Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

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.

I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the ranking member for his views.

There is a disagreement, Madam Speaker. We have had a substantive disagreement for a long time. In fact, when I was elected to the Congress in 1981, we had a very substantive disagreement on what the economic policies would produce in terms of the supply-side economic theory. My view, which differs from Mr. Ryan's, is that it produced large deficits, and it produced large deficits in every year that it was practiced in the 29 years that I have been here. Only in the 8 years where President Clinton had the veto pen and said no, we're not going to go down that road, did we produce surpluses. Now, they were produced in large part because of an economy that rose more rapidly than any of us expected because of the chip, the information technology explosion, all of which was to the best interest of our country. We had a $5.6 trillion surplus projected in 2001 by President Bush as a result. Unfortunately, we pursued a policy with which I disagreed and which I said would produce high deficits and would not help our economy. In fact, we produced high deficits, and our economy was in the worst shape that any President has inherited an economy since Franklin Roosevelt. President Obama was confronted with an economy that was in substantial decline.

Today the House has the rare opportunity to set America on a responsible course for the future. I congratulate Mr. Spratt, I congratulate Mr. Boyd and Ms. DeLauro, members of the conference, for the courage and leadership they have displayed. Mr. Spratt has been, as always, extraordinarily informed and extraordinarily involved with all of our Members in trying to get to this point. The course that we set ourselves on, in my view, is one of lasting prosperity, and I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity.

Along with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this budget is a key part of our response to this recession. We have the power to emerge from this recession a stronger Nation, one with a future of clean energy and energy independence and a workforce ready to compete with the best in the world and a reformed system of health care. This budget provides for those objectives. We also have a chance to vote for the principles of fiscal responsibility and put ourselves on a truly sustainable course.

There is a real difference in this House, in the Senate, and in this country about what fiscal responsibility means. I believe it means we pay for what we buy rather than simply cutting our revenues, increasing our purchases, and hoping somehow something magical will happen to balance the budget. It has never happened in the 20 years that I have served with Republican Presidents pursuing that philosophy.

On energy, the budget funds incentives for cutting-edge research and clean energy jobs, as well as an energy-efficient, money-saving, critically necessary smart grid.

On education this budget builds upon the recovery plan with additional support for early childhood education, elementary and secondary school students, and efforts to help more Americans obtain a college degree. It expands access to education in the make-or-break years of early childhood--I think critical if we are going to be competitive in world markets. It increases Pell grants to help more students afford higher education and promotes job training and significant education reform.

On health care this budget responds to the skyrocketing costs that are straining families and businesses across this Nation. Family premiums have more than doubled since the year 2000, and over the past 5 years, our total health care spending has increased at more than twice the rate of inflation, consuming more and more of our economy and our budget each year. This budget fights that trend by making a significant down-payment on the reform, taking steps to lower health care costs, improve quality, and expand access. That is what America voted in 2008. That is the responsibility that we are carrying out.

The budget also allows us to use reconciliation to provide for an up- or-down vote on reforming health care, not as an option or first resort but as a fallback if partisanship blocks progress.

Essentially we're saying the majority will make policy. It didn't take 60 percent to elect the President. It didn't take 60 percent to elect any of us to this body. The premise of our Founding Fathers was if a majority of Americans believe we ought to move in a direction, that's the direction we ought to move. That has proved a very successful policy for over two centuries. It is a policy that we are providing for here. It is a policy that was provided for by the Republicans when they were in charge time after time after time.

As the bipartisan Concord Coalition points out: ``The budget reconciliation process was used in 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 to reduce taxes,'' as opposed to deficit reduction, which, of course, reconciliation is designed to address.

Moreover, a case can be made that health care reform that includes spending restraints and squeezes inefficiencies out of the system is integral to reining in the rapid growth of health care costs, which is a major, a major driver of deficits.

I want to stress that last point. It is essential that health care reform includes difficult choices to cut costs, which will eventually result in lower deficits. Why? Because of the $2.4 trillion that we spend on health care, half of that comes from the government, either Federal or State.

All of these investments are vital to our future economic health and competitiveness. As President Obama recently pointed out: ``A cash- strapped family may cut back on all kinds of luxuries but will insist on spending money to get their children through college.''

Our country is in the same position. These tough times are no excuse to cut back on investments that will pay off many times over down the road.

Finally, this budget puts America back on the path of fiscal responsibility. It's no secret that past budgets have made easy choices and kicked the difficult ones down the road.

Let me say, as I have said so many times before, it takes no courage whatsoever to cut taxes. None. Zero. What takes courage, political courage, if we want to buy things, is to pay for them. That's what takes courage. You can make one of two decisions: Don't buy and keep revenue stable, or buy and pay for so that your children aren't paying for it. Those are the decisions that I am prepared to make and, very frankly, have made over the last 40 years that I have been in office.

This House needs to make those choices. That's why Allen Boyd, John Spratt and others have pursued so vigorously statutory PAYGO requirements. That's why I am in such support of them.

In 1990, statutory PAYGO led to that surplus that I referred to. Jettisoning that in the early part of this decade led to the deficits that we have experienced.

And why did you jettison PAYGO? Because you were unprepared to pay for the revenue losses that you voted for.

But by passing this budget we will be leaving a different legacy, one that makes clear that our government must pay for what it buys. This budget cuts the deficit from 10.5 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3 percent of GDP in 2013--in other words, by nearly two-thirds. Those savings come from spending restraint and oversight that save taxpayer money. We must do that. We cannot pursue the policies that we have been pursuing. They are not sustainable.

Most importantly, the House is strongly committed to statutory PAYGO. President Obama asked Congress, and again I quote, to develop a PAYGO law that would help return the Nation to a path of fiscal responsibility, and that is what we intend to do.

That is what this budget does. The House will not consider any bills on middle-income tax cuts, the estate tax, AMT relief, or the sustainable growth rate in the Medicare program unless they include statutory PAYGO, they are fully offset, or statutory PAYGO has already been enacted. Everybody wants to deal with those four issues. Let us see if everybody is prepared in this generation to pay for them and not pass those costs on to the next generation.

I urge my colleagues to approve this conference report, pass this budget and show our constituents that the priorities they voted for in 2008 are ours as well.

I again congratulate the chairman, the members of the conference committee and the members of the Budget Committee for their leadership and for their courage.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 371, I call up the conference report to accompany the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

In resolving the conference this year, we have had a hard hand to play. In the backwash of the Bush administration, we have had to struggle with an economy that is reeling, if not receding. The deficit is deep and the end is nowhere in sight.

President Obama has responded to these challenges head-on, and we have followed his lead with a conference agreement that reflects most of his policies and most of his proposals.

The President has recognized that we have not one but two deficits. The first is an economy running at about 7 percent below its full employment level, or $1 trillion below its potential. To move our economy closer to its capacity, the President signed into law a package of stimulus measures totaling $787 billion in tax cuts and spending increases.

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says in its analysis of the President's budget: ``The adoption of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and very aggressive actions by the Fed and the Treasury will help end the recession this fall.''

Let's hope CBO is right, because it's all but impossible to balance the budget when the economy is in recession. Nevertheless, this year's deficit constitutes 12.3 percent of our gross domestic product. At least two-thirds of that stems from the tax and spending policies undertaken by the Bush administration. Much of the enormous swell in this year's deficit is due to some extraordinary expenditures, such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and the consolidation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the Federal budget, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The good news is these expenditures are nonrecurring so long as the economy recovers.

The President sent us a budget that will cut the deficit by two- thirds by 2013, from $1.752 trillion this year to $523 billion in 2014. $523 billion is roughly 3 percent of GDP in 2014, and in that sense, it is sustainable, because that's roughly the growth rate in 2014.

The budget embodied in our resolution uses CBO projections, which are less optimistic. Yet it reduces the deficit to $523 billion in 2014, which is 3 percent of GDP, a bit less than the rate of growth in the economy for that year.

Our budget can rightly be called a deficit reduction budget, because it lowers the deficit by $1.2 trillion over 5 years. On the other hand, 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 face, such as health care for millions of Americans who do not have insurance. On top of that it slows down defense spending with an increase of 4 percent and makes a moderate adjustment to non-defense discretionary spending, taking it a bit above this year.

In spite of deficits, the President's budget and our conference report launch some bold initiatives to make our economy more productive and our people more productive. First, in higher education, with an increase in Pell Grants to $5,550; next in health care for the millions, 46 million by one estimate, who are uninsured; and, finally, in alternative energies to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and the depletion of our environment.

As the Budget Committee, we do not make tax policies or write tax bills, but we do set revenue levels with certain assumptions in mind. We have provided revenues sufficient to renew the middle-income tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003. These include the 10 percent bracket, the child tax credit and the marital penalty relief bill. We have also assumed revenue levels that allow for the AMT to be patched for 3 years to keep it from burdening middle-income taxpayers for whom it was never intended. We have also assumed in our revenue estimates that the estate tax will be extended at the 2009 levels, leaving exemptions of $3.5 million per decedent in place, in force, in law.

Our Republican colleagues nevertheless complained about our tax policies. Let me read from CBO's nonpartisan analysis of the President's budget, which is very much like our budget: ``Proposed changes in tax policy would reduce revenues by an estimated $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years.'' That's the CBO talking.

The President's major initiatives--health care, energy, education, environment--are all implemented by way of reserve funds, and, let me stress, these reserve funds are all deficit-neutral. They are yet to be funded, and they only become operative to the extent that they are actually funded.

The resolution before us sounds all of these themes, and with a few exceptions, supports the principles underlying the President's budget.

Our resolution is laid out in the form of a 5-year budget using CBO's stricter scoring and CBO's projections of the economy.

OMB has run out its budget over 10 years, but a 5-year budget is not at all unusual.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

It's the customary time frame for budgeting, and we think that the 5- year budget is particularly appropriate in a year when no one can adequately foresee the future or can even foresee a few years over the horizon.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

Before yielding to Mr. Becerra of California, I would like simply to make two or three clarifications.

You've heard it repeatedly said in this debate that this is a big spending bill, and it is, but it brings spending down from $3.9 trillion outlays this year to $3.6 trillion outlays next year--a reduction in spending of $300 billion. As for revenues, we don't raise revenues. We cut revenues by $764 billion over 5 years and by $1.7 trillion over 10 years. Those are the facts. That's the truth.

I now recognize for 2 minutes the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

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

The gentleman from Texas said this was not the America he grew up in, but he grew up in Mr. Bush's America. During the 8 years of the Bush administration, the President came into office, we had a debt in this country of a little over $5 trillion. When he left office, the debt was a little over $12 trillion, and a deficit of $1.845 trillion. So a lot of last year's deficit becomes this year's debt. A lot of that debt was attributable to what happened in the last administration, too.

He said it continually, we increase spending. Once again, in terms of outlays, this bill will decrease spending by $300 billion, from $3.9 trillion--which is way too much--to $3.6 trillion. That is a $300 billion reduction.

As for taxes, raising taxes, this bill cuts taxes by $764 billion over 5 years and by $1.7 trillion over 10 years. Those are the facts. It can't be refuted. And that is why I think you can fairly and rightly say this is a deficit reduction bill which nevertheless accommodates values that we consider good for the country.

We will pick up tomorrow, I suppose, Madam Speaker.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this is a big moment. This is a moment where Congress is now about to decide the passage of the final conference report of this year's budget. It's the budget of our new President with this new Democratic majority. It's a budget that encapsulates their values, the issues that the majority party ran on, the issues that the majority party did say in their campaigns that they were going to pass.

I did 25 listening sessions in the First Congressional District over the Easter recess, and a lot of constituents were concerned and complained about all of this new government and about all of this spending as if it's something they didn't see coming, to which I answered to most of my constituents: You know what? The President did run on these ideas. The Democrats who took the majority did run on these ideas. These are the things they said that they would do, and now this budget shows that they're doing it.

So honesty and candor are being had with this budget. The description of what it does, however, I would say, is not being candidly handled. It is not being done honestly. If you take a look at an honest accounting of this budget that is now before the floor, there is an additional $1.172 trillion in deficit spending that's occurring here that had been masked away from it.

You've seen the kinds of quotes from some who would describe the enormous vision of this budget as one that will bring a new day in America, where we will look more like a European kind of an economy, like more of a European type of social welfare state. I know a lot of people don't like that description, and in some ways, that description that this converts the American Government into a European welfare state government is not a fair description.

The reason that that's not a fair description is it's not fair to Europe. Under the Maastricht treaty, under which the Europeans allow entrance, this budget would be in violation of it. If you take an honest accounting of this budget, then the deficit never falls below 5 percent of the GDP. We couldn't be allowed into the European Union if this budget passes, which we know the majority has the votes, and it will pass.

This budget doubles the national debt held by the public in about 5\1/2\ years, and it triples it in about 10\1/2\ years. This budget recreates a whole new system, a whole new precedence. This new precedence changes the whole notion of budgets, the whole concept of what we refer to as the 1974 Budget Act. That budget act was an idea that we've got to get spending under control, that we've got to get our fiscal house in order, that we've got to get the deficit down.

We've got to work on our borrowing. We need to bring fiscal discipline and some limits and some control to the process of taxing and spending in Congress. This doesn't do that. This takes a whole new precedence, and it uses the budget. It perverts the tools within the budget, not to lower the level of spending, not to lower the level of taxing, not to work on reducing the national debt. It uses the budget to increase these things--to engage in an absolute gusher of new spending, of more taxing and of more borrowing.

In fact, the order occurs like this: a huge gusher of new spending, chased by ever-higher taxes which never actually catch up with that spending, which results in a record level of new borrowing. More debt will accumulate under this coming Presidency than under all prior Presidencies combined. That's the budget that we have here before us today.

The chairman talked about the Congressional Budget Office saying taxes are being cut in this budget. That's really an interesting statement. You have to go through so much mental gymnastics to actually rationalize that statement. What this budget does, to be fair, is it takes some current tax rates and keeps them current--the Child Tax Credit, the Marriage Penalty Relief, some of the lower income tax brackets. So it doesn't cut those taxes. It just keeps them where they are.

Under this budget, the alternative minimum tax kicks in in full force in 3 years, hitting at that time about 30 million families with an average of $2,000 of more taxes.

It raises the tax rates on income that most small businesses pay, so they'll pay a tax rate higher than that of the largest corporations. It raises the tax rates on the very investments, capital gains and dividends that make up our pension funds, our 401(k) plans, our college savings plans that are now down by 40 percent. So it has not only the largest tax increase in American history and not only the largest spending increase in American history but the largest debt increase ever. That's not budgeting. That's irresponsibility.

So we, obviously, have a difference of opinion with this budget. While we criticize this, we brought to the floor our own budget to say how we would do things differently, and we've got to get our taxes low to grow this economy. We've got to control spending so that we can have government live within its means so that we can get our debt paid off.

At the end of the day, the question is whether or not we're going to do good in this generation by the next generation, whether or not we're going to take on the fiscal challenges that are confronting this country and this generation today so that future generations of Americans can continue to enjoy the high standards of living that we have enjoyed, whether Americans can still test the boundaries of prosperity and society or whether we're going to go down that sliding scale, that slippery slope of giving the next generation an inferior standard of living.

It is a quantifiable, irrefutable fact that this budget puts us on that glide path to giving the next generation an inferior standard of living, an ocean of debt, a sea of higher taxes and spending as far as the eye can see. This budget should not pass. Unfortunately, this budget will pass.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) from the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Madam Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, I will consume my 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, let me just address what has been said here. This President inherited a terrible fiscal crisis. Well, you know what this President inherited? It inherited a Democratic majority that ran Congress for the last 2 years that gave us all of this spending and these higher deficits.

But here is the question; yes, there is a bad fiscal situation on our hands in this country. Yes, the President inherited a difficult situation. The question is, is he making it better or is he making it worse? All of these complaints about the higher deficit that has been inherited, about this spending that has occurred over the last 8 years, and what is the response? More of it. More spending, more deficits, more debt.

One of the reasons why the majority decided not to follow the President's lead with a 10-year budget and go with a 5-year budget is because the day after the 5-year budget, the deficit goes right back on up. One of the reasons why they put all these gimmicks in this bill was to try and make that deficit look as if it were smaller than it actually is. You take the gimmicks away, it is another $1.127 trillion in deficit spending. The deficit never gets to 3 percent of GDP, which all economists from the right and left think is unsustainable. This budget puts us on an unsustainable course.

Madam Speaker, we are going to be back here again talking about what to do to fix the budget because this budget will need fixing, and that's going to happen.