent of American workers, cuts spending--non- defense discretionary--over 10 years to its lowest level as a percent of the economy in nearly half a century. It cuts the deficit in half over 4 years, grows nothing but jobs and ends an era of irresponsibility and gimmicks.

I would like to inquire, Madam Chairman, as to how much time remains on both sides.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I would like to address the deficit that the gentleman mentioned and point out that President Obama inherited deficits over $1 trillion. The Obama administration inherited an economy deep in recession and a projected annual deficit of well over $1 trillion. This deficit didn't arise out of the blue.

President Bush inherited a $5.6 trillion projected 10-year budget surplus, which he dissipated on misguided fiscal policies and choices. That surplus represented an opportunity to address some of the major issues confronting our country, including preparing for the needs of the retiring Baby Boom generation.

The Democratic plan cuts the deficit by more than half. The President sets a firm goal of cutting the deficit in half over 4 years, and this budget does just that. It takes the record deficit that President Obama and the 111th Congress inherited in 2009, and cuts the deficit from $1.7 trillion in 2009 to $586 billion in 2013.

And it also makes more realistic deficit estimates. To provide for a more realistic accounting of the government's financial position, our budget--like the President's plan--includes likely foreseeable costs that have been omitted from past budgets. These include costs of our overseas deployment, Medicare reimbursements to physicians, and emergencies such as natural

disasters that can't be predicted with precision but that occur every year. These were all off-budget during the Bush years. We have put them on with more transparency.

And I would like to say that very importantly, the Democratic plan begins to address health care. It begins to address rising costs. It sets us on a path to increased coverage for the 46 million who do not have medical coverage. It aims to improve the quality of care. And Republicans have no real plan for addressing rising health care plans and health costs. And the Republican plan for health care, including Medicare, is to give everyone a voucher and deregulate the insurance market.

So I say the Democratic plan is better in terms of reducing the deficit, and it also invests in health care, energy independence, and education and to long-term goals and needs of our young people and of our citizens who need to compete and succeed in the global market.

I would like to inquire as to how much time remains on my side and the other side.

I reserve my time.

Madam Chair, President Bush has left President Obama a

hard hand to play. The economy is receding, the budget is in deficit by $1.752 trillion, according to OMB, and the end is nowhere in sight.

President Obama has responded with a budget that meets the challenge head on. The Budget Committee's resolution before us tonight reflects his policies and his proposals.

The President has recognized that we have not one but two deficits. The first is an economy running at 6 percent to 7 percent below its full capacity. To move our economy closer to its capacity, the President has signed into law a package of stimulus measures totaling $787 billion.

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says in its analysis issued 2 weeks ago about the stimulus package, and I am quoting, ``The adoption of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and very aggressive actions by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury will help end this recession this fall.'' Let's hope they are right.

In light of this prognosis, it is hard to believe, but our colleagues from across the aisle use their budget to call for terminating, ending, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The President next turned to the budget. He has sent us a budget to cut the deficit by two-thirds, two-thirds by 2013, from $1,752,000,000 from this year to $533 billion in 2013.

Now, it is all but impossible to balance a budget when the economy is in recession, and, for that matter, it is ill-advised. To end, or at least to mitigate this recession, our economy is need of more demand for goods and more demand for services, and any demand we generate to make the economy run better will make the deficit run larger at least for now.

But here is the stark reality: The deficit that President Bush left behind constitutes a massive 12.3 percent of our gross domestic product. At least two-thirds of that stems from tax and spending policies undertaken by the Bush administration. Anyone, almost anyone, would agree that this is an unsustainable deficit, defensible only in deep intractable recessions.

President Obama clearly believes that, because he has responded with a budget that pares the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP in 2013. His budget cuts the deficit to $533 billion in 4 years.

The budget embodied in our resolution before us tonight uses CBO projections instead of OMB, and reduces the deficit to $586 billion in 2013. That is 3.6 percent of GDP or, roughly, the real rate of growth for that year.

Our budget is not so committed to deficit reduction that it overrides or overlooks other needs. In fact, it takes on topics that previous budgets have found too tough to tackle, like health care for the millions of Americans who lack insurance.

On top of that, it slows down defense spending with an increase of 4 percent, and makes a moderate adjustment to nondefense discretionary spending, lifting it a bit above this year.

Notwithstanding deficits, the President's budget launches some bold initiatives to make our economy more productive and our people more competitive: First, in education through Pell Grants in particular; next, in health care for the millions who are uninsured; and, finally, on alternative energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and the depletion of our environment. This resolution upholds those priorities.

Now, some will single out instances where additional revenue is raised, for example, by allowing certain concessions for upper-bracket taxpayers to expire at the end of 2010, which is the date they were set to expire.

But the bigger picture will show that this budget leaves in place the middle-income tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003, the 10 percent bracket, the child tax credit, and the marriage penalty relief. It indexes the alternative minimum tax to keep it from coming down on middle-income taxpayers, for whom it was never intended. It also extends estate tax exemptions at the 2009 level, $3.5 million per decedent, and indexes the exemptions for future years.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have complained about the President's tax and spending policies; but let me read from CBO's own nonpartisan analysis of the President's budget, which is basically before us tonight.

I am quoting: Proposed changes in tax policy would reduce revenues by an estimated $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. Reduced revenues, by an estimated $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. That is CBO talking.

The President's major initiatives, those in health care, energy, education, the environment, are all implemented by way of reserve funds. And I would stress that these funds are deficit neutral. They are yet to be funded, and will only become operative to the extent they are funded and will only be enacted if they are deficit neutral.

The resolution before us sounds all of these themes and, with a few exception, supports the principles that underlie the President's own budget. This is just the beginning; however, it is a bold beginning for the 2010 budget.

Our resolution is laid out in the form of a 5-year budget using CBO's scoring and CBO's projections of the economy. OMB has run its budget out over 10 years and our Republican colleagues have done the same, but a 5-year budget is not at all unusual; in fact, it is the customary timeframe for budgeting. In recent years, four deficit reduction acts have been enacted, and all implemented budgets of less than 10 years. Graham-Rudman-Hollings, the Bush Budget Summit, the Clinton Budget in 1993, and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 all were 5-year budgets.

The farther out you run forecasts, the more tenuous they become. It is speculative just to predict what the economy is going to do 10 months from now much less 10 years from now. Five-year forecasts are, therefore, more realistic, more reliable; and, if the projected results don't pan out, they are more amenable to adjustment.

All projections rest on assumptions about the future, and the assumptions can have a profound effect on the bottom line. To show you how uncertain assumptions can be and projections can become, look at CBO's recent experience. Just since last January, CBO's estimate of the deficit is off by $436 billion, since January. Look at the long run, because small differences compound over time into big differences. Over 10 years, the difference between OMB's estimate of tax revenues received and CBO's is $2.8 trillion. That is a huge difference that has a huge impact on the bottom line of these competing forecasts.

Fortunately, the congressional budget process is an annual process. Since we revisit the budget every year, we can take steps to correct its course, which we will surely do with deficits of this gravity looming over us.

For our part, I can tell you that we are mindful of the second 5 years. As we approach 2015 and 2016, we will be making corrections to see that the deficit stays on a downward trajectory. We believe that these midcourse corrections can best be made when our economy has emerged from the recession and we have a much better and clearer view of an economy that bounces back.

Right now, our economy is mired in the worst recession since the 1930s. It stands in marked contrast to the fiscal situation that the Bush administration faced 8 years ago. Instead of inheriting a surplus of $5.6 trillion as did President Bush, President Obama has inherited a deficit, a deficit of $1.7 trillion to $1.8 trillion. At least $1.3 trillion is attributable to the spending and taxing policies of the Bush administration.

In effect, President Bush told us we could have it all, guns, butter, and tax cuts, too, and never mind the deficits. Well, 8 years and $5 trillion later, the country is confronted with the worst deficits in our peacetime history. These are not cyclical deficits so much as they are structural deficits. They were built into the structure of the budget over the last 8 years, and they will overhang our budget for years to come as we try to wind them down.

This situation cannot be reversed in a year, but we offer today a budget resolution that puts us on the right path. It will have to be renewed, it will have to be complemented, it will have to be adjusted many times before the economy and the budget are right again, but today we can start that process by voting for this resolution.

I ask the Chair if she could tell me how much time was consumed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, before yielding 11 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Andrews, the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield 11 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Madam Chairman, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for a rejoinder.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, from the Blue Dogs, Mr. Boyd.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I would inquire of the gentleman from Wisconsin if he wishes to have further speakers at this point or if we should go ahead.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute first to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for a rejoinder, and then I will go to Mr. Scott.

Madam Chair, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I yield 1 minute for rejoinder to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I will yield the gentleman 30 seconds of my time if he'll explain his arithmetic and show us the taxes he's talking about in the text of the resolution. Because they're not there. This has been asserted again and again as a mantra. It doesn't exist.

It comes from CBO. Don't take it from me. From the analysis of the President's budget: Proposed changes in tax policy would reduce revenues by an estimated $1.7 trillion, with 6.1 percent over the next 10 years. CBO.

I reclaim the time. I'm glad to yield you some time, but it needs some sort of limit to it.

I still don't know what the arithmetic is and I don't know where the taxes are, except the tax cuts, as you know, expire on December 3, 2010.

The President's budget will allow them to expire, except he then proposes to have the capital gains rate be 20 percent instead of 15 percent, which is less than it's traditionally been. And same thing for dividends--20 instead of 15 percent.

We don't dictate that in this resolution. We leave matters of that kind--specific policy choices--up to the Ways and Means Committee.

I'm going to reclaim my time so we can go forward.

I yield first 1 minute for a rejoinder to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I now yield 2 minutes for a colloquy to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I do. And I thank the gentleman for his leadership in our committee on this issue of ensuring that all Federal employees are equitably treated.

That is correct.

I now recognize and yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Madam Chair, how much time is remaining?

I will go ahead and use the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have sat here keeping a list of things that were wrong that cannot be recited in 2 minutes. One speaker got up and said there were no spending restraints. Deficit neutral reserve funds are all about spending restraints. We cannot undertake any of those initiatives until they are paid for. It is a substantial restraint. PAYGO is built into this budget. And it is guaranteed to be accorded a vote on this House floor to become statutory PAYGO instead of rule-of-the-House PAYGO.

There is a lot of talk about the costs of this budget, $3.9 trillion. It makes me gag as well. But do you know why it is up so big? TARP, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG, much of which, much of which was incurred and fixed on your watch, the watch of your administration, Hank Paulson and others. That is why it happens in this year's numbers, secondly.

Thirdly, as you listen to this debate you would think that President Obama has been in office in town for years now. Everything is effectively blamed on Democrats. His administration has been in office 3 months. What we are seeing today and next year and the following years is the wind down and the work off of the Bush structural deficits. They simply won't go away in short order. But Obama didn't wrack up this debt in the last 3 months. It has been created in the last 8 months when President Bush took a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, and by 2004 converted it to the biggest in history, to a $412 billion dollar deficit, the biggest deficit at that time in American history. That happened under his watch, under his administration, under his spending policy and taxing policy.

So all of this effort, and in particular, this newfound concern over debt, I share your concern. But where were you over the last 8 years? Your silence was almost deafening. This President Bush built up the debt of the United States from $5.7 trillion to $11 trillion. What we are now doing is living in the backwash of the Bush administration trying to straighten up the mess that he left behind.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.