[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2691-H2701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 376, CONCURRENT 
             RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 817 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 817

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) 
     establishing the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth

[[Page H2692]]

     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 
     2011. The amendments printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The concurrent resolution, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. No further amendment shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     amendment. All points of order against the amendments printed 
     in the report are waived except that the adoption of an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the 
     conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
     amendment. After the conclusion of consideration of the 
     concurrent resolution for amendment and a final period of 
     general debate, which shall not exceed 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall 
     rise and report the concurrent resolution, as amended, to the 
     House with such further amendment as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final 
     adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to 
     section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     of its adoption.
       Sec. 2. After adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 376, 
     it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table Senate 
     Concurrent Resolution 83 and to consider the Senate 
     concurrent resolution in the House. All points of order 
     against consideration of the Senate concurrent resolution are 
     waived. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the 
     resolving clause of the Senate concurrent resolution and to 
     insert in lieu thereof the provisions of House Concurrent 
     Resolution 376 as adopted by the House. All points of order 
     against that motion are waived. If the motion is adopted and 
     the Senate concurrent resolution, as amended, is adopted, 
     then it shall be in order to move that the House insist on 
     its amendment to the Senate concurrent resolution and request 
     a conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 817 is the rule that 
provides for debate on House Concurrent Resolution 376, which is the 
Federal budget, the bill that establishes the Federal spending 
priorities for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007, and 
setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for the outyears in 2008 
through 2011.
  As a member of both the Rules Committee and someone who serves on the 
Budget Committee, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor 
for the House's consideration. This rule makes in order three 
substitute amendments, three different viewpoints on the direction that 
Federal spending should take for the coming fiscal year.
  Each of those will be debatable for 40 minutes. The rule waives all 
points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution.
  I come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, with a resolution that allows 
us to complete the debate and passage for the House budget resolution 
for fiscal year 2007. It is a work product over many, many weeks, 
beginning with Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt in the Budget 
Committee, along with all of the Members of this House to bring it to 
fruition here today.
  The resolution continues policies that have helped to continue a 
strong U.S. economy. We have included savings for working Americans 
with $228 billion in further tax reforms. We account for the tax cut, 
the tax reforms, that this House passed last week by a vote of 244-185 
to extend 2001 and 2003 tax relief and preventing automatic tax 
increases from taking place.
  That bill was signed into law today by the President, again 
preventing tax increases from coming on the backs of the American 
people. Those provisions included alternative minimum tax relief, that 
insidious tax that was proffered under Chairman Rostenkowski's reign at 
the Ways and Means Committee under Democratic rule, that is now taking 
into its arms, grasping within its reach millions of middle-class 
Americans who unknowingly are being swept into a net of higher 
taxation; House-passed pension bill; and other tax relief.
  The continuation of these successful economic policies is generating 
record revenue levels for the Federal Government without increasing 
taxes. In other words, a strong and growing economy is bringing 
additional revenue into the Federal Government as a result of enhanced 
economic activity brought about by lower tax barriers.
  While working to give Americans back some of their hard-earned 
dollars, we also enact a responsible spending plan that exercises 
control and restraint. I am proud that once again this House has 
delivered a budget that practices conscientious spending. Our goal is 
to stem the ever-expanding outflow of Federal dollars.
  We hold nonsecurity discretionary spending to a near freeze and 
create mandatory savings, mandatory being that portion of the budget 
which now makes up over 55 percent of Federal spending. It is 
essentially on automatic pilot, and if it is not brought under control, 
it will consume two-thirds of Federal spending within the decade.
  We bring about mandatory savings of nearly $7 billion over 5 years. 
Together these policies, the policies of economic stimulation and 
fiscal restraint, will reduce the deficit by more than half, from the 
$521 billion projected in 2004 to under $200 billion in 2009.
  House Concurrent Resolution 376 has an overall discretionary spending 
level that is equal to the President's budget at $873 billion.
  As is the case with our bifurcated budgeting and appropriations 
process, the discretion lies with the House Appropriations Committee to 
determine the final allocation of these funds.
  This budget essentially freezes nonsecurity discretionary spending 
with only a .1 percent increase over last year's level, and as an 
additional savings method, this budget caps the advance appropriations.
  In the area of mandatory spending, we provide a total of $1.5 
trillion in entitlement spending. In an effort to control this 
automatic outflow of Federal dollars, the budget resolution calls for 
mandatory spending reforms from a number of different committees, 
allowing regular order to reign, along the authorizing committees, to 
find the proper waste, fraud, duplication and inefficiencies using 
their own expertise in the various subject matters. These savings total 
$6.75 billion over 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this year the Budget Committee 
included an emergency reserve fund to help Congress plan for unforeseen 
costs that arise in the future. Every year somewhere in America there 
is an earthquake or a flood, or a hurricane, or a wildfire, or a 
drought, or a massive snowstorm that requires Federal spending that was 
unforeseen.
  But the fact that it happens every year means that we ought to be 
able to foresee that something bad is going to happen. We may not know 
exactly what it will be, it may not rise to the level of Katrina in 
scale and scope, and, heaven help us, we hope that it does not, but we 
know that emergencies will arise.
  This budget plans for those emergencies, and we set aside in addition 
$50 billion toward what we anticipate will be a wartime supplemental 
request, and again set aside nearly $6.5 billion for other emergencies 
stemming from natural disasters.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work of this Budget Committee, 
Chairman Nussle, Ranking Member Spratt, for pushing forward a budget 
that has fiscal discipline, restraint. It incorporates real reforms on 
the mandatory side as well as providing for the tools that allow this 
economy to continue to grow and strengthen.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H2693]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we waited months for this? The fact is 
what we have before us is a sham. What the Republicans have come up 
with is essentially a shell game. Under this so-called grand 
compromise, moderate Republicans can increase spending on domestic 
programs, but only if they cut other domestic priorities.
  In other words, if you want more money for children's immunizations 
or more money for No Child Left Behind, you have to cut funding for 
Medicaid or further cut student aid. This is the classic definition of 
robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  So to the moderates, let me say after all of us, you have got some 
words, but in reality you have got nothing. Do not be a cheap date. The 
responsibility is to the people of this country to make sure that their 
needs are met, not to saving face. Heaven forbid that the richest in 
this country do not get their capital gains tax cuts so that we can 
adequately fund health care and veterans benefits and education.
  No, those precious tax cuts are protected. So tonight the crowd on 
Wall Street can have champagne and caviar at Tavern on the Green while 
the people who work on Main Street are scratching their heads with 
disbelief and asking why has their government forgotten them?
  The misplaced priorities demonstrated in this budget are astounding. 
Last month we had a debate on the first rule for the fiscal year 2007 
budget resolution. My friends on the other side of the aisle laid out 
their plans and did their best to defend their priorities.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, their plans are misguided, and their 
priorities are out of step with the American people. This is a major 
reason why it has taken weeks and weeks for the Republican leadership 
to try to jam their budget through this House. Under the Republican 
budget, our Nation's deficits get worse, not better.
  Remember, under Republican policies, the 5 largest deficits in the 
history of the United States of America will have occurred in 5 
consecutive years.
  Further, this budget provides only $50 billion for the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. I cannot figure out if they have forgotten about these 
wars or somehow stumbled onto an exit strategy. The truth is that we 
know the administration will request hundreds of billions of dollars 
for these wars in the next few years, but this budget makes no mention 
of that.
  Under the Republican budget, up is down, down is up, and the war we 
see every day is not really happening. The Republicans once again 
underfund port security, despite their rhetoric of the Dubai Ports 
deal. Recently the Republicans followed the Democrats' lead and opposed 
President Bush's approval of the United Arab Emirates control of 
American ports.

                              {time}  1800

  But when faced with the opportunity to follow through on their 
rhetoric, they decided to cut port security by over $6 billion over the 
next 5 years.
  Under this budget resolution, the Republicans make $228 billion 
available for new tax cuts, but in the process cut important education, 
health, and environmental programs.
  Cutting these programs for tax cuts is deplorable. Deceiving the 
American people about future funding for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan is flat wrong. But the most egregious thing about this 
budget is the way it disrespects our veterans.
  My friend from Florida is fond of saying that facts are a stubborn 
thing. Indeed they are, and here are just a few facts:
  According to the Department of Defense, there are almost 297,000 
troops currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2003, the 
beginning of the war in Iraq, more than 1.2 million troops have served 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are troops that are most likely to need 
the services of the Veterans Affairs health care systems. These are the 
troops that will need the most help from this Congress. The costs of 
their treatment are substantial, yet the Republican budget actually 
cuts the funding that supports the veterans health care systems. The 
truth is there are two parts of the veterans funding in this budget, 
mandatory funding that is guaranteed to be there, and discretionary 
funding that is subject to appropriations. When mandatory funding is 
subtracted from the overall funding level, the truth is revealed; and 
the truth is that after fiscal year 2007 the amount of funding for 
veterans decreases by $4 billion. The administration claims they can 
live with these decreases because the number of veterans will decrease 
over the next few years. Well, the truth is that there was a 21 percent 
increase in the number of Iraq war veterans using the VA health care 
system in the first 3 months of 2006 alone. As of March 14, 2006, the 
VA had already treated 144,426 veterans, 33,858 more than the 
administration projected would use the VA system over the entire year.
  The administration projected that it would treat 18,000 veterans from 
the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for post-traumatic stress disorder for 
fiscal year 2006, but as of March 14, 2006, VA data shows that it is 
already treating 20,638 veterans for PTSD, an increase of 2,638 before 
the middle of March.
  How then with good conscience can they claim that the number of 
veterans needing care through the VA health systems will go down in the 
future? This is either dangerously naive or deliberately misleading. 
And the claim that the VA could get by with reduced funding would be 
laughable if it didn't have such serious ramifications.
  Just look at what happened last year. The Republican leadership in 
the House provided $1.5 billion less than what the veterans services 
organizations recommended for the VA. For months we were told by the 
Republicans that, don't worry, everything will be fine. But finally in 
November the leadership finally relented and provided the amount needed 
to provide care for our veterans because they saw what was going on.
  Well, it is deja vu all over again. The Republicans are calling for 
cuts to the VA system, but we all know we are going to need to provide 
more funding to meet the demand of the current soldiers who will be the 
veterans of tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have alternatives. We have a plan that is 
simple. Besides reducing the deficit, reinstating the pay-as-you-go-
system, and properly funding education, health care, and homeland 
security, we give the veterans the services and respect that they 
deserve. Our budget provides $6 billion more than the Republican budget 
does for veterans health care.
  My Republican friends charge the Democrats believe enough is never 
enough. Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to America's veterans, I 
strongly believe that enough is enough only when veterans have timely 
access to quality health care that they were promised. I believe enough 
is enough only when our veterans are not forced to wait 6 months for a 
doctor's appointment. I believe enough is enough only when our veterans 
and our veterans' families are cared for with the utmost respect and 
are not shortchanged. We can and we must do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, obviously this is one of the most important 
debates of the year as it lays out the blueprint, the outline for 
Federal priorities. Where we place our priorities is generally where we 
allocate funding, and the Republican budget divides those priorities 
between creating incentives for people to continue to grow their 
businesses, to create an atmosphere of record low unemployment which we 
enjoy in this country today of 4.8 percent, creating incentives for 
people to purchase a new piece of equipment, add a new assembly line, 
add a new store, take on a new employee, fiscal restraint to go along 
with that economic growth.
  Fiscal restraint on the discretionary side where there is a near 
freeze in discretionary spending, and on the mandatory side which is 
gobbling up the budget at a record rate, where we for the second year 
in a row, something that is unprecedented in modern budgeting history, 
for the second year in a row are looking for savings on that mandatory 
side of the ledger that so many previous Congresses have been afraid to 
touch, and bringing about important reforms so that people have 
confidence in where their hard-earned tax dollars are going.
  Mr. Speaker, I see that my friend from Massachusetts has a number of 
speakers, and I will reserve the balance of my time and look forward to 
a thorough vetting of this important issue.

[[Page H2694]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee, Ms. 
Slaughter.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, every justification of the budget we have heard today 
presents it as a noble and responsible attempt to respond to the harsh 
economic realities facing our Nation and our people. But when we 
examine it objectively, we can't avoid seeing the reality behind the 
pretense.
  The bill is designed to do everything it can to protect the record 
tax cuts for the richest of Americans. For the majority, that is more 
important than educating our children or providing health care to the 
veterans or helping Americans raise themselves out of poverty, or even 
protecting our country from the consequences of either national 
disasters or mounting national debt.
  The authors and supporters of the legislation will tell us that if we 
wish to avoid increasing our national deficit, which they have already 
driven to unprecedented heights, we have no choice but to spend on the 
programs that Americans rely on the most while they are busily cutting 
out the revenues that come into the government.
  But, once again, they are offering a false choice. For 5 years they 
have forced the massive tax cuts through the Congress. Last week they 
made the most recent down payment on the cuts. One was $70 billion. 
While President Bush signs that bill into law today, Republicans are 
asking us to pass this bill which adds another $158 billion to those 
cuts. So in 2 weeks, we have made those massive cuts, and any 
justification melts away when we realize who is benefiting from it. 
They are not for the poor, they are not for the working class, they are 
not for the middle class. They are for the oil companies. They won't 
spur our economy or help the average person afford their morning drive 
to work. They are instead the cuts for billionaires and millionaires, 
pure and simple. They are not going to help the economy, but they will 
indeed help people who don't need it, and that assistance will come at 
the expense of everyone else.
  But as always the case, despite objections not just from Democrats 
but much of the American public, reducing or extending these cuts isn't 
even on the table here. It never is. They are considered too sacred to 
touch. And just tonight in the Rules Committee, once again, we turned 
down an opportunity to pay for more by taking away part of their tax 
cut.
  What do we get in exchange for this giveaway? Well, the majority 
offered us a budget that will cut domestic spending between 1 and 2 
percent every year. As a result, the party that tells us to support the 
troops is cutting veterans health care by $6 billion. And we worry and 
fear for the over 20,000 young soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who 
have been grievously life-altering wounded will not be able to get the 
care they need when they come back.
  Republicans who promised to leave no child behind will be cutting 
education funding by $45.3 billion, and the budget of the Department of 
Education by $2.2 billion.
  Now, not content to make education less rewarding in the present, 
they apparently want to make our students worry more about loan 
payments in the future. The bill eliminates all mandatory spending on 
student loans, leaving congressional appropriators to somehow find $600 
million to meet the students' needs.
  The majority wants to cut environmental protection efforts by $25 
billion, and take over $1 billion from community development and social 
service initiatives which we desperately need.
  The poorest of the poor won't find any relief at all in this 
legislation. In fact, they will find the opposite. The budget will 
underfund housing and child care assistance by $447 million over the 
next year, and over 5 years the funding for them will fall almost $15 
billion short.
  What will the results be? Well, consider the fate of the commodity 
supplemental food program which provides nutritious meals to 420,000 
low-income elderly and 50,000 mothers and children at a cost of $111 
million a year. The budget eliminates it entirely.
  Mr. Speaker, it may make sense that they are forcing the cuts through 
Congress so they can afford the hand-outs to the rich, but perhaps that 
really is what today's Republican Party stands for. But apparently they 
also stand for something new, contrary to their rhetoric: irresponsible 
government spending. The legislation before us will increase our 
deficit without a vote by $410 billion over the next 5 years. At the 
same time, it increases the debt limit by over $650 billion. By 2011, 
the limit will stand at $9.6 trillion.
  When the Clinton administration left office, the debt limit was about 
$4.5 trillion, and they left us the greatest surplus we have ever had. 
The majority claims the bill will make us more fiscally secure, but 
what they really do is sow the seeds of greater insecurity both now and 
for years to come. When we realize that it isn't necessity driving this 
bill, but rather a world view that puts the richest Americans ahead of 
everybody else, we are not left with much else to say but ``shame.''
  We don't share these values. Democrats believe instead, as did that 
great Republican President Theodore Roosevelt and countless other 
Americans, that investing in the middle class, which is disappearing 
quickly, and guaranteeing broad prosperity is the surest way to ensure 
sustained economic growth.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raised the issue of 
education funding. I would point out that the facts are a bit counter 
to her assertion. Take special education, something that has long been 
a priority of both sides of the aisle. Special education funding goes 
up for the sixth consecutive year, an increase of $100 million this 
year, which is an estimated $1,500 per student, reaching almost 7 
million students who have special needs.
  On Pell Grants, the budget provides $12.7 billion in available Pell 
Grant aid, for an average grant of nearly $2,500. More than 5.2 million 
students would be eligible for these grants, an increase of 60,000 
students over the previous year.
  Title I, those schools that serve the most in need, the resolution 
provides nearly $13 billion for title I grants to help schools in the 
high poverty communities move ahead with No Child Left Behind; $1 
billion for the Reading First program, and increased funding for 
charter schools, magnet schools, voluntary public school choice, all 
substantial funding for these very important programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today's time line reveals everything about the programs 
and the politics of the majority running this Congress. This afternoon 
they gathered at the White House. The President signed at a time of 
staggering deficits yet another tax cut skewed to help the most 
affluent while doing little to help those who needed help.
  This evening in the middle of this debate, they are going to recess 
so they can go to a big fund-raising party and reap the special 
interest contributions of those who have benefited so much from their 
cash-and-carry government. And after that, they are going to come back 
to the floor of this House and vote to raise the national debt as part 
of this budget. That is right, raise the national debt as part of this 
budget.
  I haven't heard Mr. Putnam say anything about the language in here 
that raises the national debt $653 billion. It was buried on the bottom 
of page 121 of their budget.
  It is a mere 2 months since they last raised it. They raised the 
national debt in March, they pass the tax cut, they have a fund-raiser, 
and they come back to the floor of the House to raise the national debt 
again. In fact, it is the fifth time under this President that they 
have raised the national debt: June 2002, May 2003, November 2004, 
March 2006, May 2006. And do you know what? They are planning to raise 
it again once the election is over.

                              {time}  1815

  If there is any further clearer evidence that we have a totally 
irresponsible majority running this country into a fiscal ditch, that 
is requiring unending borrowing which will saddle

[[Page H2695]]

our children with a legacy of debt, I do not know what could more 
perfectly illustrate it than the events unfolding today.
  Sign a tax cut, have a fund-raiser, raise the national debt again: 
That is the fiscal record of this majority. That is why this budget 
must be defeated.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to observe 
a surrender. Once again, our moderate Republican colleagues will hand 
over their tin swords to the Republican leadership. They are very 
predictable, and they are my friends, and it is nice to have 
predictable friends. On every important issue, the moderate Republicans 
have an unfailing three-step approach to the issue: ineffectual 
protests, abject surrender, and denial.
  Now, they told us for a long time that this budget did not have 
enough funding for important domestic programs. Indeed, as part of this 
rule, we have what is called a self-executing rule, which adopts a 
resolution to mollify the consciences of the Republican moderates. 
Those are easily mollified.
  My colleague from Massachusetts said the gentleman from Florida said 
facts are stubborn things. Facts are very different from the moderate 
Republicans. They are the very opposite of stubborn things. They are 
among the most pliable thing known to man or woman.
  So they have a resolution which says, in the summary, it recognizes 
the need to increase the President's Labor-HHS appropriation by not 
less than $7 billion. It recognizes it. It does not do it. It just 
recognizes it, and on the basis of being able to recognize what they 
claim is a defect, they are going to vote for this, and that is the 
deal that is made. Now, I would have liked to have debated their 
resolution, but it is self-executing.
  People watching, I know we are not supposed to refer to them, but we 
do not address them directly, but we can explain things to them. It 
gets a little complicated. People might wonder what do we mean by a 
self-executing resolution. In this case, it allows the moderate 
Republicans to execute their own moral principles. That is what is 
self-executing. It allows them to come forward and say, we wish we had 
more money for poor people, and we have a resolution that says there is 
not enough money for poor people, and we will vote for that budget that 
does not have enough money for poor people because we said it does not 
have enough money. On that, some people consider themselves to have 
shown independence.
  If that was the spirit of independence that motivated this country 
250 years ago, that would be the British flag up there and the 
representative of the Crown. So I hope we defeat this sham, and maybe 
the moderate Republicans will grow some spines.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts has had some very harsh words for 
some Members of this body. I would query the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, if he would agree, how much is enough spending for the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, well, I will say this. I 
would say enough would be what the moderate Republicans said, $7 
billion more for Labor-HHS. The problem is that they said that was 
enough, but it is not there. So I would be satisfied if my moderate 
Republican friends simply lived up to their own declaration.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this negotiation, this 
process that yields this budget, recognizes that we have a number of 
challenges at this point in time, and all points of view recognize that 
we have to create an environment, a climate for economic growth and 
strength, and we have to have fiscal restraint.
  There is not a blank checkbook, as some, perhaps some from 
Massachusetts or other parts, might suggest where it is just an 
ongoing, empty, bottomless pit of spending. You have to be responsible 
about the taxpayers' money. You have to draw lines around it and 
prioritize, and we have done that in this budget.
  In the minority, you have the luxury of not having to rally behind 
any one particular proposal. In fact, that is why there are two 
different substitutes offered that offer at least two very different 
viewpoints from your own caucus.
  We have the obligation, we have the responsibility to actually move a 
product that changes lives. We have the responsibility to actually pass 
a budget that implements spending controls on an over $2 trillion 
Federal budget and put us on a path to cutting the deficit while still 
securing a climate that allows economic growth and prosperity to 
continue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) 30 seconds so he can respond.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, again, I was simply quoting 
the moderate Republicans, for one thing.
  Secondly, that claim for responsibility and this assumption that they 
would get the job done would be more impressive if we thought that they 
in the Senate were going to agree to something.
  So, in fact, we had a problem earlier this year where bills passed in 
somewhat different form in the House and the Senate were signed into 
law despite the Constitution, and we now know why, because whether it 
is lobbying and ethics reform or the budget or immigration, the 
Republican House and the Republican Senate cannot get together.
  I will have to say to the gentleman from Florida that beating of your 
chest and talking about how responsive you are as to beat the moderates 
into submission would be more impressive if I thought you had any 
chance of getting an actual budget signed by the Senate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, for weeks we have been wondering whether the 
Republican moderates were going to stick to their guns when they said 
they knew that it was wrong to pass a budget that provided $40 billion 
in tax cuts for people making $1 million a year while you are squeezing 
the guts out of education and health programs. We now know the answer. 
They are doing a poor imitation of Bert Lahr, the Cowardly Lion in 
``The Wizard of Oz.'' I wish Bert were here. He would cry at their 
performance.
  The fact is they are now selling out for a promise that if sometime 
in the deep, dark, distant future somebody does something to change 
this budget resolution, then there might be a table scrap or two left 
for additional education and health care. There is about as much chance 
of that happening as there is of the Chicago Cubs winning the pennant 
this year.
  With respect to what the gentleman from Florida said on education, 
the fact is the Congress promised the States that on special education 
we would pay for 40 percent of the costs. Each year for the last 3 
years, the Federal share of the cost of special education has been cut 
by budgets that you have voted for.
  You talk about Pell Grants. The fact is it costs $3,400 more to go to 
a 4-year public college today than it did 5 years ago. The President 
wanted to solve that by adding $100 to the Pell Grant program. House 
Republicans said, no, that was too much. You cut it to $50, and then 
when you sent it to the Senate, you cut out the rest of the 50 bucks.
  So, in 5 years you have not done one whit to make it easier for 
people to go to college by increasing the Pell Grants.
  So do not give us your crocodile tears, and do not brag incidentally 
about how much you have increased education for the last 6 years, 
because there are $16 billion in the education budget today that would 
not be there if we had not dragged you kicking and screaming into 
supporting Labor-Health budgets that in the end were higher than the 
original House Republican budget.
  So I do not mind if the gentleman wants to live in the Land of Oz. 
Just do not take us there with you.

[[Page H2696]]

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is becoming more and more clear that there is never enough 
spending, although we will undoubtedly hear from speakers later in the 
evening who will talk about how they would have fiscal restraint over 
here, more spending over here, more spending over here and more fiscal 
restraint over here. They have that luxury being in the minority.
  But the bottom line is education funding has gone up year after year 
after year. Special education funding is at record levels, far higher 
than it was when the other team was in charge.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), my good friend from the Budget Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
indeed, it does beg the question, how much Federal spending is enough?
  I am reminded yet again that people are entitled to their own 
opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts, and, Mr. 
Speaker, maybe we ought to get a few of the facts on the table. Let us 
just take a look in our rearview mirror over the last 10 years and see 
how much money the Federal Government has been spending.
  International affairs is up 89.1 percent; natural resources and 
environment, 43.8 percent; commerce and housing credit, 28.4. Since we 
have been discussing education training and employment, in 10 years 
that budget has gone from $53 billion to $114 billion. That is an 
increase of 113 percent. I mean, Mr. Speaker, how much do we need here 
in Federal spending? Should it be a 130 percent increase in 10 years, 
150, 200?
  We have to remember, also, Mr. Speaker, where is this money coming 
from? Although maybe there is literally a printing press down the road, 
figuratively there is not one. All of this money is coming from some 
American family, and every time we are increasing some Federal program, 
we are taking it away from some family program. Right now, again, 
budgets are about values, and they are about dollars and cents, and 
ultimately, this debate does come down again to taxes and spending.
  The Democrats have said that we are offering all these great tax 
cuts. I looked very closely in the budget. I am having a little trouble 
finding that. What I do find is that we are going to prevent a huge 
automatic tax increase engineered by the other side. It is very 
fascinating to me in the Federal city how spending is forever; yet tax 
relief seems to be temporary.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decry any of the tax 
relief that has occurred under President Bush's watch. So that means 
they want to take it away. Well, what does that mean? It means, well, 
the lowest-income taxpayers will see that their taxes are increased 50 
percent. It means we lose the 10 percent bracket. We go to the 15 
percent bracket, a 50 percent increase on our lowest-income taxpayers.
  Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return if they have 
their way and have their huge automatic tax increases. Taxpayers with 
children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits. Taxes on 
dividends and capital gains could jump as much as 100 percent.
  Again, you start to think, well, wait a second, where is all this 
money coming from? Well, it is coming from families. It is coming from 
small business.
  So how do families all across America afford to send their children 
to college? How about their education programs? Already, Mr. Speaker, 
we are now spending over $22,000 per American household. Last year was 
the first time since World War II that we have reached that level of 
spending. All that spending has got to be paid for. It has got be paid 
for. It has got to be paid for by American families.
  Now, again, our friends on the other side of the aisle want to decry 
all of the tax relief and say that somehow it is the root cause of the 
deficit, the increase in the national debt. Well, again, they are 
entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own 
facts.
  I happen to have in my hand the latest report from the Treasury 
statement on revenues, which I would be happy to share with any of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that says, guess what, we 
have more tax revenue. We have more tax receipts. Last year tax 
receipts increased roughly 15 percent. This year we are on track to 
have tax revenues increase about 11 percent.
  Guess what? Since we have allowed American families and small 
business to keep more of what they earn, they have gone out and they 
have created jobs, and people pay taxes, and all of the sudden we have 
more tax revenues. It is kind of hard to make the argument that somehow 
tax relief that created 5 million new jobs has somehow added to the 
national debt. Clearly we have a large challenge with our national 
debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say it is not because the American people are 
undertaxed. In fact, I am surprised that our friends on the other side 
of the aisle are not applauding the President for really presiding over 
one of the largest tax increases in American history. Here it is right 
here. We are awash in new revenue, but we did it the right way, Mr. 
Speaker. We grew the economy. We created jobs.
  Now, what happens if you start to take the tax relief away? Well, 
again, since we have had tax relief, 5 million new jobs have been 
created. We have the highest rate of homeownership in the entire 
history of the United States of America, and yet, if you start to take 
away the tax relief, if you have these automatic tax increases, you 
lose the jobs. That is just wrong, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just respond 
to the gentleman.
  When President Bush came to office, we had a debt of $5.6 trillion. 
By the end of this year, it will be over $9 trillion. By the end of his 
term, he will have doubled it. So you have done such a wonderful job 
driving this country into deep debt that we are going to have to pass 
it on to our children and our grandchildren.
  Pay as you go is what we are saying over here. You are the ones who 
are behaving fiscally irresponsibly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues are familiar with 
the Kenny Rogers song which says you have to know when to hold and know 
when to fold. I sure would like to be in a poker game with the 
Republican moderates. They fold before they even see their cards. They 
got nothing out of this budget deal, and they are going to tell us how 
wonderfully they did. It is nothing but a promise, and it will be a 
promise that is not kept.
  My colleague from Florida talks about the bottomless pit of spending. 
Talking about bottomless pits, let us talk about $8 billion in 
subsidies to the oil industry. Let us talk about another $7 billion in 
a windfall and not having them pay a royalty tax for the oil they take 
out of the ground. We just waived it for all of them. And they get a 
prescription drug bill which has nothing but massive subsidies for the 
pharmaceutical industry and for the insurance industry. That is where 
the bottomless pit is.
  And you have a tax cut bill, $70 billion, and you cannot find it in 
your heart to do something for low-income families? I can tell you what 
people in this country don't know; that if you make $11,000 or less, 
you are not eligible for a child tax credit. But we see that some of 
the wealthiest people in this Nation get one very, very big tax break.
  Let us take a look at what happened between last week and this week 
when the majority failed to muster the votes on the budget. Are we no 
longer staring down the barrel of a $2.2 billion in education cuts, 
$8.6 billion in cuts to veterans services, and $18.1 billion in health 
care costs? That is exactly what we are looking at.
  And I will tell you, we could pay for this budget's $3 billion 
shortfall in education, health and workforce training programs with 
that tax cut's $4.8 billion in breaks that helps corporations like GE 
and Citicorp increase their profits overseas.
  You know, Republicans today are wondering why the American people 
have lost all faith in their leadership. The goal of the budget ought 
to be to benefit the common good. That may seem like a novelty to this 
Republican majority, but the country is crying out for that leadership.

[[Page H2697]]

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentlewoman, who 
has apparently not had an opportunity to review the budget, that there 
is an additional $3.1 billion reserve fund for domestic priorities; 
$3.1 billion additional for Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education. And in addition to that, we budget for emergencies. We draw 
lines around the restraint that is necessary to keep the deficit on a 
path to be cut in half in 5 years. We keep the economy growing.
  They rail against the $70 billion that were involved in tax 
reconciliation that prevents taxes from going up today, yet their own 
budget has $150 billion. Which is it? They talk about not having enough 
money in our side of the budget, and yet they rail about the deficit.
  You can't have it both ways. Well, I guess you can if you are on the 
floor of the House arguing against a responsible budget plan.
  This bill lays out a responsible roadmap towards shrinking the 
deficit, keeping the economy strong and growing, and being able to look 
constituents in the eye about the levels of spending. It does not open 
up a bottomless pit of spending, as some would prefer on the other side 
of the aisle, where enough is never enough. We recognize that trade-
offs have to be made in businesses, in families, and in the Federal 
Government, and it is important that we look at both sides of the 
ledger, discretionary and mandatory.
  The only thing that my friends on the other side of the aisle could 
find to clap about in the State of the Union Address was our President 
and our leadership's noble attempt to rein in mandatory spending, 
something that both parties' think tanks on each side of the 
ideological spectrum and administrations of each political party have 
agreed is in desperate need of help. Yet they can only take glee in the 
fact that they shut down the first real attempt to reform mandatory 
spending in a generation.
  This budget lays out a framework for reform, restraint, and economic 
growth, and they are trying to have it not just both ways, but three or 
four or five different ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. The gentleman from Florida should not continue to fool 
the American public. There is no new funding in this bill for health, 
education and other programs.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, May is Foster Care Appreciation Month, 
when the Nation honors those who open their hearts and homes to 
America's most vulnerable children. These are children who cannot live 
at home because it isn't safe.
  How ironic and out of touch that the Republican majority should 
choose May to bring out a budget that neglects America's neglected 
children by obliterating the funding for the Social Services Block 
Grant program. This program funds America's response to the SOS of 
neglected children who need us to protect them.
  The Republicans have other priorities: Giving the rich more money. 
The Republicans believe a safe house for a child is a mansion for the 
rich, so they will cut $500 million out of these programs which help 
the poor in order to give away millions to the rich.
  There is no home, no heart and no shame in this Republican budget. 
They take care of the top 1 percent. They cannot give enough to those 
people at the top. They cannot borrow enough to give to those people at 
the top. And they forget about everybody else, including the foster 
children. That is the American way for the Republicans.
  I offered an amendment to change this. They turned it down. Vote 
``no'' on this budget.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I speak tonight as a cochair of the Blue Dog 
Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative Democrats, and I speak 
tonight with some disappointment because I am one in this Chamber who 
knows how hard it is to put together a budget. It is a tough job that 
the majority has.
  I am sorry that my friends who are moderate Republicans sold out so 
cheap. And I am even sorrier that my friends who are part of the 
Republican Study Committee did not get more of what they wished. But it 
is tough to put together a budget.
  In all this blizzard of words and numbers we have been hearing about 
tonight, there is one central principle that should guide the Members 
here, at least the ones who are listening and not already at the big 
Republican fund-raiser tonight, and that one central principle that 
should guide our deliberations is the principle that not only I hold 
dear, but Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, 
one of the great financial minds in this country, said was the single 
most important reform that this House could undertake. And what is 
that? It is called pay as you go.
  We had it in this country from 1990, under the first President Bush, 
all the way through the second President Bush. We had it for 12 years, 
from 1990 to 2002, and then the Republican majority let it expire. But 
Alan Greenspan said it was the single most important thing we could do 
to regain our fiscal balance, our fiscal sanity. Yet there is no real 
pay as you go in the Republican budget. There is in the Democratic 
budget.
  That is why on behalf of the Blue Dogs I urge all of our Members who 
care about Alan Greenspan, who care about pay as you go, who care about 
fiscal sanity to vote for PAYGO. Because that is the principle that 
every family back home understands. If you want something, pay for it.
  That is what the Democratic budget does, and I am proud to vote for 
the Democratic budget tonight.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I served in the California Legislature for 24 years, 
half of which was spent in a leadership role, and I believe I know how 
to engage in a bipartisan process. Unfortunately this budget resolution 
is not a bipartisan process.
  Rather than provide the House with an opportunity to engage in 
serious and meaningful budget discussions, we are left with this ``take 
it or leave it'' package. Today this body acts in a de facto 
parliamentary fashion. Rather than consider the constructive and 
realistic solutions to our budget problems, like the Blue Dog 12-point 
plan that was referenced by Mr. Cooper, that includes a pay-as-you-go 
provision, we are left with this proposal as our only option. It is a 
Hobson's choice, which I believe is no choice at all.
  Rather than do what our constituents expect us to do, discuss, 
debate, and have meaningful oversight, make tough policy choices, we 
are left with a budget package within a failed budget process that is 
nothing more than a fig leaf to cover a host of fiscal policy 
shortcomings that have resulted in massive budget deficits over the 
last 5 years. It is a chronic case of wanting to have your cake and eat 
it, too.
  We cannot continue to tell the American people they can have tax 
cuts, increased spending, and not impact our budget deficits, but that 
is what this budget resolution does. I do not believe that a majority 
of Americans support this way of doing the people's business. They 
expect us, as adults, to work together to solve the fiscal problems of 
our Nation. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening in this 
effort, and I unfortunately must oppose this budget resolution.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California and the 
speaker before him from Tennessee made reference to the Blue Dog 
budget, and, in fact, there was even reference to how difficult it is 
to produce a budget. Well, apparently it is so difficult they couldn't 
do it because there is no Blue Dog substitute.
  I tip my hat to the Progressive Caucus. They managed to produce a 
budget that we will debate on this floor. It is an alternative view of 
where this Nation ought to be headed. I don't agree

[[Page H2698]]

with it, but they made the tough decisions to put it together, embody 
it in an amendment, and put it to debate on this floor. I tip my hat to 
Mr. Spratt, the distinguished ranking member of the committee. They 
have a substitute amendment.
  The Blue Dogs are all bark and no bite. No budget substitute was 
offered. Apparently putting together a budget that met their own 
internal divisions proved too difficult in the end.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise and urge the defeat of this previous 
question.
  It should come as no surprise to anyone in this country that 
Democrats and Republicans differ in their priorities for America. With 
the White House set to vote on the budget tonight, I as a Blue Dog 
oppose the majority party's misguided plan which will result in a 
staggering $10 trillion deficit by the year 2010.
  The Blue Dog 12-step reform plan is a comprehensive, responsible 
alternative to the meager attempt to reform and contain the Republican 
budget. The Blue Dog plan is based on a commitment to resolving the 
fiscal problems facing our country that includes a call for a balanced 
budget, strict spending plan, and a pay-as-you-go rule, especially 
establishing a rainy day justification.
  The budget resolution debated tonight will cut critical programs in 
order to pay for millionaire tax cuts, cuts to food stamps, the WIC 
program, the school lunch program, the breakfast program, student 
financial assistance, Community Development Block Grants, veterans 
health care, and funding to help local law enforcement, to name a few.
  I ask our colleagues to defeat this budget. We need to help those 
poor and disadvantaged, our veterans, our health block grants, and 
students who need an education.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I would ask the gentleman where the Blue Dog budget is? 
Where is the Blue Dog substitute amendment? We are looking for it. We 
can't find it. There is no Blue Dog substitute amendment. It is back on 
the porch. It is in the pound. It is in the kennel. I don't know where 
it is.
  There is a progressive substitute. There is a Spratt substitute. 
There is no Blue Dog substitute.
  Mr. BACA. There is a pay as you go.
  Mr. PUTNAM. There is not a Blue Dog substitute.
  Mr. BACA. Then you should look at the pay-as-you-go plan. You know 
that? It is there.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). The gentleman will 
suspend.
  Mr. PUTNAM. There have been three references to a Blue Dog substitute 
that is mythical. It is as mythical as the $727 billion tax gap, Wizard 
of Oz smoke and mirrors that is in one of the other substitutes. It is 
as mythical as the numbers that they use to pay for their increased 
spending.
  There is no such thing. There is not a substitute amendment.
  Mr. BACA. That is why we are supporting the Democratic substitute 
amendment, and that is pay as you go. The Democratic substitute budget.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman 
from Florida has the floor.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear we made our 
point.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I would be happier if 
Americans are watching this debate, or if they are not watching the 
debate. I am an auctioneer and it sounds almost like an auction: no 
matter how much we spend it is not enough. But here is something I 
think all Members need to be aware of. Next year the taxpayers are 
going to generously provide this Congress and this Federal Government 
with a 12 percent increase in revenue. Over the next 5 years, the 
estimate is it will be at least an increase averaging 5.4 percent per 
year. Now that is at a time when we expect the inflation rate will be 
somewhere less than 3 percent. In other words, revenue to the Federal 
Government will be almost double what we project the inflation rate to 
be.
  And Americans watching at home are asking a simple question: Why 
can't you live within your means? And that is what this budget is 
about. That is what this debate is about. And I think Americans 
watching at home must be wondering, how in the world, why is it with a 
12 percent increase next year and a 5\1/2\ percent increase averaging 
over the next 5 years, why can't you figure it out to live within your 
means?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, Mr. Nussle. This is his sixth year chairing the 
Budget Committee. As I think most of my colleagues know, it has been 
six tough years, and Mr. Nussle has done a very, very good job in 
bringing us to this point. And I want to congratulate him and wish him 
well as he decides to leave the House and to pursue other political 
interests in the State of Iowa.
  I think all of us know that we have been through a long, arduous 
process to bring this budget to the floor tonight. It has been months 
of conversations with Members, not always easy; certainly it has been 
very difficult. But the process has allowed us to better understand 
each other, understand our needs, and understand the needs of the 
American people.
  As one of my colleagues earlier was pointing out, revenues to the 
Federal Government grew last year at over 11 percent. Revenues to the 
Federal Government this year are going to grow at over 12 percent, 
which really, I think, speaks volumes, that lowering tax rates does not 
necessarily mean lower revenues to the Federal Government.
  If you look at what we did in the late 1990s when we balanced the 
budget, it was revenue growing to double digits rates and us holding 
the line on spending. And I know there is a lot of well-meaning, well-
intentioned spending that people would like. But we can't continue to 
spend our kids' and their kids' inheritance every year, which has gone 
on here far too long. And if you look at what we are doing here, with 
revenues rising and holding the line on spending, we can, in fact, 
balance the budget in the next 4 or 5 years. It is very possible. And 
so I want to thank all of my colleagues for working with us to get to 
this point.
  I want to yield to my colleague from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding to 
me, and I would just like to go through with him and for the 
edification of those who may not be that familiar with it, some of the 
negotiations that have been going on with respect to this.
  First of all, there are those of us who were concerned about the 
President's budget, Mr. Majority Leader, and we called that to your 
attention early on. It is a little bit unusual to be dealing with this 
at budget time because we are basically with one of the appropriations. 
And I agree with you that the gentleman from Ohio has done a wonderful 
job on this. I don't always vote for his budgets, but he has certainly 
done a wonderful job dealing with this over the years.
  But in this particular circumstance, what came down from the 
President was not satisfactory to some of us, and so I prepared an 
amendment to increase the Labor HHS Education allocation by $7.158 
billion. We then entered into the negotiations.
  I don't remember any time precedence for that in the time that I have 
been here which has happened at the level of dealing with a specific 
allocation when we are dealing with the budget. Basically, we were 
concerned about health accounts. We wanted them increased by $1.1 
billion, education accounts by 4.6; LIHEAP by 1.3 was the primary focus 
here. I tried to bring it to 2006 funding plus 2 percent for inflation.
  We had negotiations with you, sir; we had negotiations with the 
chairman of

[[Page H2699]]

the Appropriations Committee and other House leaders as well. And let 
me just thank you very much for that. That has not always been the 
case, and we are very appreciative of it.
  Eventually, a decision was made by the leadership to transfer over $6 
billion which was shifted from defense in foreign operations without 
raising the cap at all with respect to the 302(a) number and $4.1 
billion of that went to Labor, HHS, Education, which is $843 million 
more than was received in 2006.
  Obviously, this is an important budget to many of us because we are 
concerned about what happens at home. This relates to health research, 
which is vital to all of us I think, to IDEA, to Centers for Disease 
Control, after-school care, vocational education and the National 
Institutes of Health, just to name a few. And so we increased it by 
that particular amount of money.
  In further negotiations with Mr. Lewis and with you, we also 
established some other areas of concern that would be addressed, that 
is, community development block grants, the Byrne and COPS grants all 
would be at the 2006 levels, and the President's competitive initiative 
would be funded at his requested level. So all this was arranged as a 
matter of negotiation.
  There was actually another billion dollars to homeland security and 
approximately $500 million to agriculture and $500 million to energy 
and water as part of this.
  This is probably not ideal. And I am sure there are those who would 
get up and say, well, gee, why didn't you get the whole loaf? Well, I 
frankly don't know of anyone who has ever gotten this kind of change 
made in the budget after the budget has been introduced in terms of 
building to that.
  And more importantly, we have an assurance from you, for whom I have 
a great deal of respect and trust, having worked with you and listening 
to your word on the Education Committee all these years, that this will 
be done, that we'll eventually get to the $7.158 billion, that we may 
get to it before we actually vote on the Labor, HHS, Education bill in 
the House or perhaps later when it might come out of conference. And 
that is very important as well. That has been repeated again and again 
and I think needs to be reiterated here today.
  Then that raises the question of if this is an assurance or a sense 
of Congress, versus real money, which is what it really is when you get 
right down to it. We have received commitments that that additional $3 
billion will not come from mandatory programs that serve the people we 
are trying to help, like Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, foster 
programs and others. We want to make sure that any offsets are 
carefully crafted and our group of about 20 people that has been 
involved with this has no intentions of supporting reductions which 
would adversely affect the neediest among us who we are trying to help 
by this. And I think it is very important that everybody understand 
that we have had that discussion as well in terms of where we are going 
as far as the future is concerned. So I would like to thank you for the 
negotiations.
  With that, I do support the budget; and, sure, I would like to have 
the whole loaf, so to speak, if we could. But I understand why we are 
not there now, and perhaps there will be other changes actually before 
we vote on this. I don't know.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague from Delaware 
for his willingness to work through these long several months. I think 
you have very accurately portrayed the agreements that we have come to. 
And it is important to understand that we were able to do this without 
spending $1 more than what the President asked for. The $873 billion, 
302(a) discretionary cap remains in effect. But moving the priorities 
around to meet the needs of our various Members is how we were able to 
do this. And any additional spending on the Labor, HHS bill at the end 
of the day is either going to have to be offset or come from other 
302(b) accounts.
  And the commitment is that we will get there at the end of the day. 
We will work with Members across the spectrum in terms of how we get 
there. But the important thing is that we are able to meet the needs of 
all of our Members without exceeding the President's numbers.
  So I want to thank my colleague, tell him how much I have enjoyed 
working with him and all of the members of our conference. I am just 
glad that we are here.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman who is the ranking member on our Budget Committee, Mr. 
Spratt.
  Mr. SPRATT. I have great respect for the distinguished majority 
leader, but I have to take exception when he says if we hold the line 
on spending and let revenues continue, we will balance the budget in 5 
years. The deficit this year without offsetting Social Security per 
this resolution for next year will be $545 billion. In 5 years, 
according to this resolution, it will be $428 billion.
  During that same period of time between 2002 and 2011, the debt of 
the United States will grow to $11.3 trillion. That is twice its level 
when President Bush came to office. I don't think we are making the 
progress that we must make if we are really to get this problem under 
control.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to decipher that colloquy. 
And it sure looked, smelled and felt like sleight of hand, so chances 
are it probably was.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the Democratic 
substitute, mainly for two reasons: because of the values and the 
priorities that are reflected in our budget, but also because of 
another important reason, and that is the budget disciplinary tool that 
we have called pay-as-you-go that they refuse to implement in their 
budget. Pay-as-you-go was something that worked very well in the 1990s, 
which gave us 4 years of budget surpluses where we were actually paying 
down the national debt, not becoming more dependent on China to be 
financing our deficits, which is the fiscal policy that they are 
pursuing. These are real choices that we have to make and pay-as-you-go 
is one real choice that is distinguished in the Democratic substitute.
  The reason why their numbers don't add up is because there is a 
complete disconnect between their tax-and-spending policy. It is 
because too many of them believe in this concept of dynamic scoring 
which means four minus two equals three, not two. And if any third 
grader today taking their No Child Left Behind math test submitted an 
answer, four minus two equals three, they would fail and their school 
would be labeled as a failing school. And that is the problem with the 
fiscal policies under the majority today. They are failing the American 
people by leaving a legacy of debt for our children.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Wisconsin with whom 
we have worked on the budget. The challenges I see with the Democratic 
substitute are ones that we have pointed out earlier. They depend upon 
money that doesn't exist to make their numbers work, a tax gap of $727 
billion that the IRS can't find.
  Well, if the IRS can't find it, does the other side know where it is? 
If we have been looking for it for all this time, but they know where 
it is to the point that they have budgeted it, $727 billion to make 
their numbers work, then they must have some better insight as to where 
that gap is.
  It is smoke and mirrors. The CBO won't even score it. The CBO scores 
it as a zero revenue raiser. And yet they are depending on it for $727 
billion.
  They only allocate $150 billion in their substitute for tax relief. 
And yet we have had opportunities on this House floor for half that 
amount that they have rejected. We had opportunities to prevent the AMT 
from impacting millions of middle-class Americans. Rejected. Preventing 
capital gains rates from going up which have allowed revenues to the 
government to increase, 11, 12 percent. Dividend taxes, preventing 
those from going up. They have rejected that. But they put $150 billion 
in their own substitute, which doesn't even cover the child tax credit, 
the marriage penalty, the death tax, the whole host of other issues. 
The numbers don't add up.
  Ours is the responsible, comprehensive blueprint. We deal with a 
freeze, a near freeze on discretionary spending,

[[Page H2700]]

non-defense discretionary spending. We deal with the mandatory side of 
the ledger which is now over half of Federal spending, something that 
the Blue Dogs claim that they are concerned about, something that 
fiscal hawks on the other side claim that they are concerned about; and 
it is nowhere to be found in their substitute.

                              {time}  1900

  Ours is the only budget that is comprehensive, responsible, and 
honest about the challenges that are facing this great land.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarification, there is no 
assumption in our budget resolution about a tax gap, realizing a tax 
gap. We did use that concept as an offset in the budget markup, but it 
is not in the budget resolution. There is no assumption to that effect 
at all.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will modify this rule to 
provide that immediately after the House passes this rule, it will take 
up legislation to restore fiscal responsibility to the congressional 
budget process.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this bill will do two very important 
things. First, it will reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement that was 
in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act that expired 
in 2002. The bill will restore the PAYGO provision and extend it 
through the year 2011.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget process may be complicated, but one thing is 
clear: We should be required to pay for new spending and tax breaks 
instead of running the highest deficits in the history of our country. 
The message is simple: If you want more tax breaks for millionaires, 
then pay for them. Our constituents have to take responsibility for 
their personal spending and their personal debt. So should we.
  In addition, this bill will repeal rule XXVII, the House rule that 
blocks a direct vote on increasing the Federal debt limit, thereby 
shielding Members of this House from any responsibility for the massive 
rise in the debt ceiling. Under this rule, simply passing the budget 
effectively triggers an automatic increase in the debt ceiling. Members 
never have to get their hands dirty or explain to their constituents 
why our national debt continues to skyrocket to numbers that are so 
massive that they are almost impossible to comprehend. They never have 
to take a position or provide a reason. They can just pretend that it 
happened without any way to stop it. And to make this even worse, it 
only happens in the House. The Senate will still vote for the debt 
limit increase directly.
  This Republican budget resolution calls for yet another increase in 
the debt limit by $653 billion, bringing our total debt limit to $9.6 
trillion. Democrats believe that we should repeal House rule XXVII and 
require a straight up-or-down vote on raising the Federal debt limit.
  I say to my colleagues, take responsibility. Show some backbone. Have 
some courage and explain to the American people why you are driving 
this country into debt.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make two clarifications. One, to 
my friend from Massachusetts, I would clarify that the rule he seeks to 
repeal is commonly known as the Gephardt rule. Secondarily, I would 
clarify the clarification made by my friend Mr. Spratt that on page 51, 
lines 13 through 19 of the legislation known as the Spratt amendment, 
there is tax relief that is provided; the additional revenue loss is 
offset such as through the recovery of a portion of unpaid revenue, 
commonly known as the tax gap, which we referred to. So that is a 
portion of their amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, the so-called 
Gephardt rule expired, and then it was reinstated by the Republican 
majority; so it is now the Hastert rule.
  Mr. PUTNAM. We like to give credit where credit is due, and being big 
fans of intellectual property rights, since we protect intellectual 
property, the real creative genius in that belongs to Mr. Gephardt.
  To my friend from Massachusetts, we have had a speaker come in since 
I said to you that I had no further speakers, and I would inquire as to 
whether you objected to allowing him to speak for 2 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. No, I would not object.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Very well.
  I would yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I 
thank my friend from Massachusetts as well.
  I have to say I just got in on the tail end of this, but I wanted to 
come down and say I think that allowing these budgets to be discussed 
tonight is a good thing. The Democrats will have two budgets that they 
are offering. The Republicans will have one, and we had the other one; 
so I guess it is two to two. I know we would have 435 individual 
budgets if everybody could have something that they fully believed in. 
But, unfortunately, in a large body of 435 people where you have to 
have 218 votes or at least a plurality to get something done, you have 
got to leave behind some budgets.
  And I think this is going to give us a night of some good debates. We 
will be able to discuss priorities, both priorities in spending and 
priorities in cutting and reducing and changing the face of government.
  I want to point out that last year, and Mr. Putnam may remember, but 
I believe we passed the budget finally, and Mr. Spratt might know, 214-
212, which somewhat shows the precarious position of a dynamic body, 
that if you moved spending up a little bit, you would not have been 
able to pass it. If you reduced it a little bit, you would not have 
been able to pass it.
  So in this large institution we had a budget that just was balanced 
as we could get it, and I think we are probably going to be heading in 
that direction again. And I do not think that is a bad thing. I think 
all this debating is good, and that our arguments that we will have 
tonight in a friendly spirit will also carry on to each of the 11 
appropriation bills, I guess these days, 10 subcommittees, but these 
things will be carried on, and we will see them again and again in 
committee and subcommittee form.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

 Previous Question on H. Res. 517, Rule for H. Con. Res. 376--The FY07 
                      Concurrent Budget Resolution

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order to consider in the House a bill consisting of the text 
     specfied in Section 4. The bill shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget; and (2) one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       ``Sec. 4. The text referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:''.

                                 H.R.--

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring Fiscal 
     Responsibility to the Congressional Budget Process Act of 
     2006''.

     SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Section 252 Amendments.--Section 252 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 
     by striking ``2002'' both places it appears and inserting 
     ``2011''.
       (b) Section 275 Amendment.--Section 275(b) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 
     by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2015''.

[[Page H2701]]

     SEC. 3. VOTING TO CHANGE THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC 
                   DEBT.

       The Rules of the House of Representatives are amended by 
     repealing rule XXVII and by redesignating rule XXVIII as rule 
     XXVII.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusel of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Descher's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________