Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Joyce Yamat Meyer, our Washington office Chief of Staff and now Acting Chief of Staff over all office operations.

Joyce is a native of Wisconsin. Since 1995 we have worked together in several different offices. I myself was a Congressional staffer when I met Joyce. I quickly recognized her great abilities. When the member she worked for retired from the House of Representatives, I persuaded my employer, Senator Brownback, to bring her on board.

After my election in 1998 I invited Joyce to become my Legislative Director. Since that time, her skills and knowledge have grown with her responsibilities. I have also been pleased to watch her become a wonderful wife, mom, and leader.

Joyce is one of my partners in serving the people of Wisconsin's First Congressional District. Her home town is Franklin, Wisconsin. Following state redistricting in 2002, she was thrilled to find that her home was now in the First District. Ever since, serving her home town neighbors has been a point of pride for Joyce.

I have worked with Joyce longer than anyone in my office. I am pleased to recognize Joyce Yamat Meyer for more than ten years of excellent work with me in serving the people of the First District.

I thank the chairman.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Let me be clear: I support education. It's an indispensable component of America's prosperity. I don't find fault with Pell Grants or student loans. What I find fault with is the way that the math doesn't add up in this bill.

This bill includes a sleight of hand in so many ways that it either raises the deficit by $5.7 billion or by as much as $39 billion. It creates 10 new entitlement programs that will dramatically increase spending over the next 10 years, and it adds to our already alarming levels of borrowing. Let me try and explain what's going on with respect to how the budget gimmicks are employed here.

First off, the bill claims to reduce mandatory spending by $7.8 billion and dedicates that savings to deficit reduction; but through this budget gimmick, the bill shifts $13.5 billion in necessary program administrative costs over to the discretionary category where it cannot be counted by the Congressional Budget Office. With this gimmick removed, the bill actually increases the deficit by $5.7 billion. That's the smallest budget gimmick in this bill.

The second largest budget gimmick in this bill is the way that it is scored, not using the kind of scoring that we use for such things like when we scored Fannie and Freddie or the TARP, where we used risk- adjustment scoring under the credit reform rules. If you actually score it under the accurate rules that the CBO says it ought to be scored under, this bill would raise the deficit by $32 billion.

Beyond that, these 10 new entitlement programs that are being created have artificial sunset dates in the law. The most permanent thing in Washington is a temporary government program; and if you repeal these artificial sunset dates, that's $39 billion added to the deficit, which is according to the Congressional Budget Office.

This bill does not save money. This bill raises the deficit. This bill crowds out the private sector; it deprives students of choices; it uses enormous budget gimmicks, and it exploits the budget reconciliation system to try and say that it's saving money and reducing the deficit when, in actuality, using honest budgeting and honest accounting, it does nothing like that.

Madam Speaker, I, along with Congressman Artur Davis and Congressman Joseph Crowley, re-introduce today the Generating Retirement Ownership Through Long-Term Holding (``GROWTH'') Act of 2009. At a time when our economy is struggling to recover, this bipartisan bill would provide a valuable tool to hardworking Americans saving for retirement and other financial goals.

Mutual fund investors are overwhelmingly middle-income Americans investing for the long term. For many of these investors, mutual funds provide a low-cost, professionally managed, diversified opportunity in which they can save for their own retirement. Currently, investors who buy shares in a mutual fund and hold them for the long term find themselves taxed as they go--even though no fund shares were sold and no cash was received. This legislation allows mutual fund shareholders to keep more of their own money working for them longer by deferring capital gains taxes until they actually sell their investment. The GROWTH Act makes it easier for these individuals to meet their retirement savings goals.

Most of our Nation's mutual fund shareholders report that retirement is the primary reason why they are saving. More than 29 million Americans are saving through long-term mutual funds held in taxable accounts, either to supplement their employers' retirement plans, or because they do not have access to such plans. Seventy-six percent of mutual fund investors say that their primary financial goal is to save for retirement. At the same time, almost half--about 76.2 million of 158.1 million workers--are not offered any form of pension or retirement savings at work.

Meanwhile, the costs once in retirement are growing. For example, the Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates that, depending on their source of health insurance coverage and their comfort level with having a 50-percent, 75-percent, or 90-percent chance of having enough savings to cover health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health care expenses in retirement, men retiring at age 65 in 2019 will need between $114,000-$634,000, while needed savings for women range from $164,000-$754,000.

Mutual fund investors who automatically reinvest are doing the right thing. They are saving for the longer term, contributing to our national economy, and building up their own retirement nest egg. These Americans should be encouraged to save not punished for doing so through a tax on automatic reinvestments. The tax code needs to help, not hinder, saving for retirement. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort and cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: I rise in support of H.R. 3357, a bill that would ensure the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund has the resources it needs to help those who have been hit the hard by the economic recession and are jobless.

However, I am concerned about a provision in this bill that would provide another General Fund transfer to the Highway Trust Fund and increase the deficit.

I support a strong highway program. It's important to our nation's economy and to my home state of Wisconsin that we have world class roads that let goods and people get where they need to go safely and efficiently.

The highway fund was intended to be user financed. Last year we transferred $8 billion from the General Fund to patch last year's shortfall. Earlier this year we provided $27 billion in stimulus funds from the General Fund for highways. Now the Highway Trust Fund would get another $7 billion under this legislation to pay its bills for the rest of Fiscal Year 2009.

Despite claims to the contrary, the real world impact of these transfers is an increase in the deficit, which is already over $1 trillion and is projected to reach $1.8 trillion by the end of this fiscal year under the President's budget.

The Highway Trust Fund is broken and needs to be permanently fixed. I want to find a solution that supports critical highway spending but does so responsibly, without adding more debt and deficits.

Mr. Speaker, I am sad that the Democratic majority is trying to rush this bill through before we've had a chance to go home to our districts to listen to our constituents, to share ideas with them, to get their views on this, one of the most important issues we will ever decide here in Congress.

One of the things that is being said really puzzles me. The President is saying, for the public plan, you have to have it to keep the private sector honest, to bring more competition. If that's the case, Mr. Speaker, then why don't we have government grocery stores to keep grocers honest? Why don't we have government contractors for car mechanics to keep car mechanics honest? Why don't we have government steel companies to keep steel companies honest? Why don't we have government car companies--oh, excuse me, that's the wrong example.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, the public option is not here to keep the private sector honest. The public option is here

to make the private sector go away. That is the purpose of this bill, and the American people should see it. And we, in August, ought to be given the opportunity to talk to them about it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and express my gratitude for the life of Paul M. Weyrich, a stalwart leader in the conservative movement. More importantly, Paul Weyrich was a man of true character and one who is well-respected both in Washington and throughout the country.

Born in the Belle City of Racine, Wisconsin to Ignatius and Virginia Weyrich, Paul first became interested in politics during high school-- eventually joining the Racine County Young Republicans and taking an interest in Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign.

Mr. Weyrich moved to Washington in 1966, taking a job as press secretary to Senator Gordon L. Allot of Colorado and later Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska.

Dedicated to the promotion of conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, and a strong national defense, Paul became frustrated by the lack of strong statistical research available to combat the growing anti-business tax and regulate liberals in Washington. To combat them, he sought to establish an effective and reasoned conservative voice in American public policy. Today, the Heritage Foundation is one of the largest--and certainly the most prominent--conservative think tanks in the world.

Not content, however, with only protecting the family wallet and local business from the sticky fingers of liberal politicians, Paul also wanted to defend traditional family values and religious freedom. His vision led to the creation of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, Christian Voice and the Moral Majority to rally the American public to the defense of traditional Judeo-Christian values.

A true visionary in outreach efforts and utilizing technology, Paul launched National Empowerment Television, a cable network designed to mobilize the religious right. Mr. Weyrich was truly one of the first conservatives to put emphasis on using the power of citizen initiatives. The efforts of his vision were felt worldwide.

From 1989 to 1996, Mr. Weyrich served as President of the Kreible Institute of the Free Congress Foundation, which was founded to train and support democracy movements in the states comprising the Former Soviet Empire. Today, millions experience the taste of freedom due in large part to his efforts.

Ronald Reagan said, ``There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around

the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.'' Paul Weyrich did not believe in constraints or barriers. He was a man of the possible, a man of great passion and vision, who truly made a difference in the lives of the individual--fighting tirelessly for what he believed.

His tenacity, perseverance, and ideas have inspired many to become involved in the political process, here at home and abroad. The legacy he leaves is the belief that all have a stake and the ability to change things. . . that the true dynamic of political participation stems from citizen coalitions, not the rulings of elites. And that our principles can be successfully defended by those who live them regardless of the machinations of the left. For that he is owed much gratitude. Virginia and Ignatius can be proud; their son made the most of the talents entrusted him.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to a fellow patriot, Paul Weyrich, for his significant contributions to the conservative movement and for promoting traditional values and a democratic vision for the world. I also wish to express my profound sorrow of his passing, and my condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to myself.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Budget Committee had an opportunity to mark up this bill; however, the decision was made to bypass the Budget Committee and go straight to the floor.

This bill is not a simple extension of current law. It bypasses the deliberate and transparent process, and we are rushing legislation to the floor. It's an ongoing trend of a disturbing trend, which is write legislation in the leadership offices, rush it to floor, ram it through Congress without legislators legislating. We have one of the most talented chairmen of the Budget Committee who knows more than anybody else how these laws work, Mr. Spratt. It should have gone through his committee. Unfortunately, written in leadership, rushed to the floor, out it goes. That is a disturbing trend with how this Congress is working.

But let me talk about the need for fiscal restraint and fiscal discipline.

We concur, we agree that we have got to do some things to get our fiscal house in order. We need to equip Congress with more and better tools to get this budget under control. Unfortunately, this isn't the tool. This tool does not work. Let's look at PAYGO's track record thus far.

Since PAYGO was instituted as a rule here, the budget deficit under the last Republican budget was $161 billion. The budget today, the deficit is at $1.8 trillion, more than a tenfold increase.

Let me show you how much spending last year in increases were subject to PAYGO for this year's spending. Two percent. Two percent of the spending that has gone out the door this year was subject to PAYGO, 98 percent was not. That's $870 billion of new spending not subject to

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to simply comment on the last speaker's points.

He is right in saying the last majority did spend too much money. A number of us criticized that. A number of us, Mr. Hensarling and I in particular, came to the floor with budget enforcement legislation. A minority of the majority at the time voted against it, and all but a few in the then-minority voted against it, supplied the votes to say ``no'' to any kind of budget enforcement. But more to the point, spending did grow by too much in the prior 8 years. But look at it now, Mr. Speaker. If you thought spending was fast then, holy cow, it is really fast now.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. McHenry.

Yielding myself 10 seconds, Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that the majority just passed a budget resolution under the current PAYGO regime that doubles the national debt in 5\1/2\ years and triples it in 10\1/2\ years.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains between the two sides?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Let me simply say I misspoke earlier when I had said that a few Democrats voted for the Budget Control Act. I was wrong. No Democrats voted for the Budget Control Act when we had it here on the floor. Not a single Democrat voted in 2004 when we had the opportunity to pass real budget reform.

Unfortunately, some members of my party at the time voted ``no'' as well, and that's why it didn't pass.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fiscal facade. Nothing can change the fact that what this bill does is it basically is a situation where we commit all the fiscal crimes, then we outlaw them after they've been committed.

I yield myself an additional 10 seconds to say we simply sweep under the rug $410 billion in spending, a $1 trillion stimulus, a new cap-and-tax system, pass this facade, and then a brand new $1 trillion health care bill.

This is a bitter pill to swallow for the American taxpayer, and we shouldn't swallow it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself 3 minutes.

Let me recap what's happening here, Mr. Speaker. This bill has good intentions. The gentleman bringing the bill to the floor has the best of intentions. He's a good man. This bill, however, Mr. Speaker, is a fiscal facade. It doesn't work. It's not like the bill that occurred back in the 1990s.

This bill has no spending caps, for example. This bill exempts 40 percent of all the spending we have in place today. How can you say that this makes the Federal Government work just like the family budget when you get to exempt 40 percent of the budget? Families don't get to do that.

If a family is already living beyond its means, if a family is spending on credit card money, if a family is spending more than it takes in, that's an unsustainable budget. This does nothing to change that.

The Federal Government is already living beyond its means. The Federal Government already is on an unsustainable fiscal course. The Federal Government already has a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. It's passing an 11 percent increase in all domestic agency spending. The Federal Government already has a $62 trillion debt unfunded liability. What does this PAYGO do about it? Nothing. Not a single thing about all of those fiscal problems.

This is not a bill to get Congress to live within its means. This is a bill to give Congress men and women an ability to put a press release out to make it look like they're being fiscally responsible in the most fiscally irresponsible Congress of all time.

Next week, Congress is going to create a new entitlement, a new unfunded entitlement that the Congressional Budget Office tells us will grow a lot faster than any spending cuts or revenue increases. We're going to create a new entitlement next week for health care on top of the other ones we already have, which are about $58 trillion in debt. We're going to do this bill after

we've already spent an 11 percent increase on domestic spending programs, after we borrowed $1.1 trillion for a stimulus, after we passed a $410 billion bloated omnibus appropriations bill.

This is PR politics. This is press release. This is not fiscal conservatism, fiscal responsibility; and what's so unfortunate about this, Mr. Speaker, is I'd like to think we could have had a bipartisan agreement to fix this. If we had actually brought the Blue Dog bill to the floor, which included spending caps like we're going to be proposing, we could have had something that we could have all supported. Unfortunately, the leadership bypassed the committee, as is usual these days, ran this thing to the floor so they can get their press releases out before they create a brand-new entitlement next week.

It's sad, it's cynical, it's wrong, and the American people aren't buying it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman as to how many speakers he has remaining, as we have just one left.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the vice ranking member of the committee, the rest of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, as we mentioned earlier in the debate, we're offering better ideas. We think it's incumbent upon us on the big issues of the day, if we don't think the majority is going in the right direction, if we don't think they're offering the right ideas, it's not just enough for us to criticize and say we're against

what they're doing. We owe it to our employers, the American people, our constituents, to offer an alternative. That's what we're doing right here today.

And I want to first say thank you to the majority leader and to the chairman for making it such that we can offer this alternative. Normally, in the minority one would naturally expect to offer a substitute. Unfortunately, that is not the norm these days, and I appreciate the fact that the majority leader and the chairman were true to their word and made it so that the minority could offer a substitute so that we, too, can say we think we have a better way forward.

Let me explain what our bill does, three basic components to our substitute bill. Caps on spending. So what we think ought to happen here is let's fix the problem. Let's focus on the problem. And what is the problem, Mr. Speaker? Spending, deficits, and debt are out of control.

First off, we propose caps on discretionary spending. Yes, caps on discretionary spending. When this was combined with PAYGO in the 1990s, it worked. It helped pave the way for surpluses. It's an idea that has enjoyed bipartisan support, until now.

So if you take a look at who really controls the deficits, the deficits under our substitute or the deficits under the majority's plan, our deficits are far lower. Still higher than I would like, but our deficits take this deficit down to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product, which is what all economists say is a minimum. If your deficits are above 3 percent, then the debt spirals out of control. Unfortunately, under the Democrats' plan, their PAYGO bill, the deficits always stay above 3 percent, spiraling out of control, according to any economists if you ask them.

Second, we think we ought to have caps on total spending. Let's keep in mind just how big the Federal Government is relative to our constituents and the economy's ability to pay it.

So we propose a cap to keep the size of the Federal Government relative to where it has been in history, and no larger, meaning don't let the government grow faster than the economy. Don't let the government grow faster than our constituents have an ability to pay for it. Don't let the Federal budget grow faster than the family budget. And so what we also do is we have a cap on Federal spending as a percentage of GDP, gross domestic product.

What we are showing here is, yes, spending not only goes down and then stays in control, we keep spending historically where it has been, slightly above 20 percent of gross domestic product.

What does the Democratic PAYGO bill do? Nothing. It allows spending to grow far in excess of where it has been before, meaning what this Democratic PAYGO plan does is it locks in place the growth of the Federal Government so that it will grow faster and higher than it ever has in the history of this Republic.

What does the future look like under their version of fiscal control versus our version of fiscal control? Here's what the Federal Government looks like. Under the Democratic PAYGO bill, the Federal Government keeps growing forever and ever and ever.

Look at the moment in the middle of this chart. That's the moment when my three children who are 4, 6, and 7 years old are my age. And what the Democrat PAYGO bill says is the government will literally be twice as big as it is today for them at that time. Under our bill, we put the Federal Government on the pathway of sustainability.

It's really about this. The question is: Are we going to fulfill the American legacy or not? Are we going to face up to the challenges confronting this generation so that we can make the next generation better off? That is, after all, the lessons we were taught as Americans. We own up to the challenges confronting us so that our children and our grandchildren can have a better tomorrow.

Unfortunately, under the Democratic PAYGO bill, that's not the case. The Democratic PAYGO bill severs that tie. It breaks the American legacy. Here's what I mean when I say that.

Here's what I mean when I say that: For the last 40 years, the size of our government has been relatively the same in that it's been consistent. About 20 percent of GDP has gone to the government. About 20 cents out of every dollar made in America has been spent by the Federal Government to run the Federal Government. Well, by the time my kids are my age, according to the current plan that we are on, 40 cents of every single dollar made must go to the Federal Government just to keep this government going for my kids at that age.

I asked the Congressional Budget Office, what would the tax rates on my three children, who are 4, 6 and 7 years old, have to be when they are my age, in their late thirties, if they are going to have to pay taxes to pay for all of this government we're consigning them to? Here's what the Congressional Budget Office said. They said the lowest tax bracket, the low-income Americans that pay 10 percent bracket, must go up to 25 percent. They said the middle-income tax brackets that middle-income Americans pay will have to go to 66 percent. And they said the top income tax bracket in America, the one that all the small businesses pay, the one that all the job creators pay, would go to 88 percent.

If we don't fix this problem these are the tax rates that will have to occur for the next generation. These are the tax rates that will occur on the next generation if you pass the Democratic PAYGO bill. If you pass the Republican substitute, we are putting the kinds of tools, the kinds of tools in place, the kind of enforcement and discipline in place to make sure that doesn't happen, to make Congress face up and fix these problems. We have three different spending caps enforced by sequesterers to make sure it actually happens, belts and suspenders to make sure Congress actually fixes this fiscal train wreck.

The question before us, Mr. Speaker, is: Will this generation, will the people right now elected by Americans face up to this reality? And this is the key question, Mr. Speaker. The sooner we do it, the better off everybody in America is. The sooner we tackle the spending that's out of control, the sooner we take ourselves off the reliance of debt purchases by China, India, Japan and everybody else, the sooner Americans can be in control of their own destiny and their own economy. The sooner we reform government and the entitlement programs that are presenting us with this $62 trillion unfunded liability, the more likely we can prevent those people in and near these programs, depending and counting on these programs, will not have severe disruption in their lives.

The more likely the kinds of changes that must happen can be phased in gradually. But every year we delay, every year we punt, every year we pass bills like this Democratic PAYGO bill, the more likely people will see severe disruption in their lives, the more likely you will have crushing tax increases, massive borrowing, unsustainable deficits, the more likely we will not be able to sell our bonds, the more likely our interest rates will go up, the more likely our tax rates will go up, the more likely we lose jobs and competitiveness.

Every year we delay fixing just the entitlement problem, we add about $4 trillion of debt to our children and grandchildren. So we are saying, let's fix what's broken; and what is broken is spending. What is broken is that spending is out of control. Both parties contribute to that. Let's face up to that. Both parties should come together to fix it, and that's what we are proposing to do.

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

Would the chairman yield just for a quick clarification?

I will just be quick and brief. Three caps: The discretionary cap is set at inflation; the percent of GDP cap brings us back to trend historical growth and the size of our government; and the deficit targets bring our deficits down to being no higher than 3 percent of GDP, and that is the result of what you are reading.

That's correct. We think this is better than PAYGO. We think instead of having a PAYGO system in place, which puts the bias in favor of raising taxes, we ought to have the bias in favor of controlling and cutting spending. That is just the difference we have between the two of us.

That's correct.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, we believe we need to have a tough enforcement regime so that a simple majority cannot waive these kinds of spending caps.

May I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself 1 minute just to continue this dialogue.

The reason we have a super-majority vote in Congress to break these caps is because we want to make it very difficult--you can never fully tie the hands of a future Congress. We want to make it very difficult for Congress to avoid this budget discipline. We want to make sure that we put a system in place with binding caps that are tough to circumvent, that are backed up with sequesters so that, you know what, Congress actually makes the tough choices; Congress actually prioritizes spending and that we live within our means and that we have a process in place that forces us to focus on the problem.

The problem is, spending is out of control; deficits are out of control; borrowing is out of control. We do not want a process, which we believe your PAYGO system does, to simply always go to raising taxes. The American people are taxed too much. The American people are paying more taxes than they have in the history of this country. We don't need to raise their taxes any more. We will sacrifice our economic livelihood. We will make ourselves less competitive to foreign countries if we keep raising taxes. Spending is a problem. That's why our substitute focuses on spending.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time remains between the two sides.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the House Republican Conference chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 3 minutes to the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Hensarling of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, our distinguished Speaker of the House came to the floor 1 minute ago and gave a nice speech and said with passage of this PAYGO bill, the deficit won't go up any more. Wow. Let me just simply say that is not true. Here is what the deficit path is by the Democratic budget that passed earlier. It is up to $1.8 trillion now, and that admittedly is for some unforeseen circumstances, the TARP and the financial crisis and other things. It goes back down, and then just like a rubber band, it springs right back up. And under the deficit path that the majority passed with their own budget resolution, the deficit goes right back up to over $1 trillion, a huge, huge increase in the deficit, to the point where the deficit stays above 3 percent of our economy the entire time, above $600 billion.

Unsustainable deficits, unsustainable borrowing. Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. One of these days, we are not going to be able to keep borrowing all this money. One of these days, our bond financiers, 48 percent of whom, these days, are foreign governments, China, Japan and India, one of these days they are not going to keep lending us all this money because we are not getting our fiscal house in order. We already have a $62 trillion unfunded liability. That means we are making promises to spend $62 trillion for people in this country today that we don't have.

And so when people lend us money--this year, we are borrowing half of our budget. Borrowing. I went to the Bureau of Public Debt last week, and I watched a bond auction. I watched the Treasury Department borrow $40 billion in about 4 minutes. We had very talented people sitting around a room of flat-screened TVs and laptop computers sipping coffee as if it were just another day at the office. Forty billion dollars, forty minutes.

We are doing something like this every day these days. Two trillion dollars of our $4 trillion budget, effectively, is being borrowed just this year. There is going to come a moment when they are not going to keep lending us all this money. There is going to come a moment when we may not be able to have an auction succeed. There is going to come a moment when we are going to have to pay these people, these governments, a lot more money to lend us their money. That moment is a fiscal day of reckoning for America. That moment is a moment when our interest rates go up. That moment will happen faster, sooner, rather than later, if we don't fix these problems.

What is the problem? Spending is the problem. Spending in excess of what we tax is what creates deficits. It is what is creating this unprecedented level of debt. And so what does this PAYGO bill do? It just says raise taxes, effectively, if we want to build more programs, if we want to spend more money. What are we proposing? Let's cut spending. Let's control spending. Let's cap spending. Let's make the American Federal budget work like a family budget so that we actually control and cap how much money we spend. I know around here that sounds like a novel idea, but it isn't. Every American family inevitably must do this.

If you live beyond your means, sooner or later you are going to have to make up for that fact. The question is whether this Congress will do that so that the next generation doesn't get hit with this tab, so that the next generation doesn't have this inferior standard of living that we know quantifiably, irrefutably and demonstrably we are consigning to the next generation.

I yield myself 1 additional minute only to say, Mr. Speaker, we have real solutions here that have real spending control so we get to real deficit reduction, so we really get on to the process of paying off our debt by reforming how much money we spend.

That is not what the Democrats are doing. They are passing a fiscal facade so that they can do so with the right hand while in the left hand they pass more spending out the door. A trillion-dollar cap-and- trade bill a couple of weeks ago, a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill, a trillion-dollar stimulus package, next week a $1 trillion new health care entitlement, which even the Congressional Budget Office is telling us is going to grow at unsustainable rates, faster than even Medicare and Medicaid.

Let's stop this fiscal insanity. Let's pass real spending control. Let's pass the Republican substitute that actually controls and caps spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman how many more speakers he has remaining?

So the chairman and the majority leader are remaining?

I will reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

I yield myself the remainder of our time. The gentleman from South Carolina rightfully says that our substitute would involve rewriting the budget resolution. Yes. We think we should rewrite the budget resolution. What does the incumbent budget resolution the majority passed do? It doubles the national debt held by the public in 5\1/2\ years, triples it in 10\1/2\ years. It raises taxes by $1.5 trillion. It chases ever-higher spending with ever-higher taxes, and those tax increases never catch up with the spending increases, thus an unprecedented level in debt increases.

So, yes, we think we should go do something else and go a different path. What are we proposing? We're proposing instead of the system in place that ignores discretionary spending, instead of putting a system in place that ignores the current unsustainable trajectory of entitlement spending, instead of putting a system in place that will inevitably lead to higher taxes, we want spending discipline. We want to cap spending.

And here is what our bill accomplishes that the majority bill does not. Under our bill, the deficits go down. Under the majority's bill, the deficits go up. Under our bill, for future generations, we keep the size of our government in check so that we can give the next generation a higher standard of living so that we don't send to them an unsustainable burden of debt and taxes.

Under the majority's bill they don't do that. They increase debt. They increase taxes. They increase spending. They decrease the standard of living for the next generation.

Now, I find it fairly ironic, and almost comical that the gentleman from Massachusetts just came through here and filed an appropriations bill. The appropriations bill, TTHUD, increases

this year, this year, by 25.1 percent. So during this debate on PAYGO, during this debate on fiscal responsibility, this fiscal facade press release debate we're having right now, they just filed a bill to increase discretionary spending on one bill for just 1 year by 25 percent. You know what? PAYGO doesn't apply to that. PAYGO has nothing to do with that. So we can bring a bill here to increase spending on these few government agencies in this bill by 25 percent, and this PAYGO has nothing to do with it. You know why, Mr. Speaker? Because 40 percent of the budget, including where this spending comes from, is exempt from PAYGO. We just don't think that's the right way to go.

And I've heard all these talks about the 1990s and how successful they were, and yes, there were absolutely periods of success. You know why? Because we had spending caps. We had discretionary caps in place that the Blue Dogs themselves have been advocating, time and again, which we agree with, which we're going to be advocating later in this debate that were part of the reason for that success. Success in 1997 was because Republicans and Democrats came together and put together a budget agreement which led to those surpluses. Wouldn't it be nice to get back to those kinds of days where we come together, not bypassing committees, rushing bills to the floor, cramming things through Congress and actually came together for real fiscal discipline? Unfortunately, the PAYGO bill the majority is offering is a fig leaf. It's not true. It's not real. It doesn't work. It doesn't even affect discretionary spending. It doesn't even deal with the unsustainable pathway of our current entitlement programs which, right now, give us a $62 trillion unfunded liability. We say, let's tackle those problems. You need to have, unfortunately, artificial budget enforcement on Congress. I would love to see that Congress, under our own discipline, would be able to control spending, but you know what? We can't. Both parties can't. That's why you need artificial discipline. That's why you need spending caps. That's why you should pass the Republican substitute.

Working in the Budget Committee to make sure that the war was inside of the budget, not outside of the budget, as the Bush OMB was proposing. We were proposing that that funding be done within the budget, not outside the budget.

Would the gentleman like me to respond?

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican motion to recommit adds three germane provisions from the Fiscal Honesty and Accountability Act of 2009, which is the Blue Dog PAYGO bill introduced by Mr. Hill and 53 Democratic cosponsors. It adds this to the underlying bill. This motion to recommit does not strike or amend any provision in the underlying bill. The three provisions taken verbatim from the House Blue Dog bill and added to the underlying PAYGO bill are: Number one, discretionary caps from FY 2011 through FY 2013 at the very levels the Blue Dogs set out in their bill; number two, a requirement that CBO report the interest costs of legislation; number three, a requirement that CBO score conference reports.

Let me read from the minority views of the Spending Control Act of 2004 presented by then the minority ranking member Mr. Spratt on behalf of House Democrats with respect to discretionary spending caps: ``Democrats believe that a set of discretionary spending caps arrived through bipartisan negotiation is an important part of an effective budget enforcement.''

``If discretionary spending caps are to work effectively, they must be established as part of a bipartisan negotiation that also includes a balanced PAYGO provision encompassing both mandatory spending levels and revenues. This balanced approach worked in the 1990s, and it should serve as a model for efforts to reform the budget process today.''

Well, we agree. We agree that this bill will be far more effective if discretionary spending caps were added to it. So given that this bill was bypassed from committee, we want to offer our colleagues yet one more chance at bipartisan success here. We are saying to those who are here who call themselves Blue Dogs, we want to work with you. You hold the keys. You control the fate of not only this provision, but you will also hold the keys of next week's provision, which will create a new unfunded liability in health care. Messrs. Adler, Arcuri, Barrow, Bishop, Boswell, Bright, Carney, Childers, Cooper, Cuellar, Donnelly, Fattah, Gordon, Ms. Harman, Messrs. Holden, Marshall, McIntyre, Michaud, Mitchell, Murphy, Peterson, Ross, Ms. Sanchez, Messrs. Scott, Space, Taylor, Wilson, Altmire, Baca, Berry, Boren, Boyd, Cardoza, Chandler, Connolly, Costa, Davis, Ellsworth, Ms. Giffords, Mr. Griffith, Ms. Herseth-Sandlin, Messrs. Kratovil, Matheson, Melancon, Minnick, Moore, Nye, Pomeroy, Salazar, Schiff, Shuler, Tanner and Thompson.

All we're asking you to do is to vote for the bill you cosponsored. That's all this does. Vote for what you've cosponsored. Put your votes where your cosponsors are. We can make this bill better. We can make it bipartisan. We will help you deliver the margin of victory. Let's do this together. Let's have that vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I propose that we make August America Right to Know month. That means Americans have a right to know what this Congress is doing in proposals that change their lives, and what I'm talking about is the health care legislation.

Just a couple of days ago, we marked up this legislation in the Ways and Means Committee, about a thousand pages, and it came to us 3 minutes before midnight the day prior to us marking it up.

We had an amendment in the committee that said, If we're going to impose this new health care system on the American people, Members of Congress, themselves, should be put into this system. What happened to that amendment? It went down by a party-line vote. Republicans said ``yes''; Democrats, except for Mr. Davis of Alabama, said ``no.''

We also said let's recognize the fact that we're taxing people, a lot of taxes on people earning less than $250,000. That violates the pledge people believed they had in the last election. What was the vote? The Republicans said, no, let's not tax people earning less than $250,000; the Democrats said, yes, we will continue to tax those people, violating this pledge, this promise the American people thought that they had on Election Day.

August ought to be the month where America gets to know what's going on.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 602, 603, and 604, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all.

Mr. Chair, after careful consideration of H.R. 3170, it is with great regret that I announce my opposition to this bill as a result of its careless disregard for human life.

Historically, there has been a restriction on government-funded abortion in Washington, DC. Language known as the Dornan Amendment, which prohibited both federally and locally appropriated funds from being used to pay for abortions, has always been adopted in prior-year versions of H.R. 3170. However, in a break from this longstanding tradition, the majority chose instead to include language that does not prohibit local taxpayer funding for abortion services. In effect, Congress is breaking with history and allowing taxpayer funded abortions where they were previously prohibited.

I was extremely disappointed that H.R. 3170 included this language, especially since it also contains provisions that I strongly support. For example, I applaud bipartisan efforts to include language protecting the state franchise rights of GM and Chrysler auto dealers. Over 3,000 of these small business owners will ultimately be left behind as a result of the restructuring plans supported by the Obama Administration and recently approved in hasty federal bankruptcy court proceedings. Given that the rights of these auto dealers were not fairly represented in GM and Chrysler's bankruptcy proceedings, I support providing some kind of legislative remedy to these stakeholders.

Unfortunately, the Majority blocked consideration of an amendment that would have eliminated the language allowing taxpayer funding of abortion services in H.R. 3170 and allowing Members to vote for the bill on its merits. This cynical political move forced those of us opposed to taxpayer-funded abortions to vote against this bill, also implying opposition to helping our auto dealers. Let me be clear that my vote against this bill in no way implies my opposition to protecting the rights of the auto dealers left behind in GM and Chrysler's bankruptcy proceedings.

In short, I really hoped to take this opportunity to support our nation's auto dealers. Because H.R. 3170 effectively legalized taxpayer-funded abortion services, I could not support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about science, it's not about costs and benefits; it's about ideology. Because if you look at the costs and benefits, the goal of this bill is to reduce global warming by 2/10 of a degree over a hundred years, hit our economy with this massive tax increase on homeowners, on people buying gasoline, heating their homes, hit manufacturing at a time when our competitors will not do this. This bill will result in jobs leaving the Midwest and jobs leaving America and going to other countries. And for every 1 ton of greenhouse gases we reduce, what will China do? They'll increase greenhouse gases by 3 tons. And that means more dirty air. That means more greenhouse gases. What will the U.S. have achieved? They will have pushed production off our shores. Jobs will be lost. Prices will go up. And other countries will take those jobs and put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

This unilateral big government, Big Brother bill is not good for the planet. It's not good for our economy. And it sure as heck is not good for the Midwest. And I encourage my colleagues not to vote ideology, vote your districts and your constituents.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 271 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to pay tribute to a great American, my friend and my personal mentor, Jack Kemp.

As a 23-year-old kid, Jack Kemp took a chance on me and had me come and serve as his personal economic policy analyst in a new thing he was starting called Empower America. As his aid and his speechwriter, I learned not only how he articulated his vision, but, more importantly, the philosophical underpinnings of this vision and the universal power of Jack Kemp's vision.

You see, Jack is the reason I ran for Congress. He saw something in me that I didn't even know was in me. He taught me how to approach people with that sort of infectious optimism that I strive for, and he reminds us that there is nothing more than uplifting the idea of America that we champion. I would consider myself blessed to have a mere thimbleful of his abilities and vision.

Jack Kemp had a transforming impact on the economic landscape of America. And, as true as that is, his impact on our Nation's political landscape may be even greater, though not in a partisan or a very narrow political sense. I mean in the way that America understands itself, in the way that we understood the great purpose of our system of self-government.

Jack Kemp was a self-taught man. He read the economic classics, beginning with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. He also read and studied the Declaration of Independence. Both, as it happens, were published in 1776, year 1 of our country's independence.

He mastered and spelled out for us the great insight that economic freedom and political freedom are intertwined in integrated parts of the order of human freedom. He reminded us that families, faith, and education, not government, are the true sources of the qualities of character without which there can be neither economic nor political freedom.

Jack wasn't interested in the details and the fine print or even the micromanaging policies that he promoted, nor were his policies merely short-term tinkering. Whether he was advancing his 30 percent across- the-board income tax or his enterprise zones, he was never looking for just ways to add up points to gross domestic product.

What he promoted was America itself, the American idea, which, in the 1970s, had fallen on hard times. The American idea needed an American renaissance, and he was just the man to inspire that rebirth.

Two great leaders that Jack always talked about were Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. He was a fine student of those two men.

I simply want to close by saying that the life of Jack Kemp is a life where they broke the mold. Ronald Reagan motivated me; Jack Kemp inspired me.

May God bless Jack Kemp and the memory and the works of this fine man, and may He bless his family.

I'd like to pay tribute a great American--my friend and my personal mentor--Jack Kemp. As a 23-year-old kid, Jack took a chance on me, asking me to serve as his staff economic analyst at a new think tank, Empower America. As his aide and speechwriter, I learned not only how he articulated his vision, but more fundamentally the philosophical underpinnings and universal power of this vision.

Jack is the reason I ran for Congress. I was motivated by Ronald Reagan, but inspired by Jack Kemp. He saw something in me that I didn't even know existed. He taught me how to approach people with an infectious optimism, and reminds us all that there is nothing more uplifting than the idea of America. I would consider myself blessed to have a mere thimble full of his abilities and vision.

Jack Kemp had a transforming impact on the economic landscape of America. True as that is, his impact on our nation's political landscape may be greater, though not in a partisan or narrowly political sense. I mean in the way America understands itself and in the way we understand the great purposes of our system of self- government.

Kemp taught himself by reading the economic classics beginning with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but he also read and studied the Declaration of Independence, both as it happens, were, published in 1776, year one of America's independence. Kemp mastered . . . and spelled out for us . . . the great insight that economic freedom and political freedom are intertwined and integrated parts of the order of human freedom. He reminded us that families, faith, and education--not government--are the true sources of the qualities of character without which there can be neither economic nor political freedom.

Jack was not that interested in details and fine print, even of the policies he promoted. Nor were his proposals mere short-term tinkering. Whether he was advancing his 30 percent across the board income tax strategy, or his enterprise zones, or lowering regulatory barriers to growth and homeownership, he was never just looking for ways to add a point or two to the GDP. What Jack promoted was America itself . . . the ``American idea'' which in the 1970s had fallen on hard times. The ``American idea'' needed an ``American Renaissance'' and he was just the man to inspire that rebirth.

The driving passion of Jack's life was to bring every person to full participation in a society of opportunity and freedom, especially the poor and minorities who could not quite reach up to the first rung on that opportunity ladder. You might say that Jack's greatest indignation was reserved for programs and policies, intended or not, that cut away the bottom rungs on the ladder and left the poor in despair of improving their lives.

Jack's way to the boundless opportunities of the future led him through the past, to the American Revolution and the Civil War. The American statesmen who inspired him most were Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

He loved Mr. Jefferson particularly for the immortal words he carved into the Declaration of Independence--that by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, all men are created equal in their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. ``All men'' meant all human beings, Jack used to say, not just males or whites or Anglo-Saxons or people from some specific background. The American idea, in other words, is freedom for all human beings everywhere in the world for all time to come.

The more Kemp studied Lincoln's statecraft, the more he embraced Lincoln's vision. The Great Emancipator's titanic struggle against the abomination of race-based slavery, of course, was tethered to the golden words of Jefferson's Declaration. ``All honor to Jefferson,'' wrote Lincoln, ``to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.''

Lincoln's statecraft was intended to open the doors to citizenship, voting rights, work and ownership opportunities to the enslaved blacks just as much as anyone else. Kemp saw that Lincoln's struggle against black slavery was part and parcel of Lincoln's project to extend the benefits of self-government and free markets to all.

Jack could quote passage after passage from Lincoln's speeches and writings to illustrate that the opposite of slavery--where one

person owns another person--is freedom and equal opportunity--where every human being has the right to own and acquire property. One of the most succinct Lincoln quotes that epitomized Kemp's perspective was from a speech Lincoln gave on his way to the White House:

I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich

[Lincoln said]; it would do more harm than good. So while we

do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the

humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.

When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free

society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he

knows that there is no fixed condition of labor . . . I want

every man to have the chance . . . and I believe a black man

is entitled to it--in which he can better his condition, [and

look forward with hope].

Kemp and Lincoln had the same principal concern: to open up a path for those at the bottom to rise as high as their abilities and imagination could take them. Jack never lost a night's sleep worrying about taxing the rich too much. He lost sleep over programs that foreclose opportunity by weakening incentives for the poor to become rich.

With due respect, no statesman of the last generation has made the spirit of Lincoln so much his own as Jack Kemp. Rare was the Kemp speech or essay that did not sooner or later recur to Lincoln for insights on democracy, whether in domestic or foreign policy.

In his effort to grow in his understanding of Lincoln, Jack met and corresponded with the best Lincoln scholars in America; occasionally he challenged them. He was pleased by the invitations to join Lincoln historical associations and was professionally recognized for his knowledge and interest. So vital was Lincoln's vision of equality and opportunity that Jack would debate and respond to those who saw Lincoln as a proponent of ever growing federal programs--for example, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo who co-edited a book of Lincoln speeches. Even so, Kemp had a good word for anyone, left or right, who recognized Lincoln's greatness, importance to the meaning of America, and relevance for the economic and political issues of our time. It was altogether fitting and proper that Jack's last syndicated column published in February was titled ``Honoring Lincoln,'' in celebrating the bicentennial of the birth of our greatest President.

It is true that Jack was a fighter for his vision of the American idea, but Lincoln deepened Jack's natural inclination to rise above party to the love of country. Last November, across the political divide, Kemp wrote a touching letter to his 17 grandchildren rejoicing in the transformation of America that allowed an African-American to win the Presidency. But that wasn't all. Jack noted that Barack Obama, like himself, often referred to his Illinois predecessor, Abraham Lincoln. It was quintessential Kemp to praise Obama generously even as he reiterated his personal vision of America:

When President-elect Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln on the

night of his election [Kemp wrote], he was acknowledging the

transcendent qualities of vision and leadership that are

always present, but often overlooked and neglected by

pettiness, partisanship and petulance. . . . President-elect

Obama's honoring of Lincoln in many of his speeches reminds

us of how vital it is to elevate these ideas and ideals to

our nation's consciousness and inculcate his principles at a

time of such great challenges and even greater opportunities.

Kemp himself contested for the Presidency and like a number of other excellent statesmen in the past who were driven by ideas, he did not reach that goal. But I believe with all my heart that through his ideas and his passion, his unconventional thinking and dedication to the principles of equality, freedom, and opportunity, Kemp made us a better people and our country a nobler place.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I get a little bit of a sense of deja vu this morning. We've kind of been around this vote a while. But we got some new news this morning that's troubling news. The economy in the first quarter of this year has declined by 6.1 percent, 6.1 percent negative economic growth, the worst drop in our economy now since the mid 1970s. And if you look at the data, it shows you that the American consumer is more or less hanging in there. It's the investment from businesses that has dried up. It is business investment that's not occurring in this economy that's creating this great recession leading to all these job losses.

So as we look at this budget, I think a few new points ought to be brought to light since we have been around this budget quite a bit, which is, number one, looking at the economic data underneath this budget. It shows you that the debt and deficits that are currently projected in this budget are going to go much higher.

If you take a look at the economic assumptions that the Office of Management and Budget uses, they're a whole lot rosier than what's occurring. If you look at their inflation projections, which inflation just came in at 2.9 percent this quarter, they're a whole lot rosier, meaning put reality into the

budget and the deficits and debts go even higher.

We already see that the Congressional Budget Office is telling us, versus the President's budget numbers, were about $2.1 trillion deeper into deficits. Now with this new data, even more red ink.

But worse yet, as I just described, the current bad economic numbers we got, business investment is down. That means businesses are not investing.

So what does this budget do? It raises taxes on investment. It raises taxes on businesses.

You've got to remember, Madam Speaker, that almost 70 percent of our jobs come from small businesses. More than half of those who pay those top tax rates are small businesses. It's those industrial companies that are in the business parks that ring the sides of our cities in Elkhorn and Janesville and Kenosha and Racine, Wisconsin. That's where most people get their jobs.

So what does this bill do? It raises taxes on those small businesses. It actually raises their taxes such to the point where they pay a higher tax rate than the largest corporations in America.

This budget also repeals tax deferral. Now, what does that mean? That means all of our big businesses that make things in America and sell them overseas, we're going to tax them twice and make our exports even less competitive. We're going to tax business investment. What does it do on capital gains and dividends, on the seed corn and seed capital that funds the innovations, that funds the entrepreneurial startups, that the small businesses go to to get their money to expand and invest and create jobs? It raises taxes on that as well.

So we are raising taxes on the very things that give us business investment and give us jobs. We are raising taxes on the very things that make up our pensions, our 401(k)s, and our college savings plans. And we are raising these taxes $1.5 trillion a year in order to chase ever higher spending.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say that we are raising taxes, the most we have ever done. I know the chairman will give us some convoluted explanation on how this is actually cutting taxes. Keeping taxes where they are on some tax policies is not cutting taxes; it's keeping taxes where they are. Making them go up means you're raising them to chase higher spending. The higher taxes in this bill never catch the higher spending; so we have a mountain of debt among the likes we have never seen before.

That is why we have such a difference of opinion with this budget. That is why we offered a principled alternative to this budget, which is controlling spending, keeping taxes low, and getting our debt under control.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished House Conference chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, this is a big moment. This is a big moment in our history that the historians will look back to as a key pivot in American history and the American experiment and the American project.

What this budget does not do is it does not practice Clinton economics. It does not practice the kind of economics we have had in this country that gave us the longest peacetime expansion, the kind of economics that gave us unprecedented prosperity. Bill Clinton cut tax rates and controlled spending in a bipartisan budget agreement in 1997 which paved the way for the surpluses that later occurred, which were projected, that went away. It was bipartisan.

This is different. This is new. This budget takes a look at those mistakes made in the past that we are hearing all these criticisms of, too much spending, too much debt, and what does it do? It adds to it. Instead of controlling spending, as the critics have said we should have done, this has spending go out of control. Instead of controlling the debt, as the critics say should have occurred, debt goes out of control.

I urge a rejection of this budget. Let's start over again and save this country and move us down the path of fiscal discipline, not fiscal recklessness.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield our final minute to our distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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.