Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2714-H2753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 817 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 376.

{time} 2042

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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 appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2008 through 2011, with Mr. Shimkus (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Thursday, April 6, 2006, all time for general debate pursuant to House
Resolution 766 had expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 817, the amendments printed in part A of
House Report 109-468 are adopted and the concurrent resolution, as
amended, is considered read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The text of the concurrent resolution, as amended, is as follows:

H. Con. Res. 376

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2007.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that this is the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007,
including appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008
through 2011.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 301. Reserve fund for the disposal of underutilized Federal real
property.
Sec. 302. Reserve fund for Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act Reauthorization.
Sec. 303. Reserve fund for calendar year 2007 alternative minimum tax
relief.
Sec. 304. Reserve fund for the National Flood Insurance Program to meet
outstanding claims for flood damage in the Gulf.
Sec. 305. Reserve fund for the reform of the regulation of government-
sponsored enterprises.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 402. Overseas contingency operations.
Sec. 403. Exemption of avian bird flu response.
Sec. 404. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 405. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 406. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990.
Sec. 407. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
Sec. 408. Treatment of allocations in the House.
Sec. 409. Budgetary treatment of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Sec. 410. Adjustments for tax legislation.

TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

Sec. 501. Nondefense reserve fund for emergencies.
Sec. 502. Emergency criteria.
Sec. 503. Development of guidelines for application of emergency
definition.
Sec. 504. Committee notification of emergency legislation.
Sec. 505. Up-to-date tabulations.

TITLE VI--SENSE OF CONGRESS

Sec. 601. Sense of Congress on long-term budgeting.
Sec. 602. Sense of Congress on closing the tax gap to reduce the
deficit.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

[[Page H2715]]

Fiscal year 2008: $8,178,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $20,384,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $13,782,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $144,808,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $2,283,029,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,332,599,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,426,014,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,526,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,649,474,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $2,325,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,364,794,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,434,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,524,168,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,640,119,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $545,332,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $451,196,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $423,423,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $401,973,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $427,856,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $9,182,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,744,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,275,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,781,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $11,307,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $5,328,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $5,577,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,781,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $5,946,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $6,120,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2007 through 2011 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $512,901,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $534,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $484,661,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $505,516,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $504,753,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $505,874,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $514,858,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $512,573,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $525,781,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $524,894,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $31,216,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,270,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $34,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,410,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $34,178,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,275,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $33,869,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,093,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $34,293,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,717,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $25,938,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,108,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,146,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,083,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $28,193,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,135,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $29,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,263,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $30,689,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,483,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $915,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $2,688,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $703,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,317,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $913,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $2,190,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $867,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $2,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $711,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $29,650,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,038,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $28,833,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,756,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $29,238,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,285,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $28,687,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,724,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $28,595,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,313,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $27,356,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,782,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $25,205,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,564,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $24,512,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,829,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,370,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,560,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $23,011,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,281,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $16,518,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,049,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $13,178,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,997,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $13,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,987,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $17,062,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,857,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $11,866,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,390,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $78,258,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,774,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $81,283,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $72,878,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,329,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $72,926,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,828,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $73,477,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,833,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $15,942,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,345,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $12,917,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,443,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $12,981,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,661,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $12,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,777,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $13,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,680,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $84,849,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,530,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $84,140,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $83,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,273,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $83,393,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,575,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $83,343,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,597,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $273,450,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $274,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $289,867,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $291,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $310,193,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $308,529,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $326,949,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $326,511,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $348,509,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $346,802,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $382,803,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $388,276,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $413,350,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $413,417,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $443,331,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $443,022,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $472,962,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $473,238,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $523,267,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $523,305,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $356,761,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $362,086,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $371,174,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $374,267,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $381,732,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $384,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $391,682,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $393,209,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:

[[Page H2716]]

(A) New budget authority, $406,687,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $406,960,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $16,922,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,922,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $18,814,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,814,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $20,694,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,694,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $22,866,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,866,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $26,480,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,480,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $74,627,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,944,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $76,925,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $77,814,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $78,232,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $82,398,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,249,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $42,795,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,621,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $42,908,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,578,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $43,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $43,816,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,903,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $44,862,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,492,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $18,981,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,873,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $18,332,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,318,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $18,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $18,250,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $18,479,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,213,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $354,138,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $354,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $383,621,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $383,621,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $405,846,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $405,846,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $427,510,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $427,510,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $449,248,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $449,248,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $6,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,280,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$7,922,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,437,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$7,252,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$7,384,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,882,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$7,539,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$7,282,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$68,585,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$69,427,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$68,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$68,399,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$74,480,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$74,199,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$66,775,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,588,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$69,284,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$69,247,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submissions to Provide for the Continued Reform of
Mandatory Spending.--(1) Not later than June 9, 2006, the
House committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their
recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After
receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the
Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill
carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive
revision.
(2) Instructions.--
(A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on
Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $55,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(B) Committee on armed services.--The House Committee on
Armed Services shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $175,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(C) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House
Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes
in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the
deficit by $1,323,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2007
through 2011.
(D) Committee on financial services instruction to trigger
release of flood insurance reserve fund to cover additional
claims in the gulf region.--The House Committee on Financial
Services shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce the deficit by $400,000,000 for the
period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(E) Committee on international relations.--The House
Committee on International Relations shall report changes in
laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit
by $250,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2007 through
2011.
(F) Committee on the judiciary.--The House Committee on the
Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $500,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(G) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to
reduce the deficit by $50,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2007 through 2011.
(H) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by
$4,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2007 through
2011.
(b) Submission of Revised Allocations.--(1) Upon the
submission to the Committee on the Budget of the House of a
recommendation that has complied with its reconciliation
instructions solely by virtue of section 310(c) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chairman of that
committee may file with the House appropriately revised
allocations under section 302(a) of such Act and revised
functional levels and aggregates.
(2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report
recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a
committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions
solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the House
appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of
such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
(3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this
subsection shall be considered to be allocations and
aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the
budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 301. RESERVE FUND FOR THE DISPOSAL OF UNDERUTILIZED
FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY.

If the Committee on Government Reform of the House reports
a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment is offered
thereto or a conference report is submitted thereon, that
enhances the Government's real property disposal authority
and generates discretionary savings, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may make the appropriate adjustments
in allocations and aggregates by the amount provided by that
measure for that purpose, but not to exceed $25,000,000 in
new budget authority and outlays flowing therefrom for fiscal
year 2007, and $25,000,000 in new budget authority and
outlays flowing therefrom for the period of fiscal years 2007
through 2011.

SEC. 302. RESERVE FUND FOR SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY
SELF-DETERMINATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION.

In the House, after the filing of a rule that provides for
the consideration of any bill or joint resolution or whenever
any bill or joint resolution is placed on any calendar, or if
an amendment is offered to or conference report is submitted
on any bill or joint resolution that provides for the
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act (Public Law 106-393), then the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make the
appropriate adjustments in allocations and aggregates to the
extent that such legislation would not increase the deficit
for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

SEC. 303. RESERVE FUND FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2007 ALTERNATIVE
MINIMUM TAX RELIEF.

If the Committee on Ways and Means reports a bill, or an
amendment is offered thereto or a conference report is
submitted thereon, that would increase the exemption amounts
specified in section 55(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 with respect to taxable years beginning in calendar year
2007, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make
the appropriate adjustments in allocations and aggregates for
fiscal year 2007 to the extent that such legislation would
not reduce revenues below the aggregate level of revenues
provided in section 101(1)(A) for the period of fiscal years
2007 through 2011.

[[Page H2717]]

SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM TO MEET OUTSTANDING CLAIMS FOR FLOOD
DAMAGE IN THE GULF.

If the Committee on Financial Services of the House reports
a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment is offered
thereto or a conference report is submitted thereon, that--
(1) establishes more actuarially sound rates on policies
issued by the National Flood Insurance Program; and
(2) phases out flood insurance subsidies on pre-FIRM
structures not used as primary residences;

the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make the
appropriate adjustments in allocations and aggregates by the
amount provided by that measure for the purpose of
liquidating the National Flood Insurance Fund's remaining
contractual obligations resulting from claims made as a
result of floods that occurred in 2005, but not to exceed
$3,325,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2007
for that purpose. Such adjustments may also be made if the
reforms set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) have been enacted
prior to the consideration of the measure referred to in this
section.

SEC. 305. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REFORM OF THE REGULATION OF
GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ENTERPRISES.

In the House, if--
(1) the Committee on Financial Services of the House
reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment is
offered thereto or a conference report is submitted thereon,
that reforms the regulation of certain housing-related
Government-sponsored enterprises; and
(2) that committee is within its allocation as provided
under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974;

the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make the
appropriate adjustments in allocations and aggregates to the
extent that such legislation would not increase the deficit
for fiscal year 2007 and the period of fiscal years 2007
through 2011.

SEC. 306. RESERVE FUND TO ACCOMMODATE FULLY OFFSET
APPROPRIATIONS FOR LABOR/HHS, EDUCATION, AND
OTHER DOMESTIC PRIORITIES.

In the House, if any measure is enacted that reduces direct
spending for fiscal year 2007 and for the period of fiscal
years 2007 through 2011, and so designates some or all of
such savings provisions pursuant to this section, then the
chairman of the Committee on Budget shall increase the
allocation of new budget authority (and outlays flowing
therefrom) to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year
2007 by an amount not to exceed the reduction in budget
authority for that fiscal year achieved by such designated
provisions. Adjustments made pursuant to this section may not
be--
(1) greater than the savings achieved by the measure in
which such designated provisions are included; or
(2) in excess of $3,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

Such chairman may make any other appropriate adjustments to
applicable aggregates and allocations under this section.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported
in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation
or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an
amendment thereto.
(2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a
Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless
specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given
by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
(b) Advance Appropriation.--In the House, an advance
appropriation may be provided for the fiscal years 2008 and
2009 for programs, projects, activities, or accounts
identified in the joint explanatory statement of managers
accompanying this resolution under the heading ``Accounts
Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $23,565,000,000 in new budget authority
in each year.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new budget authority provided in a
bill or joint resolution making general appropriations or any
new budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution
making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2007 that
first becomes available for any fiscal year after 2007.

SEC. 402. CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS RELATED TO THE GLOBAL WAR ON
TERRORISM AND FOR UNANTICIPATED DEFENSE NEEDS.

(a) Exemption of Contingency Operations Related to the
Global War on Terrorism and for Unanticipated Defense
Needs.--In the House, if any bill or joint resolution is
reported, or an amendment is offered thereto or a conference
report is filed thereon, that makes appropriations for fiscal
year 2007 for contingency operations directly related to the
global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
related operations, then the new budget authority, new
entitlement authority, outlays, or receipts resulting
therefrom shall not count for purposes of titles III or IV of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Current Level.--Amounts included in this resolution for
the purpose set forth in this section shall be considered to
be current law for purposes of the preparation of the current
level of budget authority and outlays and the appropriate
levels shall be adjusted upon the enactment of such bill.

SEC. 404. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
resolution--
(1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct
spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and
surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall
be determined on the basis of estimates made by the
appropriate Committee on the Budget; and
(2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments
to such levels, including adjustments necessary, and in the
House separate allocations, to reflect the timing of
responses to reconciliation directives pursuant to section
201 of this resolution.

SEC. 405. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

Upon the enactment of a bill or joint resolution providing
for a change in concepts or definitions, the appropriate
chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make
adjustments to the levels and allocations in this resolution
in accordance with section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to
September 30, 2002).

SEC. 406. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

(a) In General.--In the House and the Senate,
notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 and section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990, the joint explanatory statement accompanying the
conference report on any concurrent resolution on the budget
shall include in its allocation under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the Committee on
Appropriations amounts for the discretionary administrative
expenses of the Social Security Administration.
(b) Special Rule.--In the House, for purposes of applying
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
estimates of the level of total new budget authority and
total outlays provided by a measure shall include any
discretionary amounts provided for the Social Security
Administration.

SEC. 407. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House, respectively, and as such they shall be
considered as part of the rules of each House, or of that
House to which they specifically apply, and such rules shall
supersede other rules only to the extent that they are
inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change those rules (so far as they relate to
that house) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

SEC. 408. TREATMENT OF ALLOCATIONS IN THE HOUSE.

(a) In General.--In the House, the Committee on
Appropriations may make a separate suballocation for
appropriations for the legislative branch for the first
fiscal year of this resolution. Such suballocation shall be
deemed to be made under section 302(b) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 and shall be treated as such a
suballocation for all purposes under section 302 of such Act.
(b) Display of Committee Allocations.--An allocation to a
committee under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 may display an amount to reflect a committee's
instruction under the reconciliation process, but it shall
not constitute an allocation within the meaning of section
302 of such Act. Any deficit reduction achieved in a
reconciliation bill submitted pursuant to title II of this
resolution shall not be included in current levels of new
budget authority and outlays for purposes of enforcing an
allocation under 302(a) of such Act.

SEC. 409. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM.

(a) Treatment.--For purposes of the allocations and
aggregates in this resolution, the reconciliation directives
established by this resolution, and for any other purpose
under titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution,
amendment thereto, or conference report thereon, or any
recommendations submitted pursuant to section 201 that
includes the reforms set forth in subsection (b) shall be
scored without regard to the obligations resulting from the
enactment of Public Law 109-208. Such estimate shall assume
the liquidating of the National Flood Insurance Fund's
remaining contractual obligations resulting from claims made
as a result of floods that occurred in 2005.
(b) Legislation.--The legislation referred to in subsection
(a) shall--
(1) establish more actuarially sound rates on policies
issued by the National Flood Insurance Program; and

[[Page H2718]]

(2) end flood insurance subsidies on pre-FIRM structures
not used as primary residences.

SEC. 410. ADJUSTMENTS FOR TAX LEGISLATION.

In the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means reports a
bill or joint resolution, or an amendment is offered thereto
or a conference report is submitted thereon, that amends the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by extending the expiration
dates for Federal tax policies that expired during fiscal
year 2006 or that expire during the period of fiscal years
2007 through 2011, then the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may make appropriate adjustments in the allocations
and aggregates of budget authority, outlays, and revenue set
forth in this resolution to reflect the budgetary effects of
such legislation, but only to the extent the adjustments
would not cause the level of revenue to be less than the
level of revenue provided for in this resolution for the
period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 and would not cause
the deficit to exceed the appropriate level of deficits
provided for in this resolution for the period of fiscal
years 2007 through 2011.

TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

SEC. 501. NONDEFENSE RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES.

(a) Nondefense Reserve Funds.--
(1) Discretionary reserve fund.--In the House and except as
provided by subsection (b), if a bill or joint resolution is
reported, or an amendment is offered thereto (or considered
as adopted) or a conference report is filed thereon, that
provides new discretionary budget authority (and outlays
flowing therefrom), and such provision is designated as an
emergency pursuant to this section, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget shall make adjustments to the
allocations and aggregates set forth in this resolution up to
the amount of such provisions if the requirements set forth
in section 504 are met, but the sum of all adjustments made
under this paragraph shall not exceed $6,450,000,000 for
fiscal year 2007.
(2) Other adjustments.--In the House, if a bill or joint
resolution is reported or a conference report is filed
thereon, and a direct spending or receipt provision included
therein is designated as an emergency pursuant to this
paragraph, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may
make adjustments to the allocations and aggregates set forth
in this resolution.
(b) Additional Adjustment Procedures.--In the House, before
any adjustment is made pursuant to this section for any bill,
joint resolution, or conference report that designates a
provision an emergency, the enactment of which would cause
the total amount of the reserve fund set forth in subsection
(a)(1) for fiscal year 2007 to be exceeded:
(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
convene a meeting of that committee, where it shall be in
order, subject to the terms set forth in this section, for
one motion described in paragraph (2) to be made to authorize
the chairman to make adjustments above the maximum amount of
adjustments set forth in subsection (a).
(2) The motion referred to in paragraph (1) shall be in the
following form: `I move that the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget be authorized to adjust the allocations and
aggregates set forth in the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2007 by the following amount: $__ for
fiscal year 2007.', with the blank being filled in with the
amount determined by the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget. For any measure referred to in subsection (a)(1),
such amount shall not exceed the total amount for fiscal year
2007 designated as an emergency in excess of the applicable
amount remaining in the reserve fund.
(3) The motion set forth in paragraph (2) shall be open for
debate and amendment, but any amendment offered thereto is
only in order if limited to changing an amount in the motion.
(4) Except as provided by paragraph (5), the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget may not make any adjustments
under subsection (a) or subsection (b) unless or until the
committee filing a report or joint statement of managers on a
conference report on a measure including an emergency
designation fulfills the terms set forth in section 504.
(5) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make
any adjustments he deems necessary under this section if he
determines the enactment of the provision or provisions
designated as an emergency is essential to respond to an
urgent and imminent need, the chairman determines the
exceptional circumstances referred to in rule 3 of the rules
of the committee are met and the committee cannot convene to
consider the motion referred to in this section in a timely
fashion.
(c) Application of Adjustments.--The adjustments made
pursuant to subsection (1) and (b) shall--
(1) apply while that bill, joint resolution, conference
report or amendment is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.

SEC. 502. EMERGENCY CRITERIA.

As used in this title:
(1) The term ``emergency'' means a situation that--
(A) requires new budget authority and outlays (or new
budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom) for the
prevention or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life or
property, or a threat to national security; and
(B) is unanticipated.
(2) The term ``unanticipated'' means that the underlying
situation is--
(A) Sudden, which means quickly coming into being or not
building up over time;
(B) Urgent, which means a pressing and compelling need
requiring immediate action;
(C) Unforeseen, which means not predicted or anticipated as
an emerging need; and
(D) Temporary, which means not of a permanent duration.

SEC. 503. DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION OF
EMERGENCY DEFINITION.

In the House, as soon as practicable after the adoption of
this resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall, after consultation with the chairmen of the applicable
committees, and the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office, prepare guidelines for application of the definition
of an emergency and publish such guidelines in the
Congressional Record, and may issue any committee print from
the Committee on the Budget for this or other purposes.

SEC. 504. COMMITTEE NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

(a) Committee Notification.--Whenever a committee of the
House (including a committee of conference) reports any bill
or joint resolution that includes a provision designated as
an emergency pursuant to this title, the report accompanying
that bill or joint resolution (or the joint explanatory
statement of managers in the case of a conference report on
any such bill or joint resolution) shall identify all
provisions that provide amounts designated as an emergency
and shall provide an explanation of the manner in which the
provision meets the criteria set forth in section 502.
(b) Congressional Record.--If such a measure is to be
considered by the House without being reported by the
committee of jurisdiction, then the committee shall cause the
explanation to be published in the Congressional Record as
soon as practicable.

SEC. 505. UP-TO-DATE TABULATIONS.

The Committee on the Budget of the House shall publish in
the Congressional Record up-to-date tabulations of amounts
remaining in the reserve fund set forth in section 501, or
authorized in excess thereof, as soon as practicable after
the enactment of such amounts designated as emergencies.

TITLE VI--SENSE OF CONGRESS

SEC. 601. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

It is the sense of Congress that the determination of the
congressional budget for the United States Government and the
President's budget request should include consideration of
the Financial Report of the United States Government,
especially its information regarding the Government's net
operating cost, financial position, and long-term
liabilities.

SEC. 602. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CLOSING THE TAX GAP TO REDUCE
THE DEFICIT.

It is the sense of Congress that any revenues increases
achieved through recovery of taxes legally owed to the U.S.
Treasury but not actually paid, the so-called ``tax gap'',
shall be dedicated entirely to reducing the deficit and the
accumulated debt, and not to financing additional spending.

SEC. __. IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING FY2007 DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR,
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL.

(a) Findings.--The House of Representatives finds that--
(1) the budget resolution sets total discretionary spending
at $872,778,000,000; and
(2) additional funding can be provided for discretionary
programs under the budget resolution provided that it is
offset with mandatory or discretionary savings in
negotiations with the Senate.
(b) Recognition.--The House of Representatives recognizes
the need to increase the President's fiscal year 2007 request
for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation bill by not
less than $7,158,000,000.

SEC. __. UNOBLIGATED FUNDING OFFSET.

There should be included in any offsets enacted to provide
for the increases relative to the President's request for the
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill a rescission of at least
$1,000,000,000 from available, unobligated funds previously
appropriated for reconstruction activities in Iraq.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. No further amendment to the concurrent
resolution is in order except the amendments printed in part B of the
report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for
amendment, there shall be 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.

[[Page H2719]]

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Watt

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part B amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute
printed in House Report 109-468 offered by Mr. Watt:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2007.

The Congress declares that this is the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, including
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through
2011.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2007 through 2011:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $1,877,299,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,974,876,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,087,771,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,196,377,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,420,471,000,000.00.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be reduced are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $57,700,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008: $53,100,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $56,200,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $60,400,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $63,400,000,000.00.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $2,339,794,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,377,266,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,470,110,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,570,061,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,691,732,000,000.00.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $2,349,169,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,412,607,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,477,159,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,566,991,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,682,198,000,000.00.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $-471,870,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008: $-437,731,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $-389,388,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $-370,614,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $-261,727,000,000.00.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $9,098,905,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,648,135,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,145,324,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,620,812,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $10,980,497,000,000.00.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $5,245,092,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008: $5,480,886,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,651,568,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010: $5,785,485,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011: $5,794,228,000,000.00.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2007 through 2011 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $506,347,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $530,252,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $484,661,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $504,174,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $504,753,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $505,506,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $514,858,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $512,438,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $525,781,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $524,790,000,000.00.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $33,516,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $35,543,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $36,206,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $35,046,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $36,178,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $35,080,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $35,869,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $34,991,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $36,293,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $34,735,000,000.00.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $26,438,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $25,369,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,646,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $26,526,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $28,693,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $27,612,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $29,910,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $28,753,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $31,189,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $29,974,000,000.00.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,693,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,098,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $3,088,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,038,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,717,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,306,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $2,590,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,268,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $2,494,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $1,111,000,000.00.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $30,674,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $33,707,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $29,833,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $31,608,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $30,238,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $31,236,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $29,687,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $30,702,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $29,595,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $30,304,000,000.00.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $30,029,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $28,804,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,705,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $27,086,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $27,012,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $26,330,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $25,870,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $25,060,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $25,511,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $24,781,000,000.00.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $18,018,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $9,277,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $14,678,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $9,414,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $14,778,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $9,458,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $18,562,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $10,357,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $13,366,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $6,890,000,000.00.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $79,258,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $76,187,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $82,283,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $79,140,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $73,878,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $78,976,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $73,926,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $78,515,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $74,477,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $78,546,000,000.00.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $17,942,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $31,792,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $14,917,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $26,500,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $14,981,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $23,201,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $14,988,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $19,656,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $15,218,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $15,602,000,000.00.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $116,924,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $98,336,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $99,140,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $109,332,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $98,989,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $98,848,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $98,393,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $97,923,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $98,343,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $97,597,000,000.00.
(11) Health (550):

[[Page H2720]]

Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $281,193,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $276,397,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $294,867,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $295,323,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $315,193,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $313,315,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $331,949,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $331,605,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $353,509,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $352,084,000,000.00.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $383,503,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $388,845,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $414,050,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $414,094,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $444,031,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $443,720,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $473,662,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $473,938,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $523,967,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $524,005,000,000.00.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $360,761,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $364,795,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $376,174,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $378,529,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $386,732,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $389,048,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $396,682,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $398,178,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $411,687,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $411,960,000,000.00.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $16,990,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $18,604,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $18,636,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $20,312,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $20,351,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $22,268,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $22,305,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $25,782,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $25,806,000,000.00.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $79,181,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $77,849,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $81,425,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $81,596,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $82,314,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $82,420,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $82,732,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $82,741,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $86,898,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $86,749,000,000.00.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $45,953,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $46,180,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $45,908,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $46,369,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $46,454,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $46,692,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $46,816,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $46,874,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $47,862,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $47,494,000,000.00.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $19,481,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $19,285,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $18,832,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $18,792,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $18,865,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $18,586,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $18,750,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $18,507,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $18,979,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $18,707,000,000.00.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $353,323,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $353,323,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $381,898,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $381,898,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $403,724,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $403,724,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $424,708,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $424,708,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $445,604,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $445,604,000,000.00.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $6,145,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $4,568,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $-5,922,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-4,096,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $-5,252,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-4,051,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $-5,384,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-4,939,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $-5,539,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-5,293,000,000.00.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $-68,585,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-69,427,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $-68,727,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-68,399,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $-74,480,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-74,199,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $-66,775,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-66,588,000,000.00.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $-69,284,000,000.00.
(B) Outlays, $-69,247,000,000.00.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE HOUSE.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House
to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that
would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget
deficit for any of the following periods:
(1) The budget year.
(2) The period of the budget year and the next 4 fiscal
years.
(b) On-Budget Deficit.--
(1) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``on-budget deficit'' means a budget deficit that occurs in
any year in which total outlays exceed total revenues,
counting Federal revenues and outlays, except those of the
old age, survivors and disability insurance trust funds
established under title II of the Social Security Act, as
provided in section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of
1990.
(c) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and
revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis
of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the
House.
(d) Expiration.--This section shall expire on December 31,
2016.

SEC. 202. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT TO CONGRESS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) $290,600,000 has been specifically reallocated to the
Department of Defense in order to implement the
recommendations of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
for improvement that will produce tremendous cost savings
within the Department;
(2) between 2001 and 2005, GAO provided the Department of
Defense with 2153 recommendations, many related to improving
their business practices and, to date, the Department of
Defense has implemented 604 recommendations and closed 96
recommendations without implementation; and
(3) the GAO estimates that the 604 implemented
recommendations have yielded the Department of Defense a
savings of $40.8 billion between fiscal years 2001 and 2005.
(b) Assumption; Report.--
(1) Assumption.--This resolution assumes $290,600,000 to be
used by the Department of Defense to implement the remaining
1,453 recommendations of the Government Accountability
Office.
(2) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit a report
to Congress within 90 days that demonstrates how each such
recommendation shall be implemented, and, in the case of any
such recommendation that cannot be implemented, a detailed
reason for such inability to implement such recommendation.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 817, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will control
20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.

[[Page H2721]]

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, as the Chair of the Congressional Black
Caucus, I am honored to offer the Congressional Black Caucus 2007
fiscal year budget alternative, and I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, a number of budgets are going to be offered tonight,
and I think we are going to see a lot of smoke and mirrors and
trickery.

{time} 2045

But we are honest in the way we approach our budget. We believe a
budget is a statement of priorities, and we believe that there are
priorities that we must pay for, and we must find the money to pay for
them.
So let me be straight up front that we intend in our budget to roll
back, rescind the tax cuts on individuals' adjusted gross income in
excess of $200,000. People will still get the benefits of tax cuts
under $200,000, but by doing that over a 5-year period, we will gain
$137 billion. We intend to eliminate corporate tax incentives for
offshoring jobs. By doing that over a 5-year period, we will gain $50
billion. We intend to close tax loopholes and abusive shelters, and
with that we will gain $10 billion. And on and on and on. So we are
transparent in where we are getting our money from.
We intend to spend that money on priorities that we have identified
in the Congressional Black Caucus' agenda to close and eliminate
disparities that continue to exist in our country between African
Americans and other Americans in this country in education, in health
care, in every conceivable way that we can approach this. It is our
intention to do that.
Let there be no mistake. We are not here to apologize because we
think it is a higher priority for our country to eliminate and close
these disparities that have existed throughout our history. We think
that is more important than giving tax breaks to people who make over
$200,000 a year. That is the simple premise of our budget.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the
time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 20
minutes.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I want to thank the members of the
Congressional Black Caucus. Putting together a budget is not an easy
task. It takes a lot of work, a lot of time; so I want to thank them
for doing that and for proposing what I think is a piece of legislation
that really dramatically shows the differences between the two sides.
Compared to the committee budget, this substitute increases taxes by
$96.6 billion in fiscal year 2007 alone, and it increases taxes also on
the American people by $516.9 billion in the next 5 years.
Now, I know that when you deal with numbers of this scope, it is hard
for people, those of us here sometimes and people back home, to really
kind of grasp what that is, put that in perspective. So I wanted to try
to put what those numbers, those tax increases on the American people
that this amendment proposes, what they really are like.
The tax increase proposal for fiscal year 2007, again $96.6 billion,
proposed by this amendment, and I have a board here that has a picture
of the State of Florida, the State that I am honored to represent, and
they just had a legislative session in the State of Florida. The tax
increases in this amendment are larger than the entire budget of the
entire State of Florida. Now, keep in mind what we are talking about.
The State of Florida, the fourth most populous State in the entire
country, which funds from their budget schools and housing projects and
every road in the State and environmental protection, including
Everglades restoration, and law enforcement and prosecutors and health
care and the court system and the public defenders and the judges, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So if you get the entire
budget of the entire State of Florida, it is smaller than the tax
increases that this amendment proposes just in 1 year. Just in 1 year.
I think that kind of puts it in perspective.
But that is not all, because if you look at the tax increases
proposed for the 5-year program that this amendment proposes, which is
a tax increase on the hard-working American people of $516.9 billion,
and I have another board, that tax increase is larger than 1 year's
expenditure of Argentina, the Bahamas, Belarus, Belgium, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Egypt, Guatemala,
Honduras, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Panama, Puerto Rico, Thailand,
Uganda, Uzbekistan combined. So some people say we are spending too
much money on foreign aid. No. The tax increases in this amendment over
5 years are larger than what these countries spend in 1 year for all
their expenditures combined. I think that puts it in perspective.
But we can go further. We can go further. Let us put the entire
Western Hemisphere, this amendment is asking the taxpayers of the
United States in 5 years to pay in new increased taxes more than the
entire expenditures of the governments of the entire Western Hemisphere
combined. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Brazil, Argentina, Panama, Belize,
Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Guatemala,
Costa Rica, Haiti, Paraguay, and all the Caribbean. If you funded their
expenditures for 1 year, it is still not as large as the tax increase
that this amendment imposes on the American people for the next 5
years.
But some people may say, Well, I do not know a lot about those
countries, maybe they are just not that large. They are. But maybe they
are not that large. So let me see, what is the biggest economic
superpower that we hear about all the time? Let us pick China,
Communist China. We know what a huge superpower it is. We know that it
is an incredible monster of an economy. Let us look at what their
expenditures are in 1 year, and let us compare it to the tax increases
that this amendment proposes to impose on the American people in
increased taxes over the next 5 years.
The expenditures of China for 1 year, $424.3 billion, and yet this
tax increase on the hard-working American people over 5 years is larger
than that expenditure of China. But also throw on top of that the
entire budget of the State of Florida, and you still have about $20
billion of wiggle room to play with.
It is important to realize that there is a huge difference between
these two bills. Under the budget, the following tax relief under this
proposed amendment would obviously expire: the $1,000 child tax credit
that all families benefit from; the 10 percent bracket, which the
entire middle class benefits from; the repeal of the estate tax, which
obviously would kill small businesses by that tax increase.
And the worst part, though, is not only does it increase taxes to an
incredible degree, it also then cuts expenditures. For example, there
is no provision for supplemental funding for the combat operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq or even for natural disasters; so it increases
dramatically taxes, but does not fund our war effort. At the same time,
it cuts defense spending by $6.6 billion in budget authority and
another $4.6 billion in outlays. Again, it asks to do that at a time
when our men and women in uniform are in harm's way.
Again, I want to thank the sponsors because it is a dramatic
difference, but for all those reasons I would obviously urge a ``no''
vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, tell us, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) has
17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario
Diaz-Balart) has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I take it that the gentleman from Florida just spent 7
minutes telling the American people that for the people who make over
$200,000 a year, how much of a tax benefit they are giving them,
because all of the things he described adds up to the tax benefit that
these people are getting. And I appreciate the gentleman's doing that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent
request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

[[Page H2722]]

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Congressional Black Caucus budget.
The problem of successfully reintegrating ex-offenders back into
normal life is one of the major issues facing low income and minority
communities throughout the Nation. This problem continues to fester
throughout the United States of America. It is indeed a social as well
as a public safety issue.
Nearly 650,000 people are being released from federal and state
prisons this year. There are over 3,200 jails throughout the United
States, the vast majority of which are operated by county governments.
Each year, these jails will release in excess of 10,000,000 people back
into the community. We will continue to have these massive releases
over the next several years. The massive increase in incarceration in
the United States that occurred during the past 25 years must now turn
public attention toward the consequences of incarceration without
providing meaningful rehabilitation measures and access to reentry
programs and opportunities.
As we know, these large numbers of ex-offenders being released from
prison will cause enormous public safety problems for many communities,
especially where large numbers of ex-offenders will return and live in
the same neighborhoods. The Justice Department reported that the cost
of crime to victims is approximately $450 billion. Therefore, these
communities will absorb the high cost of further victimization as a
result of the presence of such a high number of ex-offenders.
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is concerned about the
Administration not requesting or adequately funding the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment Program, Gang Prevention, Juvenile Accountability Block
Grant, Juvenile Delinquency Block Grants and other programs.
The Congressional Black Caucus recommends increasing the funding
level up to $3.1 billion for justice programs and to expand the reentry
programs for nonviolent ex-offenders to facilitate their transition
from prison to normal community life. The CBC wants to ensure that
specific programs are receiving adequate funding to prevent crime,
increase public safety and reduce recidivism.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous
consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
budget resolution.
The budget is a reflection of this country's priorities.
According to this budget, however, our priorities are not sound.
This budget prioritizes deficits over balanced budgets, and tax cuts
over the health and education of the American people.
By eliminating 42 education programs, the budget disappoints our
children and wastes our opportunity to invest in their future.
It hurts low-incomes students' shot at the American Dream by wiping
out the GEAR-UP program that prepares them for college.
It threatens our future economic competitiveness by eliminating the
vocational education programs that help our students gain the skills to
compete in a global economy.
It abandons health care research by cutting the budgets of 18 out of
19 institutes within the National Institutes of Health.
It cuts programs aimed at preventing illness and disease while also
slashing programs that train health professionals to treat these
diseases.
Without doubt, sacrifices must be made to successfully implement the
war on terror and equip our troops.
But war costs are not even included in this budget, and the cuts on
the domestic side are doing nothing to reduce our deficit.
In fact, this budget puts us on a path to post a deficit of $348
billion for 2007--one of the largest deficits in our nation's history.
Mr. Speaker, we have a Democratic substitute before us that reflects
America's true values and would avoid the fiscal train-wreck that we're
currently facing.
Mr. Spratt's amendment puts us on the path toward balanced budgets
and would achieve a balanced budget in 2012.
It implements common-sense budget enforcement rules that require the
cost of any new mandatory spending or tax legislation to be fully
offset.
By exercising fiscal discipline, the Spratt proposal would achieve
balanced budgets while keeping our commitments to the health and
education of the American people.
It would increase our country's investment in education by $4.6
billion and adequately fund our health care priorities--including
medical research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers
for Disease Control.
It also keeps our promise to our country's veterans by rejecting the
administration's proposal to increase health care fees on military
retirees enrolled in TRICARE.
There's no question that the Spratt substitute strikes the best, most
practical balance between maintaining fiscal discipline and funding
national priorities.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for American values, get our fiscal
house in order, and put our nation back on track by opposing this
budget resolution and approving the Spratt substitute.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus's
budget is one that is fiscally responsible and aimed at reducing
disparities in America communities. The CBC alternative is proof that
even modest changes can result in tremendous outcomes.
A top priority of the CBC is addressing the exploding deficit. We
believe that if we do not control the budget today, we will not be able
to afford Social Security and Medicare in the future. Our fiscal
responsibility produces a balanced budget in 5 years. In fact, our
budget will have a surplus of $2.3 billion in fiscal year 2011.
Furthermore, it improves the deficit by an aggregate $313 billion and
results in savings of $10 billion in interest alone compared to the
Republican budget.
We did this by returning to the tax structure similar to the one we
had during the 1990s when the economy was strong, we created 20 million
jobs, and the stock market was doubling every 5 years. But the rollback
in tax cuts only affects that portion of an individual's income that
exceeds $200,000. Our revenue is used for critical spending and deficit
reduction.
The CBC alternative is committed to making America more secure by
supporting our military, investing in homeland security, and caring for
our veterans. It also adds to our security by funding initiatives such
as juvenile crime prevention programs and prisoner reentry programs.
Some of the funding for national security, urgent homeland security
needs, and veterans programs comes from a $9.4 billion reduction in
ballistic missile defense, better known as Star Wars. A portion of
these funds has been reallocated to protect our troops in Iraq,
increase the Army's troop level, maintain current National Guard
strength, and provide an additional $1 billion for Navy ship building.
Another portion of these funds is allocated to address the vital
homeland security needs, including port security grants. We provide an
additional $20 billion to improve veterans program. We believe that the
sum of all these initiatives will make us more secure as a Nation.
On the domestic side, the CBC alternative builds for America's future
and addresses domestic challenges by adding $80 billion to education
and job-training programs. It also provides more funding for health
care, social services, transportation, and scientific research.
The CBC alternative recognizes that it is the responsibility of the
government to assist in natural disasters that devastate an entire
region of our Nation. The CBC budget, therefore, provides the funding
for school and college reconstruction and housing in the Gulf Coast and
increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers. And furthermore, Mr.
Chairman, the Gulf Coast area shipyards will benefit from the $1
billion in funding for Navy ships.

{time} 2100

Mr. Chairman, another way of looking at the differences between the
CBC alternative and the Republican budget is to start with the CBC
budget and work backwards. In other words, what would you have to do to
the CBC budget in order to get to the Republican budget?
Well, first, you would have to repeal pay-as-you-go budgeting. Then
you would have to cut Army body armor and personal support equipment
for our troops in Iraq. We would have to decrease the Army's troop
level, reduce the National Guard strength, eliminate $1 billion out of
Navy shipbuilding, decrease port security and rail security grants,
remove Federal air marshals, delay first responder grants and cut $20
billion out of veterans programs, all to fund Star Wars and partially
fund the Republican tax cuts for those with incomes over $200,000.

[[Page H2723]]

Next you would have to cut $80 billion out of education and job
training, $20 billion out of health care, and reduce funding for
housing, community services, NASA research, Amtrak, the Coast Guard,
college financial aid, NIH funding, foster care, Low Income Home Energy
Assistance, housing, Medicare, juvenile justice and law enforcement
grants, all to fund a portion of the tax cuts going to those with
incomes over $200,000.
Third, you would have to borrow approximately $300 billion, mostly
from foreign governments, to fund the rest of the tax cuts for the
wealthiest in our society. And at the end of 5 years, you would have to
move from our $2.3 billion surplus in the CBC budget to the $163
billion deficit in the Republican budget. Mr. Chairman, that indeed
would be working backwards.
We have worked tirelessly to create a budget that is fiscally
responsible and recognizes the needs of the American communities around
the country. It is fiscally sound, protects and promotes the best
values of America, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first I yield myself
15 seconds to clarify something.
The gentleman just said that only the wealthy would pay. Here is a
board that I showed. There aren't enough wealthy people in the United
States to pay this amount of new taxes, and if they can't pay for it,
who is going to pay for it? The American people are going to pay for
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding.
You know, Mr. Chairman, there are some things we know about this
budget proposal and some things that we don't know. We know that it
raises taxes. We know that it raises taxes by a bunch. We know that it
is about $100 billion a year, or half a trillion dollars over 5 years;
that it raises taxes. What we don't really know is what taxes and for
how much.
Now, the gentlemen across the aisle have indicated that it is their
intention to raise taxes on those making $200,000 or more.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. WATT. I made no such intention. You characterized it that way. I
have never characterized it as raising taxes. We are rescinding the tax
cuts on income over $200,000.
I really appreciate you all continuing to point out to the American
people how much that represents when you look at it and to say that we
don't have enough rich people in the country to do that.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Reclaiming my time, it is funny. If I am
taxing you at 15 percent and then I tax you at 30 percent, I would
think that most people would think that was an increase. I don't know
how anyone would say that is not an increase. Four is more than three.
Five is more than four. Thirty percent is more than 15 percent. Twenty
percent is more than 15 percent. So you can call it anything you like,
but it is in fact a tax increase.
So my question is for you, which you can answer later, but have you
done any computations as to how you are going to tax?
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would like to
answer the question.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I would like to finish my remarks at this
time, if I could, thank you.
How you are going to tax people with $200,000 or more income? What
rate are you going to go to to raise this kind of money? So we know it
is going to tax a lot. We don't know exactly how. We also don't know,
because we don't know exactly how, what effect that is going to have on
the economy.
We can talk a lot about tax increases and so forth, but the fact is
that since the tax decreases of 2003, revenue to this government has
increased substantially. We are tracking nearly a 12 percent increase
this year after a 15 percent increase last year, and the rate since
2003 of increased revenues to the government is substantially higher
after the tax rate reduction of 2003 than it was after the tax
increases of the early 1990s.
You might find this hard to believe, but that is the way economics
works. Sometimes when a business lowers the price of a product, people
buy more of it and they actually make more money.
What has happened here is exactly that. We have lowered taxes, and
the economy has increased, the economy has grown, and more total
dollars are coming into the Federal Government. So we know taxes will
be increased, but we don't know how much this is going to depress the
economy. But it will.
Therefore, even though you may increase taxes at the rate of $100
billion a year, you will not see $100 billion a year revenue, because
we know also the computations show that the tax decreases we have had
already actually resulted in increased revenue.
The other thing we know that it does is it spends more money. The
gentleman from Virginia outlined a bunch of things, most of which
sounded to me as though it was discretionary spending increases, I
believe, which means that if I am doing the math correctly, we are
looking at discretionary spending increases of about 7 percent just in
one year, 7 percent every year, which, if you keep that going with the
entitlement increases which are already there, and there is no
entitlement reform to deal with those, it is so perplexing to me that
you introduce a budget on the basis of it being fiscally responsible
and balancing, and then you propose to increase spending along the way,
and increase spending by as much as 7 percent a year on discretionary
spending.
That is not how you balance budgets. That is not how you get things
back in line, by increasing spending.
Also, there was a discussion of smoke and mirrors. Well, the other
thing that was included in the committee's budget was a reserve for
natural disasters, which I believe you now have added to your budget
here just recently, but there is an additional reserve we have for the
war, the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, you may not agree with that war, and that is not the issue we
are discussing today, but even if you were to terminate, decide you
were going to immediately withdraw from both Iraq and Afghanistan,
there will be additional supplemental expenditures going into next year
even to do that. So by not including that, you are not including some
additional spending, which is going to happen and is not included in
your budget which is included in the committee's budget.
So, in summary, I think we are looking at higher taxes, less economic
growth, more spending, and I would argue, when computed properly,
higher deficits.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just submit to the gentleman that I would
rather educate my children than give a tax cut to people on income over
$200,000. I hope he agrees with me.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Jefferson).
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, not only does the Black Caucus budget restore fiscal
discipline and fund important programs, of personal significance to me
and to my constituents and the millions of Americans along the gulf
coast whose lives are turned upside down by Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, the CBC budget acknowledges a reality that the Republican budget
ignores.

announcement by the acting chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). Visitors in the gallery should
remain quiet.
The gentleman from Louisiana may proceed.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, that reality is that recovery is a long-
term effort. Recovery in New Orleans will not be achieved in a single
fiscal year, and it should not be accomplished with emergency
appropriations.
There are a number of pieces of the recovery that we know will take
time to achieve, for example, enhancing the levees and flood protection
systems along the gulf coast, and restoring homes and businesses. The
Army Corps of Engineers has told the Congress repeatedly that this
project will take from 5 to 7 years to complete; and yet

[[Page H2724]]

not only does the Republican budget provide no funding for this
project, it actually cuts overall funding for the Corps of Engineers at
a time of extreme need. By contrast, the CBC provides significant
additional funding to enhance our hurricane and flood protection
systems back home.
The Republican budget starves housing programs at a time when along
the gulf coast we are facing the gravest housing crisis in our Nation's
long history. The CBC budget recognizes the need for a long-term
commitment to solving our housing crisis confronting thousands of
Americans across Mississippi and Louisiana and provides significant
resources for this critically needed project in our area.
Mr. Chairman, the budget of the United States government should
reflect the values and the priorities of the American people. After
all, as our nation's first Republican President described it, the
government of our great country is supposed to be a ``government of the
people, by the people, for the people.'' The Republican budget before
us today, however, ignores the needs of the vast majority of the
American people in order to preserve tax benefits that overwhelmingly
benefit very few, very wealthy Americans. In other words, the priority
of the Republican budget seems to reflect a devotion to taking care of
those with the most, while overlooking those with the greatest need.
The preparation of the federal budget by Congress is similar to a
family's preparation of its household budget. In order for it to
succeed, priorities must be set, and discipline must be exercised. Too
often, however, discipline is sacrificed to the pleasures of the
moment. In Washington, we call the consequences of such behavior budget
deficits. In our households, we call those consequences debt. Neither
is good--for the country or for our families.
As a reflection of our nation's priorities, the Republican budget
resolution that we debate today is a clear demonstration of just how
fundamentally the Republican majority misunderstands the needs of the
American people. It is fiscally reckless, morally bankrupt, and utterly
devoid of the type of economic discipline and leadership that the
nation requires--a budget that sets yet another record budget deficit
and threatens to unravel completely the social safety net that protects
the least among us in the places where the need is greatest.
The Republican budget resolution continues to drive our nation's
budget deficit higher; fails to protect Social Security and Medicare;
underfunds education; makes damaging cuts to community and regional
development programs, income security programs, the Earned Income Tax
Credit, child care and foster care programs, and nutrition programs;
cuts veterans programs while simultaneously imposing new fees on
veterans for current services; and includes harmful cuts to Medicaid,
thereby jeopardizing health care for over 52 million children, parents,
seniors and disabled individuals who rely on the program for their
healthcare.
In sum, the Republican budget we are considering today offers the
most to those who need the very least and takes the most from those who
can least afford it.
During debate of this budget, I have heard a great deal of rhetoric
about hard choices and shared sacrifice. However, it seems that the
only choice my Republican friends have made is the easiest one a
politician can make--to continue to cut taxes, however fiscally
irresponsible perpetuating them may be. With respect to shared
sacrifice, the evidence leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that the
only sacrifices in this budget are being borne by the poor, the elderly
on fixed incomes, the infirm, children and students. Accordingly, in
the Bizarro world of the Republican budget, those with the least are
compelled to sacrifice the most, while those with the most are not
asked to sacrifice at all. That formula certainly does not reflect my
priorities; nor, I am confident, does it reflect the priorities of the
American people.
In one of his great parables, Jesus once said, ``when you give a
banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you
will be blessed.'' If you compare this budget to the great banquet He
described, in this budget, there are place cards and a sumptuous feast
for the Forbes 400 and the Fortune 500, for the rich and the powerful--
but, like Lazarus at the rich man's gate, the economically
disenfranchised, the working families struggling to make ends meet, the
students trying to get the education they need, those whose lives of
poverty shocked the conscience of the nation when Hurricane Katrina
exposed the straits so many grapple with daily in this wealthiest
country in the world--they will be lucky to get even the scraps that
fall from the table this budget constructs.
By contrast, my friend from South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on
the House Budget Committee, and the Congressional Black Caucus have
offered two alternatives to the Republican budget that are fiscally
responsible while meeting the real needs of the American people.
Both alternatives restore fiscal discipline, protect Social Security,
narrow disparities for minorities in healthcare, education and wealth
creation, and fund national priorities like education, veterans'
programs, and community development programs.
The Democratic substitute achieves a balanced budget in 7 years, by
2012, all the while balancing fiscal responsibility with the moral
obligation to maintain the social safety net for Americans in greatest
need.
The CBC budget alternative achieves balance even earlier, by 2011,
and yet still makes great progress toward narrowing the growing
disparities in America's communities by focusing on education, health
care, economic opportunity, justice, and retirement security. It fully
funds the President's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB); provides an
extension for the Head Start Program; increases federal funding for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving
Institutions; enhances the Pell Grant allotment for college students;
provides additional funding for the Minority Health Initiative and for
Community Health Centers in urban and rural communities; increases
assistance for job training, workforce development and adult education;
funds home ownership programs; restores funding for Community
Development Block Grants; and improves funding for law enforcement
programs such as COPS.
Of personal significance to me, to my constituents and to the
millions of Americans all along the Gulf coast whose lives were turned
upside down by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the CBC budget acknowledges
a reality that the Republican budget ignores--that recovery is a long-
term effort. Recovery will not be achieved in a single fiscal year, and
it should not be accomplished through emergency appropriations. There
are a number of pieces of the recovery that we know will take time to
achieve, for example, enhancing the levees and the hurricane and flood
protection systems along the Gulf coast. The Army Corps of Engineers
has told the Congress repeatedly that this project will take from 5 to
7 years to complete, and yet not only does the Republican budget
provide no funding for this project, it actually cuts overall funding
for the Corps of Engineers at a time of extreme need. By contrast, the
CBC budget provides significant additional funding to enhance our
hurricane and flood protection system back home.
The Republican budget starves housing programs at a time when, along
the Gulf coast, we are facing the gravest housing crisis in our
nation's long history. Both the Democratic and CBC alternatives
recognize the need for a long-term commitment to resolving the housing
crisis confronting thousands of Americans in Louisiana and Mississippi
and provide significant resources for that critically important effort.
In the face of a natural disaster that laid waste to colleges and
schools all along the Gulf coast, the Republican budget turns a blind
eye to both the immediate and long term needs for reconstruction and
rehabilitation of our education infrastructure. By contrast, both the
Democratic and CBC alternatives provide additional resources to meet
those challenges.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, both these alternatives recognize the success
and critical importance of community and regional development programs
to our nation's economy and to the recovery of our economy back home.
Both alternatives allocate additional monies to these programs, while
the Republican budget significantly shortchanges CDBG and other
programs despite tremendous support and real current and long-term
needs.
For these reasons, I am proud to rise in strong support of both the
Democratic and CBC alternatives and in fervent opposition to the
Republican budget. I will continue to fight to ensure that the needs
and values of the least among us--hard-working American families--are
reflected in the legislation we consider in the Congress. A responsible
budget is the first step towards building a future worthy of the trust
of the American people; and the Democratic and CBC alternatives are a
step in the right direction; the Republican budget resolution is, at
best, a step backward.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the
Black Caucus budget for what it does for my district back home.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30
seconds.
We keep hearing from the gentlemen on the other side that they only
want to raise taxes on those making over $200,000. Well, the numbers
just don't add up. In order to raise the amount of taxes they are
talking about, which is, again, larger than the budgets for 1 year for
just about all the countries in the Western Hemisphere, they would have
to let all the tax cuts expire, including the child tax credit, et
cetera,

[[Page H2725]]

et cetera, et cetera, and they would still have to find another $63
billion in tax increases for everybody else as well. So that is what
the numbers are.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is
a better statement for our country's values. Educators are asking for a
fully funded No Child Left Behind because America's children are being
left behind; seniors deserve accessible health care, but Medicare part
D is leaving everyone confused; and veterans are only asking to receive
the health care that recruiters promised them and that they deserve.
But, you know, Tupac observed a long time ago that there's money for
war, but we can't feed the poor.
Sadly, a study done by the Pentagon estimated that Halliburton has
received over 52 percent of the $25 billion that it has paid to
contractors. The study also shows that Halliburton presented
questionable bills for nearly $2 billion, lost prefabricated bases
worth over $75 million, and yet Halliburton still gets new contracts.
If this Congress wants to truly balance the budget and satisfy the
needs of working Americans, it should vote to pass the Congressional
Black Caucus budget.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30
seconds.
Again, I just want to repeat that this amendment is such a huge tax
increase that they would have to increase the child tax credit; the 10
percent bracket; the marriage penalty relief would go away, that tax
cut; the education tax relief would disappear under their proposal; the
pension reforms would disappear under their proposal; the AMT relief
would disappear under their proposal; and they would even increase the
death tax. Yes, even taxation with no respiration takes place in this
amendment. It is a huge tax increase. And they cut defense while doing
all those things. The numbers are there.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, a minute gives me time to make
one essential point: mark the time as 9:15 tonight, the first time
anyone has mentioned that 3 hours ago the President of the United
States signed a $70 billion increase to the deficit that was enacted by
this body 1 week ago, and it returns to your fundamental point about
candor.
This document levels with the American people and the choices it
makes, the CBC document. The document in opposition it us tonight and
the RSC document do not level with the American people, because how do
you defend a document on the grounds of fiscal austerity and add $70
billion to the deficit? It is the wrong set of choices, and it masks a
retreat from all kinds of commitments, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, if this budget levels with
the American people, then level with the American people and tell them
what taxes you are going to raise. Tell them who you are going to raise
it on, tell them how much you are going to raise it.
Mr. WATT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Sir, I am only taking a minute and a
half. You can respond at that time, because I have several other
questions.
Tell them who you are going to raise it on, what rates they are going
to be and what effect those are going to have on the economy.
Again, level with the American people on whether or not the spending
that you have added to this thing increases the deficit or not, and
level with the American people about whether or not you have accounted
for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are still going on, and level
with the American people about whether or not you have included any
reform of the entitlement programs that will soon eat up two-thirds of
our entire Federal revenues and eventually eat up 100 percent of our
Federal revenues; and level with the American people that that tax cut
that the President just signed today, that increased time of those tax
rates, has increased the economy in the United States and resulted in
more revenue to the Federal Government and thereby reduced the deficit.

{time} 2115

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlemen from
Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked what is
going to happen to the deficit. The red line is the Republican deficit
year by year; the blue line is the CBC deficit year by year.
We end up with a $2.3 billion surplus, while you are still $163
billion in the ditch.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, can you tell us how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 9\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentlemen from Florida has 5\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Congressional Black Caucus budget and in opposition to the Republican
budget.
The Republican budget falls short on every account, especially when
it comes to our defense priorities. The CBC budget reallocates $9.4
billion from an unworkable missile defense program and puts it into
real security priorities like making sure that our troops have enough
body armor, like ensuring that our veterans have enough access to
benefits, and like securing our ports.
This substitute takes a first step at combating the enormous problems
of waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon. GAO has concluded that one-
third of the recommendations made to DOD on waste, fraud and abuse in
the last 5 years has saved $40.8 billion by implementing them. Imagine
how much would be saved and put into education, into health care, into
job creation, into creating a liveable world for our communities here
in America and abroad, if, in fact, the rest of these recommendations
are implemented.
This substitute would require the Defense Department to work on
eliminating waste, fraud and abuse immediately. Our national security
priorities are taken very seriously in this budget. Let us support the
Congressional Black Caucus budget.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30
seconds.
Mr. Chairman, this is very simple. If you think that we should
eliminate the child tax credit and raise those taxes on child credit,
support this amendment. If you believe that we should eliminate the 10
percent bracket, support this amendment. If you believe that the
marriage penalty should be increased, that the tax on marriage should
be increased, vote for this amendment.
If you do not believe in the education tax relief, vote for this
amendment. If you do not want the pension reforms that we have that
have taken place, vote for this amendment. If you support not relieving
the AMT, support this amendment. And if you believe that people should
pay taxes even after they are dead, support this amendment. If you
believe also that we should cut defense, support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support
for the fair, balanced, responsible, compassionate and patriotic
Congressional Black Caucus budget, and with no apology for not giving
the wealthy any more tax cuts and using that money instead for our
children, our ill and our poor.
Mr. Chairman, just looking at health care where the Republican budget
reduces access to health care through cuts to Medicaid and SCHIP, ours
restores funding for our children and our poor.
Where their budget underfunds HIV/AIDS, mental health and substance
abuse programs, we ensure these important services continue to enable
all

[[Page H2726]]

of us in our country to be the best we can be.
Where the Republican budget cuts help for veterans training that
would ensure the diverse and robust workforce this country needs, the
CBC maintains and opens up this pipeline. We add or restore funding to
many programs important to all Americans, Healthy Start, Rural Health,
Gulf Coast health infrastructure repair, NIH research to improve
everyone's health. We further strengthen the Office of Minority Health
and others that promote wellness and help families and communities.
The strength of our country depends on the health of our people, our
economic well-being, a well-equipped staff and paid military, adherence
to our founding values and commitment to freedom and opportunity for
all. Mr. Chairman, that is what the CBC budget supports. It does so
bringing us back into balance way ahead of the Republican budget. I
urge its passage.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15
seconds.
For the record, our budget has no cuts in SCHIP or Medicaid
whatsoever. Get the record straight. It is not there. We also have no
cuts in defense. Their amendment does cut defense radically.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown)
(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, breaking news: 77 percent
of the American people said that the Republicans are leading us in the
wrong direction.
The CBC once again created a budget that truly meets the needs of the
American people. This budget fully funds Leave No Child Behind;
restores $70 million in cuts made to Medicare; adds $4.5 billion in
benefits and services for veterans; provides increased funding for
public transportation, the Coast Guard, and ports and rail security;
closes corporate tax loopholes; and keeps U.S. companies from sending
jobs overseas, all while balancing the budget by 2011 and saving $10.5
billion on national debt interest payments.
The CBC budget is the responsible budget that truly meets the needs
of the American people. Shame on the Republican leadership for once
again pushing a budget to help their country club friends and giving
the hard-working American people the shaft. Vote for the CBC budget.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank our chairman for
yielding to us. The Federal budget is $2.8 trillion. Ways and Means
takes two-thirds of that. This budget is some $800-, nearly $900
billion. CBC's budget is within that. We pay as you go. We also invest
in families, in health care, in education, in schools, in veterans
health.
Mr. Chairman, it is the only budget that will be before you tonight
that addresses the families in America. Vote for the CBC budget. It is
the budget that will restore and make sure that our families are
strong. We have put a lot of time and attention in this. I want to
commend Congressman Scott from Virginia and our own Chairman Watt. The
CBC budget is sound, it is fiscal, and it strengthens America's
families.
A top priority of the CBC is to address the exploding budget deficit.
If we do not control the budget today, we will not be able to afford
Social Security and Medicare in the future.
The CBC Alternative brings the budget into balance in 5 years and
generates a surplus of $2.3 billion by FY 2011.
Improves the deficit by a cumulative total of $313 billion and
results in a savings of $10.5 billion in interest on the national debt.
The CBC Budget achieves fiscal balance by aligning our spending and
tax policies on a glide path that restores the financial future health
of the country.
It establishes PAYGO as a House rule, so we will avoid spending what
we do not have. We must be realistic and include revenues and spending
in any effort to bring our deficits under control. PAYGO does that.
Ignoring PAYGO ignores the successful formula that brought us balanced
budgets in the last half of the 1990s.
It reduces funding for Ballistic Missile Defense, so we can increase
funding for homeland security, veterans programs, and honor our
commitment to our troops and their families.
The CBC Budget reflects American values by investing in the security
of our Nation, providing the health care for our veterans and
supporting our troops who serve on the front lines.
It increases funding for homeland security needs to provide for port
security grants, interoperable communications systems for first
responders, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
enhanced aviation security.
It invests in other domestic priorities such as juvenile crime
prevention, prisoner re-entry programs, restores cuts the Republican
budget proposes in veterans' health care and improves benefits to the
survivors of veterans.
For all the President's talk about free trade, the CBC budget help
those who are dislocated by our trade policies by providing $80 billion
more in education and job training, and $20 million more for health
care. It provides satisfactory levels of funding for Amtrak, Hope VI
and Section 8 housing programs, and the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program.
My Republican friends are saying that their budget exercises fiscal
constraint. Any budget that contains more tax expenditures than cost
savings is not an exercise in fiscal responsibility. Last year we
enacted $38 billion in spending cuts in one reconciliation bill, but
cut taxes by another $70 billion in another reconciliation bill. The
Republican budget follows that same formula. That is not the pathway to
fiscal sanity.
Support the CBC Budget Alternative.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the
balance of our time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, can you tell us how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank Chairman Watt,
and, of course, let me thank Congressman Scott for his excellent work,
and all of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Mr. Chairman, I have not heard the theme of priorities being
addressed on the floor of the House today. That is what the CBC budget
represents. I would like to be standing here for working Americans,
middle-class Americans.
With the CBC budget, we save $10.5 billion more in interest. That
money goes into the pockets of working Americans. We cut the trillions
and trillions and trillions of dollars of deficit, and we are able then
to cut, if you will, the kinds of insidious, insidious, eliminate cuts
on the budget that hurt the people of America.
I like the CBC budget because, in fact, it provides the opportunity
to eliminate the $6 billion cuts that you make on veterans health care,
or the $6 billion cuts that you make over 5 years on homeland security.
Mr. Chairman, it restores the moneys to Head Start. It restores the
money to Pell Grants. It restores the money to provide better health
care for Americans. And, yes, it provides $10.5 billion of interest
back in the pockets of Americans.
Vote for the CBC budget. It balances the budget, but most importantly
it stands for working Americans.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this side has this
right to close? I want to make sure that that is correct.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The member of the committee in opposition has
the right to close.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the
balance of our time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair repeat what he just said?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has the right to
close.
Mr. WATT. Can I make a parliamentary inquiry as to why that is the
case? It is our amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is manager in
opposition to the amendment. Under

[[Page H2727]]

clause 3(c) of rule XVII, the manager in opposition has the right to
close.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my
chairman, Mel Watt, for the work that he has done in this area, and
particularly my colleague Bobby Scott from Virginia for all of his
work.
Mr. Chairman, I want to focus on one particular area, and that is the
provision in the CBC budget that doubles training funds for trade
adjustment assistance programs to $518 million.
This program was established in 1962, and it assists workers who have
lost their jobs due to international trade by providing unemployment
and job training. We keep hearing from the Republican side that
unemployment is down and dollars are up, but in my congressional
district, there are areas where unemployment is significant, and
specifically due to trade.
Mr. Chairman, I ask all of you to join us in supporting this CBC
budget that provides for job training and unemployment assistance for
those workers who would love to pay taxes if they only had a job.
Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is fiscally
responsible and protects the services that millions of hard working
Americans depend on.
The CBC alternative balances the budget in five years, and adopts the
pay-as-you-go budget rules.
At the same time, our budget increases spending for health care by
$20 billion, education and job training by $80 billion, and veteran
benefits by $20 billion.
That is fiscal responsibility--balancing our checkbook without
cutting the important services that millions of Americans depend on.
One provision in the CBC budget that I strongly support is the
doubling of training funds for the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
program to $518,000,000.
The program, which was established in 1962, assists workers who have
lost their jobs due to international trade by providing unemployment
benefits and job training.
However, many states exhaust their TAA training funds well before the
end of the fiscal year.
In its past three budgets, the Administration has only requested an
increase for TAA training of only $100,000.
That is unacceptable and insufficient when measured against the
number of jobs being lost due to international trade.
I urge my colleagues to support this TAA provision and the CBC
budget--fiscally responsible while at the same time fair to millions of
hard working Americans.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance
of our time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, most especially Mr. Scott,
for their unwavering support for the development of the CBC alternative
budget that encompasses progressive and visionary funding motivated by
principle and compassion.
The CBC alternative understands that our Nation's transportation
system is the backbone of our economy and our way of life, either of
which we cannot afford to shortchange. The CBC budget increases funding
for public transportation, Amtrak, the FAA's airport improvement
program, and other vital infrastructure programs crucial to ensure a
stable economy.
The CBC alternative supports greater competitiveness in science and
technology. As a senior member of the Science Committee, I feel it is
important to invest in our children's future. Federal entitlements such
as NASA and the National Science Foundation need funding to inspire
today's youth so that we can have a future in research.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, that Members of this body listen to their
conscience. We are in a position to prevent funding atrocities to
infiltrate and demise progress. The Nation's budget cannot be based on
one party's sole agenda. We cannot allow societal factors to divide us
in irresponsible spending or unconscionable tax breaks to define us.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of the Congressional Black
Caucus, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Scott for their leadership and unwavering
support for the development of this alternative budget. I also would
like to thank all the members of the CBC and their staff for their help
in completing this very important task. I appreciate and applaud their
efforts on issues important to all of us.
The CBC alternative budget prioritizes the .importance of social
justice by advocating for the forgotten poor and more specifically
addressing the needs of African Americans and other neglected
minorities. The CBC alternative budget is filled with progressive and
visionary funding and is motivated by principle and compassion.
It is a budget that voices the concerns and needs of the poor, the
children and the elderly that have been so easily set aside by this
administration.
The shortsightedness of the Republican budget mirrors that of its
drafters. The Republican budget `` borrows from future generations to
pay for today's unconscionable tax cuts and irresponsible deficit
spending. It offers a $372 billion deficit in 2006 and $348 billion in
2007, and $1.1 trillion worth of deficits over five years.
The Republican budget proposal ignores the needs of Texans and all
hard working Americans and places the burden of the offset on their
shoulders. It reduces taxes for the wealthiest Americans and slams the
door on economic opportunity for working families. It reduces veterans'
health care by $6 billion, education by $45.3 billion, public health by
$18.1 billion, and environmental protection by $25.0 billion. They also
include $6.8 billion in reconciliation cuts to mandatory programs.
The CBC alternative understands that our Nation's transportation
system is the backbone of our economy and a way of life, either of
which, we cannot afford to shortchange. The CBC budget increases
funding for public transportation, Amtrak, the FAA's Airport
Improvement Program, and other vital infrastructure programs crucial to
ensure a stable economy.
The CBC alternative supports greater competitiveness in science and
technology. As a senior Member of the House Science Committee, I feel
it is important to invest in our children's futures. Federal entities
such as NASA and the National Science Foundation need funding to
inspire today's students and produce tomorrow's researchers. The
science budget funds our scientific and engineering workforce, supports
teacher enrichment programs, and helps inspire future generations of
researchers. Our Nation's future depends more and more on the quality
of our innovative ideas. The fruits of these investments meet vital
national needs and improve the quality of life for all Americans.
The CBC alternative budget also provides funding for the minority
health initiative, health insurance for the uninsured, child nutrition
programs, job creation programs under the SBA, the extension of
unemployment insurance benefits and eliminating the disabled veteran's
tax. It provides $80 billion over the next five years for education and
job training programs and provides over $20 billion more for health
care programs than the Republican budget. It also provides $6 billion
more on community and regional development which encompasses job
creation programs under SBA, community and regional development
programs, nutritional programs, Hope VI and Section 8 Housing Programs,
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, and housing for the disabled and the
elderly.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, that Members of this body listen to their
conscience. We are in a position to prevent funding atrocities to
infiltrate and demise progress. This Nation's budget cannot be based on
one party's sole agenda. We cannot allow societal factors to divide us
and irresponsible spending or unconscionable tax cuts to define us.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to
how many speakers the sponsor of the amendment has lined up still?
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlemen will give us some more time,
we have a whole list of speakers over here. But we are going to run out
of time before we run out of speakers, I can assure you.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen
for his answer. I will always try to accommodate him as much as
possible to close.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman give us some time?
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can
work that out.

{time} 2130

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida for a
unanimous consent request because we don't have enough time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the Chairman, and I rise in support
of the CBC morally and fiscally responsible budget.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)

[[Page H2728]]

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, the CBC budget continues to clearly support
education and job training as its number one priority. Over a 5-year
period, $80 billion in increased funding is recommended.
Everybody in Washington talks about the dangerous deficiencies in
American education when compared with other industrialized nations and
China. Twenty-three years ago when I came here, ``A Nation At Risk''
was the report commissioned by President Reagan, and it said all the
same things about how deficient our education system was. Several
recent studies also indicate these same kinds of deficiencies in math
and science and other areas. Oprah Winfrey and Bill and Melinda Gates
have taken this alarm to a mass audience.
The whining and complaining about education goes on and on here in
Washington, but nobody wants to appropriate any money except the CBC.
Mr. Speaker, the future prosperity and security of our Nation is
clearly dependent on our human resources, our brain power; and that
brain power, large parts of it are in our inner cities' communities,
and they need more funding for education. I urge all Members to vote
for this CBC budget as the budget that deals with the priority of
education.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I am trying to see, Mr. Chairman,
if we can work out to give the sponsor a little bit more time. So with
the indulgence of the Chair, I just want to make sure, I believe we
have 4\1/2\ minutes on this side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Florida has
4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. At this time, we will reserve and
thank you.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on our side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the CBC budget is the most fiscally
responsible budget. It creates a balanced budget by eliminating the tax
cuts for those earning more than $200,000, and eliminates tax abuse
shelters and corporate tax loopholes.
Unlike the Republican budget that underfunds education, the CBC fully
funds No Child Left Behind. Unlike the Republican budget that cuts
health care for programs including Medicare, the CBC budget provides
$20 billion for health care for the more than 45 million uninsured
Americans. The CBC budget honors our veterans returning from Iraq by
providing $250 million more for veterans mental health programs and
$200 million for direct medical services. Finally, it gives real
meaning to protecting our homeland by providing an additional $1
billion for port security, $50 million for air marshals, and $420
million for police and fire departments, the first responders to a
disaster or terrorist attack.
The CBC budget is balanced and even creates a surplus by 2011. I urge
my colleagues to reject the irresponsible Republican budget and adopt
the CBC budget.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to
do, in an abundance of fairness, is cede 1\1/2\ minutes to the sponsors
of the amendment with the huge tax increases on all the American
people.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from North
Carolina will control an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WATT. Would the Chairman tell me what that means I have left
total?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, this fits a well-worn routine: another
year, another Republican budget awash in red ink, a reflection of the
same failed priorities that have caused the Federal debt to balloon by
$3.5 trillion since President Bush took office.
Mr. Chairman, we often talk about the national debt and budget
deficit as though they were abstract value-neutral terms. In fact, they
are very real threats to the security, prosperity, and health of our
Nation. The national debt is money borrowed from our children and
grandchildren's future.
Furthermore, this budget slashes funding for the priorities critical
to American families. Community health funding is cut by $99 million.
Renewable energy programs are cut to protect billions in tax giveaways
to oil companies. And hundreds of thousands of veterans will face new
health care fees.
Budgets are statements of what we value here in Congress, and this
budget's lack of value should shame us all.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would
like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, what I hear here and what I
see here are four things: tax, spend, smoke, and mirrors.
Tax. We have seen, we have heard half a trillion dollars over 5
years, massive tax increase as yet not clearly defined, but a massive
tax increase nonetheless.
Spend. Spending, that is, nearly a 7 percent increase in
discretionary spending, that sort of spending which is unsustainable
over time without constantly accelerating tax increases. So spending
supposedly as the way to get us out of the deficit.
Smoke. Smoke to hide those things which are not addressed in the
budget, such as the spending necessary for the war in Afghanistan and
Iraq, and to deal with the ever escalating entitlement spending that we
have going forth.
And mirrors used to make all of this look like somehow it is going to
reduce the deficit over time, which I assure you, with the reduction to
the economic growth that this will do and the additional spending that
is in here and the lack of reform on any of that spending, I absolutely
assure you, reducing the deficit is one thing this budget will not do.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
I will let my colleagues and the American people determine what our
budget does, but let me summarize it. The CBC budget balances the
budget in 5 years, and is the only budget you are going to see on this
floor tonight that yields a surplus at the end of 5 years instead of a
deficit.
The CBC saves $10.5 billion in interest on the national debt over
that period. The CBC budget adopts the PAYGO rules which you all have
forgotten about.
Even with those accomplishments, the CBC budget funds these important
programs: $80 billion more on education and job training, $20 billion
more on veterans benefits and services, $20 billion more on health
care, $6 billion more on community and regional development including
the gulf coast, and billions more on research, nutrition, and food
programs. And where do we get it from? On that money that comes from
people making over $200,000 a year. We think these are higher
priorities, and we are honest enough to tell you so.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again there is a huge
difference between our budget and this budget by the CBC, the
prestigious Members of the Democratic Congress. They increase taxes on
the American people by almost $1 trillion over 5 years while cutting
defense spending in a time of war.
To put it in perspective one more time, let us look at this. Look at
all the countries south of Mexico, and excluding Florida, all the
Caribbean, all of Central and South America. Their revenues, their
expenditures over 1 year are smaller than the tax increases that this
amendment proposes to impose on the hardworking American people over
the next 5 years. That is the reality.
The bottom line is if you believe in massive tax increases large
enough to fund the expenditures of all the countries in Latin America,
if you believe in that, you would support this amendment.
If you believe that the American people are paying enough taxes, that
we have got to use it more efficiently, and that we should not cut
defense spending in a time of war, I would then urge

[[Page H2729]]

my colleagues to respectfully oppose this well-intentioned but
devastating amendment to the American taxpayer and to the American
economy.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the FY 07
Republican Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 376, and in support of the
Congressional Black Caucus Budget Substitute.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican Budget sets a record--not for balancing
the budget, lowering the deficit, or reducing our reliance on foreign
debt--but for exceeding the callousness evident in President Bush's
Budget for America. This ``compromise'' is devoid of direction, balance
and compassion.
It slashes K-12 programs, job training, Community Development and
Social Services Block grants. It cuts veterans health care, the
homeland security function; mandatory student loan spending and
programs that help feed low-income elderly, mothers and children.
The sad truth is that all of these cuts are the sacrificial lamb for
tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. While many
Americans are struggling under mounting debt and our country faces
record deficits, this Budget funds another shameless $228 billion in
tax cuts over 5 years.
The CBC Alternative Budget offers a real budget for all Americans. It
would balance the budget, restore pay-as-you-go principles and restore
funding to critical programs; not by creating deficits, but by
rescinding the tax cuts for those making over $200,000, eliminating
corporate tax incentives and closing corporate loopholes--all while
eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.
I urge my colleagues to support the CBC Alternative Budget, which
represents a return to fiscal discipline and responsibility and focuses
our spending priorities on ALL Americans.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of the American people, and the Congressional Black Caucus' Alternative
U.S. Budget (CBC Budget).
Mr. Chairman, budgets are moral documents. They reflect in a very
real sense, our deep beliefs, our priorities, and define us as a
community and as a Nation. So it is with deep regret that, as people of
conscience, we must rise against this attack on seniors, children,
families, workers, and small business--against the Majority's budget
which levies an enormous cost on the backs of the majority of
Americans, in order to benefit the wealthiest few among us.
Make no mistake about it--the majority's budget is a reckless and
unfair attack on most Americans. It exacerbates our national debt in an
age when we have already squandered a $5.6 trillion budget surplus and
added $3 trillion in debt. It freezes important domestic programs--
reducing veterans' health care by $6 billion, education by $45.3
billion, public health by $18.1 billion, and environmental protection
by $25.0 billion--while also adding $6.8 billion in reconciliation cuts
to mandatory programs. It is outrageous, Mr. Chairman, and it's simply
un-American.
The CBC budget, which my office helped to draft, restores fiscal
responsibility, balancing the budget in 5 years and creating a surplus
of $2.3 billion in FY 2011. It reduces the deficit by $313 billion and
saves $10.5 billion in interest payments compared to the Majority's
budget. And it adopts PAYGO rules, so that Congress balances our
checkbook just like most Americans do.
The CBC Budget adds $32 billion in Education, Training, Employment
and Social Services, $1 billion in Natural Resources and Environment;
and $5.4 billion in Health programs. It increases security and critical
investments for our homeland, for our troops, for rail and port
security grants, cargo and air cargo screening equipment, first
responders, federal air marshals, and the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
It funds juvenile justice and local law enforcement programs, while
restoring cuts in veterans' health care, enhances benefits to our
veterans in survivor benefits, medical and prosthetic research, long-
term care, and mental health care. It provides $80 billion more for
education and job training programs than the Republic budget over 5
years, including funding for No Child Left Behind and school
construction. It funds the minority health initiative, child nutrition
programs, job creation programs, community and regional development,
Gulf Coast reconstruction, scientific research, transportation,
Medicare, and a variety of greatly-needed housing initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, we have a historic opportunity before us, to help
millions of Americans, and to turn back the clock on fiscal policies,
the effect of which this Nation will endure for decades. I urge my
colleagues to join in conscience, and adopt this CBC Budget.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131,
noes 294, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 155]

AYES--131

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--294

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo

[[Page H2730]]

Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Cardoza
Clay
Evans
Kennedy (RI)
Larson (CT)
Stupak
Turner

{time} 2201

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 155, the Watt Substitute
for the Budget I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part B amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute
printed in House Report 109-468 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2007.

The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2007 is hereby established and that
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008
through 2011 are set forth.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2007 through 2011:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $1,758,926,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,845,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,927,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,016,539,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,084,848,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be reduced are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $60,447,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $76,088,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $103,277,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $118,773,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $271,582,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $2,197,306,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,208,964,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,247,453,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,271,960,000,000
Fiscal year 2011: $2,329,022,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $2,262,787,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,257,421,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,263,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,301,476,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,340,846,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $503,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $412,170,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $335,307,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $284,937,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $255,998,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $9,156,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,690,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,146,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,542,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $10,916,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2007: $5,270,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $5,477,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,591,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $5,637,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $5,637,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

[[Page H2731]]

(A) New budget authority, $7,963,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,974,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $7,965,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,423,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $7,967,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,466,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $78,706,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,415,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $75,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,978,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $73,973,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $72,876,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,155,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $71,986,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,929,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $269,698,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $272,369,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $279,170,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $279,387,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $291,222,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $288,810,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $300,435,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $299,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $312,928,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $311,802,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $359,207,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $364,668,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $376,393,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $376,441,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $395,226,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,815,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $413,594,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $413,906,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $437,641,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $437,686,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $346,496,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $355,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $355,080,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $361,544,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $365,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $369,553,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $376,340,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $378,687,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $390,469,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $391,965,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $16,918,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $18,817,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,817,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $20,697,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,697,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $22,869,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,869,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $26,483,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,483,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $73,806,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,887,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $75,996,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $76,254,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $76,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,093,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $77,271,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,312,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $81,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,289,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $42,307,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,166,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $40,721,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,941,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $40,620,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,375,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $40,514,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,785,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $40,404,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,382,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $18,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,353,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $17,880,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,962,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $17,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,849,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $18,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,905,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $18,142,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,940,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $351,718,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $351,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $377,930,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $377,930,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $395,761,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $395,761,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $411,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $411,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $421,915,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $421,915,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,830,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,685,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,830,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,260,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,830,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,545,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,830,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,685,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,830,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,770,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$66,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,799,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$68,760,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$69,085,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$82,276,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$82,026,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$67,105,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,765,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$70,567,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$70,367,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION SUBMISSIONS

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submissions to Slow the Growth in Mandatory Spending
and to Achieve Deficit Reduction.--(1) Not later than April
28, 2006, the House committees named in paragraph (2) shall
submit their recommendations to the House Committee on the
Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the House
Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a
reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations
without any substantive revision.
(2) Instructions.--
(A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on
Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $2,083,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2007 and $29,116,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(B) Committee on armed services.--The House Committee on
Armed Services shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $52,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2007 and $120,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House
Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes
in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the
level of direct spending for that committee by $1,010,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 2007 and $7,470,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $1,125,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2007 and $91,697,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(D) Committee on government reform.--The House Committee on
Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $140,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2007 and $1,670,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(E) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on
Resources shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $0 in outlays for fiscal year
2007 and $6,793,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal
years 2007 through 2011.
(F) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to
reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by
$32,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2007 and $230,000,000
in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(G) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by
$27,457,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and $221,189,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

[[Page H2732]]

(H) Special rule.--The chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may take into account legislation enacted after the
adoption of this resolution that is determined to reduce the
deficit and may make applicable adjustments in reconciliation
instructions, allocations, and budget aggregates and may also
make adjustments in reconciliation instructions to protect
earned benefit programs.
(b) Submission Providing for Changes in Revenue.--The House
Committee on Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation
bill not later than April 28, 2006, that consists of changes
in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues
by not more than $18,391,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and by
not more than $346,271,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2007 through 2011.
(c) Revision of Allocations.--(1) Upon the submission to
the Committee on the Budget of the House of a recommendation
that has complied with its reconciliation instructions solely
by virtue of section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the chairman of that committee may file with the
House appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a)
of such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
(2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report
recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a
committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions
solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the House
appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of
such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
(3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this
subsection shall be considered to be allocations and
aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the
budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON VETERANS' SAVINGS.

In the House, not later than May 15, 2006, the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs shall submit to the Committee on the Budget
its findings that identify savings amounting to one percent
of total spending under its jurisdiction from activities that
are determined to be wasteful, unnecessary, or lower-
priority. For purposes of this section, the report by the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall be inserted in the
Congressional Record by the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget not later than May 21, 2006.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUND

SEC. 301. RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES.

In the House of Representatives and the Senate, if the
Committee on Appropriations reports a bill or joint
resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a
conference report thereon is submitted, that provides new
budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) for
emergencies and complies with the requirement of section 403,
then the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of that
House shall make the appropriate adjustments in allocations
and aggregates to the extent that such legislation would not
increase the deficit for fiscal year 2007 and for the period
of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported
in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation
or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an
amendment thereto.
(2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a
Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless
specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given
by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
(b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may
be provided for fiscal year 2008 and fiscal years 2009 for
programs, projects, activities or accounts identified in the
joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying this
resolution under the heading `Accounts Identified for Advance
Appropriations' in an aggregate amount not to exceed
$23,565,000,000 in new budget authority.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority
in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations
or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2007 that first
becomes available for any fiscal year after 2007.

SEC. 402. TURN OFF THE GEPHARDT RULE.

Rule XXVII shall not apply with respect to the adoption by
the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2007.

SEC. 403. EMERGENCY SPENDING.

(a) Designations.--
(1) Guidance.--In the House, if a provision of legislation
is designated as an emergency requirement under this section,
the committee report and any statement of managers
accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of
the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in
paragraph (2). If such legislation is to be considered by the
House without being reported, then the committee shall cause
the explanation to be published in the Congressional Record
in advance of floor consideration.
(2) Criteria.--
(A) In general.--Any such provision is an emergency
requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to
life, property, or national security and is--
(i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up
over time;
(ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
(iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.
(B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate
level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally
estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
(b) Enforcement.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment or conference report that contains an emergency
designation unless that designation meets the criteria set
out in subsection (a)(2).
(c) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall
not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a
rule or order that waives the application of subsection (c).
(d) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As
disposition of a point of order under subsection (b) or
subsection (c), the Chair shall put the question of
consideration with respect to the proposition that is the
subject of the point of order. A question of consideration
under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the
Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an
opponent of the point of order, but shall otherwise be
decided without intervening motion except one that the House
adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole rise, as the case
may be.

SEC. 404. CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES RESULTING
FROM REALISTIC SCORING OF MEASURES AFFECTING
REVENUES.

(a) Whenever the House considers a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion or conference report, including measures
filed in compliance with section 201(b) or 201(c), that
propose to change Federal revenues, the impact of such
measure on Federal revenues shall be calculated by the Joint
Committee on Taxation in a manner that takes into account--
(1) the impact of the proposed revenue changes on--
(A) Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for
the Gross Domestic Product;
(B) total domestic employment;
(C) gross private domestic investment;
(D) general price index;
(E) interest rates; and
(F) other economic variables;
(2) the impact on Federal Revenue of the changes in
economic variables analyzed under paragraph (1).
(b) the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make
any necessary changes to allocations and aggregates in order
to conform this concurrent resolution with the determinations
made by the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to
subsection (a).

SEC. 405. PROHIBITION ON USING REVENUE INCREASES TO COMPLY
WITH BUDGET ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.

(a) For the purpose of enforcing this concurrent resolution
in the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall not take into account the provisions of any piece of
legislation which propose to increase revenue or offsetting
collections if the net effect of the bill is to increase the
level of revenue or offsetting collections beyond the level
assumed in this concurrent resolution.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any provision of a
piece of legislation that proposes a new or increased fee for
the receipt of a defined benefit or service (including
insurance coverage) by the person or entity paying the fee.

SEC. 406. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

SEC. 407. DIRECT SPENDING SAFEGUARD.

(a) It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives to consider an direct spending legislation
that would increase an on-budget deficit or decrease an on-
budget surplus as provided by subsection (e) for any
applicable time period.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``applicable
time period'' means any of the following periods:
(1) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the
most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.

[[Page H2733]]

(2) The period of the 5 fiscal years following first 5
years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent
resolution on the budget.
(c) For purposes of this section and except as provided in
subsection (d), the term ``direct-spending legislation''
means any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference
report that affects direct spending as that term is defined
by, and interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(d) For purposes of this section, the term ``direct-
spending legislation'' does not include--
(1) any legislation the title of which is as follows: ``A
bill to preserve Social Security.''; or
(2) any legislation that would cause a net increase in
aggregate direct spending of less than $100,000,000 for any
applicable time period.
(e) If direct spending legislation increases the on-budget
deficit or decreases an on-budget surpluses when taken
individually, it must also increase the on-budget deficit or
decrease the on-budget surplus when taken together with all
direct spending legislation enacted since the beginning of
the calendar year not accounted for in the baseline assumed
for the most recent concurrent resolution on the budget,
except that direct spending effects resulting in net deficit
reduction enacted pursuant to reconciliation instructions
since the beginning of that same calendar year shall not be
available.
(f) This section may be waived by the affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(g) For purposes of this section, the levels of budget
authority and outlays for a fiscal year shall be determined
on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the
Budget.
(h) The Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order
proposing a waiver of subsection (a).

SEC. 408. BUDGET PROTECTION MANDATORY ACCOUNT.

(a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection
Mandatory Account''. The Account shall be divided into
entries corresponding to the allocations under section 302(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in the most recently
adopted concurrent resolution on the budget, except that it
shall not include the Committee on Appropriations.
(2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it
under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be
made.
(b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint
resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint
resolution (other than an appropriation bill), the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget shall--
(A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection
Mandatory Account by the amounts specified in paragraph (2);
and
(B) reduce the applicable section 302(a) allocations by the
amount specified in paragraph (2).
(2) Each amount specified in paragraph (1)(A) shall be the
net reduction in mandatory budget authority (either under
current law or proposed by the bill or joint resolution under
consideration) provided by each amendment that was adopted in
the House to the bill or joint resolution.
(c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in
paragraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall, upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint
resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint
resolution, other than an appropriation bill, reduce the
level of total revenues set forth in the applicable
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year or
for the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing
fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction in
mandatory authority (either under current law or proposed by
a bill or joint resolution under consideration) provided by
each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint
resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the
adjustments described in subsection (b).
(2)(A) The provision specified in paragraph (1) is as
follows: ``The amount of mandatory budget authority reduced
by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in
revenues.''
(B) All points of order are waived against an amendment
including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the
amendment is otherwise in order.
(d) As used in this rule, the term--
(1) ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special
appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making
supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations
through the end of fiscal year 2007 or any subsequent fiscal
year, as the case may be.
(2) ``mandatory budget authority'' means any entitlement
authority as defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(e) During the consideration of any bill or joint
resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all
Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and
decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint
resolution.

SEC. 409. BUDGET DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS.

(a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection
Discretionary Account'';. The Account shall be divided into
entries corresponding to the allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations, and the committee's suballocations, under
section 302(a) and 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
(2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it
under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be
made.
(b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall--
(A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection
Discretionary Account by the amounts specified in paragraph
(2).
(B) reduce the applicable 302(a) and (b) allocations by the
amount specified in paragraph (2).
(2) Each amount specified in subparagraph (A) shall be the
net reduction in discretionary budget authority provided by
each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint
resolution.
(c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in
paragraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall, upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill,
reduce the level of total revenues set forth in the
applicable concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal
year or for the total of that first fiscal year and the
ensuing fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction
in discretionary budget authority provided by each amendment
that was adopted by the House to the bill or joint
resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the
adjustments described in subsection (b).
(2)(A) The provision specified in paragraph (1) is as
follows: ``The amount of discretionary budget authority
reduced by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in
revenues.''
(B) All points of order are waived against an amendment
including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the
amendment is otherwise in order.
(d) As used in this rule, the term ``appropriation bill''
means any general or special appropriation bill, and any bill
or joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency, or
continuing appropriations through the end of fiscal year 2007
or any subsequent fiscal year, as the case may be.
(e) During the consideration of any bill or joint
resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all
Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and
decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint
resolution.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 817, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to acknowledge
our dear friend and colleague Chairman Nussle for his great work. It
has been one of my great honors and privileges to serve on his Budget
Committee. I have thought that Chairman Nussle has had the hardest job
in this body, and he has always chaired the Budget Committee with
fairness and principle and diligence, and, I might add, success. Again,
it has been an honor and a privilege to serve with him as he introduces
his last budget. All I can say is Congress's loss is certainly Iowa's
gain.
Mr. Chairman, over 10 years ago, visionary men and women of the
Republican Party came forth with a very bold budget plan called the
Contract with America budget. The Contract with America captured the
imagination of the American people, and it gave the Republicans control
of the people's House for the first time in decades.
More than just numbers, Mr. Chairman, the budget was about bedrock
values. It called for true compassion by removing the yoke of
dependency fashioned by the welfare state and replacing it with an
opportunity society. It spoke of restoring personal freedom by ending
centralized bureaucratic micromanagement of the Federal Government. It
called for reforms, it called for accountability, and finally, Mr.
Chairman, it actually balanced the budget without tax increases on
hard-working American families.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Contract with America budget was
never enacted. Washington ignored the budget's ominous warning that if
it failed to pass, within 10 years the national debt would grow to over
$7.5 trillion from excess spending. That has proven true.
Today, members of the Republican Study Committee introduce the
Contract with America Renewed Budget, a budget that is dedicated to
achieving the goals of the original, chiefly balancing the budget in 5
years without raising taxes. This is the only budget proposed in
Congress that would do so.

[[Page H2734]]

Mr. Chairman, not enough Americans realize it, but you can actually
balance the budget without cutting 1 penny of Federal spending. That is
right, without cutting 1 single penny. Even our budget will still grow
government, but we slow its rate of growth, as we must. For the last 10
years, the Federal budget has grown beyond the ability of the family
budget to pay for it. Washington has spent twice the rate of inflation
and 50 percent faster than the family budget, and yet Democrats want to
spend even more and tax more.
Every time Congress grows a Federal program, it takes money away from
a family program, like a down payment on a home, college tuition for a
child, or money to launch a small business. American families have to
prioritize their spending every year. They have to balance their budget
every year. They should expect no less from their Federal Government.
Now, to achieve a balanced budget without increasing taxes, our
budget demands accountability, performance, and priorities. We propose
the elimination of over 150 Federal programs. After almost 20 years
after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we should still not be funding Radio
Free Europe. The citrus canker program is not of equal priority to
Kevlar vests for our brave troops, and we simply do not need other
bridges to nowhere.
Our budget prevents the massive, the massive planned Democrat tax
increase that threatens the 5 million new jobs that have been created
since Republicans in this body enacted tax relief and progrowth job
policies in 2003. Our budget proposes to reform out-of-control
entitlement spending and then saving, actually saving, Medicare as we
know it for our children.
The budget proposes a number of reforms, like a constitutional line
item veto, a sunset commission, and earmark reform, all geared towards
saving the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that soon Democrats
will stand up and call this something akin to a tough and heartless
budget. But, Mr. Chairman, the tough and heartless budget is theirs.
Their budget ignores out-of-control spending and will lead the next
generation to desperate economic times.
According to the General Accountability Office, the Congressional
Budget Office, and anybody else who has looked at the problem, without
spending reforms we will soon be faced with the choice of having a
Federal Government consisting of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid
and Social Security, or actually doubling taxes on the next generation.
That is the Democrats' budget plan for America.
But if we will simply embrace the principles of a balanced budget and
limited accountable government, our future is bright. We can ensure
unlimited freedom and unlimited opportunity for this generation and the
next. We should enact the Contract with America Renewed Budget.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I ask
unanimous consent to yield half the time to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and that he be allowed to control that time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, it is my role and responsibility as the
chairman of the Budget Committee to draft and defend the majority
budget. I have done so. And that is the base resolution that we are
considering tonight, to which the Republican Study Committee has
provided an opportunity to look into the future and see what is
possible. I oppose it, respectfully. And while there is enough of it
that is worthy of discussion and worthy of support, it is my job, as I
say, to defend and to pass the majority budget, and we will do so later
on.
But let me just touch on some things that I think are important as
you consider not only the underlying bill, but also what the Republican
Study Committee has done. First of all, the members of the Republican
Study Committee clearly have learned the lessons of the 1990s and the
effort that we made to balance the budget, and there were three of
them.
And let me suggest that those three lessons that we learned, that I
certainly learned as a member of the Budget Committee, as a Member of
Congress looking at the challenges that we faced, the first lesson was
that we needed to grow the economy. That was clear. And we did so. The
economy grew by leaps and bounds, and it brought revenue into the
Treasury like never before. We cut the capital gains tax, and it
created opportunities, it created jobs, and it created new businesses.
As a result, it created new revenue to the Treasury.
Second, the lesson was if you control spending, if you slow things
down, even to a freeze level, that that can help you gain the traction
to get back to fiscal responsibility.
But the most important lesson, I believe, of the 1990s exercise of
going through the Contract with America budget, as my friend from Texas
suggested, and so many other budgets during those years that were
successful, it was that we reformed government; that we were constantly
weeding the garden looking for opportunities to make changes, looking
for opportunities to deliver the product of government, the services of
government in a more effective and efficient way.
I realize that there will be a lot of vitriol, of people coming
forward saying you must hate this group or you must hate this person or
you don't care about this. I would never cast that aspersion on anybody
in this body. I say that very seriously. There is nobody who could get
elected to this body by being that unfeeling and uncaring about the
people that they serve and the people that elect them. It is just not
possible.
So to say those kinds of things and to measure it based on the size
of the wallet that the Federal Government is willing to throw at any
problem is just, I believe, a ridiculous proposition. We can disagree
on the method to solve problems, on the ways that we will meet
challenges, but to come to the floor and suggest that just because you
want to reform a program that has operated the same way for 20 years is
because somehow you don't care, that is just simply not what either the
RSC is trying to suggest in the budget they are proposing or that we
are suggesting in the underlying budget.
We believe it is time, and that the time should always be present to
reform government and to look for ways to use tax dollars wisely and to
deliver a better product or service to the people that we are trying to
help. That is what the RSC budget does.
Now, it does so at a time that we have other challenges. Obviously,
we have many unexpected expenses that came up as a result of a war, as
a result of 9/11, as a result of homeland security, as a result of
immigration challenges, and as a result of Katrina, the hurricane. We
have so many challenges that our budgets have had to face, and I
believe we have balanced them as well as possible.
So while the RSC budget may go too far for a majority of people in
the House of Representatives tonight, it does push the envelope forward
and say we should always lean forward when it comes to reforming
government.

{time} 2215

We should always be willing to lean forward and to support taxpayers
and the job that they do, all taxpayers. And that is what the RSC
budget does. I oppose it, respectfully, because I believe we need to
support a majority budget to put the kind of fence, the fiscal fence,
around the job we need to do here tonight and the rest of the year. But
it is a good work product, worthy of our respect, if for no other
reason because it points us in the constant direction of reform that
this institution and our Federal Government must get serious about if
we will meet the challenges that our kids and grandkids are going to
need to deal with in the future.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, Mr.
Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to speak at this point in
time in the debate. But somebody, sometime ought to talk about facts.
The gentleman mentions the Contract with America. The first plank of
the Contract with America was fiscal

[[Page H2735]]

responsibility. Now, you weren't in charge when the Contract With
America came into your purview as the majority in 1995. Bill Clinton
was President of the United States. I have served here, my 26th year;
18 of those have been with Republican Presidents. Eight have been with
a Democratic President. Every one of those 18 years we had a deficit of
over $100 billion.
Now, there is only one person in America who can stop spending, the
President of the United States. Reagan didn't stop spending. Bush
didn't stop spending, and this President has spent, and you have spent,
twice as much as we spent under Bill Clinton. The Heritage Foundation
will tell you that, not we Democrats. We will tell you that too, but
the Heritage Foundation will tell you that, I tell my friend from
Texas.
You have voted for budgets which have provided the largest deficits
in our history. In the last 64 months, your budgets and your policies
have resulted in an additional $3 trillion of deficit spending. Three
trillion. You are in charge of the House, you are in charge of the
Senate, and you have the Presidency.
Now you say, oh, we had 9/11 and then we had the war. You didn't have
that during the Reagan years, and you had a deficit every year. You
didn't have that in Bush I. You had the Gulf War I, but guess what,
that President Bush had the rest of the world substantially pay for
that effort.
$3 trillion in additional debt. And in this budget, you are going to
add an additional 650 billion-plus to the national debt. Those
deficits, by the way, so you understand, and these are facts, you are
welcome to look at your little books, get out your staff and say, oh,
no, Hoyer is lying. The public maybe is watching.
During Republican Presidents those 18 years, $4.3 trillion of deficit
spending net. You know what you had under Bill Clinton? $62.5 billion
of surplus. The only President in your lifetime, I say to all of you,
who had a net surplus during the course of his terms.
So I hear the gentleman from Texas get up and talk about the Contract
With America. It was blarney.
You said you were going to be fiscally responsible. The finances of
this Nation over the last 6 years have been the worst since my service
here, and perhaps in the history, I think in the history of America.
You talk a good game, but you are not playing a good game. You are not
playing for real, and you are trying to fool the American public. The
problem you have is they are not being fooled.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I find it a little surreal to be lectured by a Democrat on the
subject of spending since for the last 10 years every time the
Republicans have introduced a budget, they have introduced a budget
that spends more. If the gentleman is really concerned about spending,
he should support the budget that spends the least, which is this
budget.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman who is of the class of 1994 who voted for the original
Contract With America, a former chairman of the Republican Study
Committee and one of the great conservative leaders in the House, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I take the strong statement we just heard
as an endorsement of the RSC budget. He talked about the budget you are
proposing will increase the deficit. In fact, he wasn't talking about
the RSC budget. Indeed it will produce $392 billion in net deficit
reduction.
I rise in strong support of the Contract with America Renewed budget
and compliment the gentleman from Texas for his hard work on this
budget. This budget is a reasoned and responsible budget based on the
Contract With America budget that I proudly voted for in 1995 and that
the chairman of the House Budget Committee who sits here tonight also
voted for, along with 108 other Republicans and two Democrats. And I
certainly hope that tonight they will once again vote for this budget.
Mr. Chairman, when the Republicans were entrusted with the majority
in 1994, we made a number of promises to the American people, but none
of them was more important than our promise and nor more critical than
our promise to the American people to shrink the size and the scope of
the Federal Government, to have it tax less, spend less and interfere
in our lives less; and, Mr. Chairman, it is time to keep that promise.
As the accompanying chart shows, in the time period from 1995 to
2005, Federal spending has increased at three times the pace of the
average family income.
Mr. Chairman, that simply is not tolerable. This chart shows it. In
that time period the average family income has gone up by 8.2 percent.
Total Federal outlays have gone up by 25.6 percent. Growing the Federal
Government at three times the pace of the family income simply is not
tolerable, cannot be defended, and will not work in the long run.
The total amount of Federal spending is hard for the average American
to comprehend. It is $2.2 trillion. In $1 bills it would stack halfway
to the Moon. It weighs 10 times as much as the Sears Tower, and it
would blanket the State of New Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, growth in spending has grown dramatically just in the
last few years. From 2002 to 2005, the inflation rate was 2 percent.
But we grew spending in 2002 by 7.9 percent, in 2003 by 7.4 percent, in
2004, by 6.1 percent and in 2005 by 8.2 percent. Each year, three to
four times the rate of inflation.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for fiscal sanity. It is time to end the
overspending.
I urge my colleagues to support the Contract with America Renewed
budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, there is a credit card problem here on
the House floor. You know what it would take to balance the budget
while preserving these tax cuts? Let's take a look at your budget. To
balance the budget by 2016, only 10 years away, while making the tax
cuts permanent, you would have to cut Social Security benefits by 45
percent, you would have to cut defense spending by 66 percent, and you
would have to cut Medicare by 56 percent. Every other program except
Social Security, Medicare, Defense and Homeland Security you would have
to cut by 32 percent. Now unless you are prepared to do that, you ought
to take a look at the real facts.
The President promised that 5.5 million jobs would be created by
2003. Those tax cuts that we passed, that you passed in 2003. Instead,
less than half of those jobs ever materialized.
If the workforce had only grown with the rate of population since
2001, there would be 3 million more people between the ages of 20 and
65 in the workforce than there is today.
Last year, middle-income wages actually grew less than the rate of
inflation, reducing their buying power and their ability to grow the
economy. That is why the American people are not fooled by your press
conferences, by your budgets, by your shenanigans about we want to tax
and spend. They don't believe you anymore.
Real wages have not grown since the passage of these tax cuts and are
now at the level seen all the way back in November of 2001, before the
tax cuts. In fact, one could make an argument that the economy would
have grown the same if you would have increased taxes.
It makes no sense what has happened since 2001. President Bush and
the Republican leadership have instituted round after round of reckless
tax cuts for the rich, and all they have to show for it is one of the
weakest so-called economic recoveries in the Nation's history. That is
fact, and I give you those facts, and I hope you chew on them and think
about them before you introduce your next budget.
Mr. Chairman, the problem with this substitute amendment is that like
all fiscally irresponsible Republican budgets it will give large tax
cuts for millionaires, while drastically cutting vital domestic
programs used by average Americans. It will further grow our national
deficit which stands at over $8 trillion, more than $28,000 per
American.
The truth is that average working Americans are not only getting the
tiniest share of the tax cuts; they are also not seeing any signs of an
economic recovery. Unlike my Republican colleagues, let me state some
facts to support my claim.
Fact: The President promised that 5.5 million jobs would be created
by his 2003 tax

[[Page H2736]]

cuts, instead less than half those jobs ever materialized.
Fact: If the workforce had only grown with the rate of population
since 2001, there would be 3 million more people between the ages of 20
and 65 in the workforce than there is today.
Fact: Last year, middle income wages actually grew less than the rate
of inflation, reducing their buying power and their ability to grow the
economy.
Fact: Real wages have not been growing since the passage of these tax
cuts and are now at the levels seen all the way back in November 2001.
I could state more facts all day and night, but I am limited by time,
so let me just state what is abundantly clear: That President Bush and
this Republican Congress have instituted round-after-round of reckless
tax cuts for the rich and all they have to show for it is one of the
weakest so-called economic recoveries in our nation's history and a
bloated budget deficit.
For shame!
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a coauthor of the
Family Budget Protection Act, one of the great fiscal conservatives of
Congress, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, you know, we can talk about a lot of
things in a budget debate; but there are only a couple of things we
know for sure. One is that we are on an unsustainable fiscal path and
we have $46 trillion in unfunded liabilities. And by 2040, we will
spend more on Social Security, Medicare, and interest than we have in
Federal revenue, which will leave no money for defense, no money for
education, no money for ag, no money for Department of Labor, no money
for anything unless we have crushing tax increases.
Some say that this budget requires hard choices. I would argue it
doesn't require any hard choices at all. It simply requires tough
management. It is easy to spend other people's money, especially when
it is other people's money. It is hard to manage money and achieve
results.
This budget does the responsible thing by engaging in tough
management and putting us on a path of sustainable fiscal future and
not passing a debt along to our children that they simply will cannot
afford.
This budget achieves better government at a lower cost, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Texas for his work on our RSC budget. He has done an outstanding job.
And you know, this really is a time when we can renew the Contract With
America and those goals that we focused on and the principles that were
laid forth in that period of time, and this is a budget that helps move
us again toward those goals and towards those principles.
Mr. Chairman, I find it so interesting that we are hearing people
say, well, you can make an argument for this, you can make an argument
for that. You can try to disprove this, you can try to disprove that.
And you can make arguments all day long, but it doesn't make it true.
It just does not make it true. And I think we have to put our focus on
a few simple things that are fiscally responsible.
The budget we have before us that we are debating at this point in
time is one that focuses on eliminating wasteful and unnecessary
programs and capping growth in mandatory spending. Reducing the size of
government and consolidating redundant agencies, this is a place that
deserves our focus, it deserves our attention. It deserves our fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)

{time} 2230

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the problems
that we have is not explaining to the American people the amount of
pain that this Republican budget casts on Americans. So let me just
tell you the truth this evening.
When the Democrats were in, when we passed the 1997 budget
resolution, we developed a $5.6 trillion surplus. I think that is easy
enough to understand. But right now, today, we have seen an arrow sink
us down into an $8.8 trillion deficit and sliding on the slippery slope
of this huge deficit that breaks the backs of working Americans. In
fact, right now, today, when they vote, they will create a $3.2
trillion, if you will, deficit that will break the backs of working
Americans. What that does is, of course, is to reenforce the fact that
the tax cut that you are giving gives only to the richest of America,
the 1 percent, but, in fact, even though Americans understand about
mutual sacrifice of which they would rather have investment in
education and health care and homeland security, your tax cut is going
to cost $3 trillion, which is going to add to the trillions of dollars
of deficit that we already have.
When we talk about priorities, what that means is that we are cutting
$6 billion from homeland security, the very debate that we are having
today, $6 billion we are cutting over a 5-year period in homeland
security. What does that mean? It means we have no funding for border
security. It means we have no funding to ensure that the homeland is
safe with intelligence resources and collaboration. It also means that
our military has no armored jackets. It means that our veterans
hospitals are cut for $6 billion. But, most importantly, it cuts the
children of America because it is the largest cut in education in 23
years. That is what this trillion-dollar deficit budget makes. That is
what the Republican budget does. It cuts priorities, and that is what
the Democrats are saying.
Our priorities are different. We want to invest in America. We do not
want to build the deficit. We do not want to build $3 trillion in tax
cuts that do not go to the average working American. We want that
single mother, we want that family of 4, we want that family of 10, we
want that young person looking for an opportunity to have the
investment of capital to ensure that America is great.
Vote for the Democratic substitute. That is what makes America great,
and that is what we would like to do for America.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to add my voice of opposition to the
Republican Budget Resolution.
The budget of the United States is more than a financial document and
accounting device. Rather it is the numerical expression of the
obligations free people voluntarily assume to help others, to serve the
common good, and to form a more perfect union. But it is more than
that. A budget is a reflection of our national values and a scorecard
by which we can judge whether we are keeping faith with what we profess
to believe. The budget resolution brought to the floor today by the
Republican leadership does not reflect the best of American values.
This budget breaks faith with what we know to be right.
Let me count the ways:
This budget undermines the federal programs that bolster the economy
and welfare of our citizens.
The President's budget cuts $6.3 billion in Social Security benefits
over ten years by eliminating the survivor benefits safety net for
women and children. This benefit can make the difference between
subsistence and destitution, and it is heart breaking that Congress
could even consider pocketing funds rightly earned and needed by or
constituents and their families.
The President's budget slashes Medicare by $36 billion over five
years and $105 billion over 10 years and includes gross Medicaid cuts,
including both legislative and regulatory cuts, of $17 billion over
five years and $42 billion over 10 years, on top of the deep Medicaid
cuts that Congress enacted in 2005.
The Republican 2007 budget resolution cuts spending on education by
29% and freezes Head Start funding at this year's level, guaranteeing
that 19,000 children will have to be cut from Head Start next year.
Even the President's own No Child Left Behind program is funded at
$15.4 billion below the authorized level.
Cuts are also in store for environmental protection projects (by 4%),
community block grants ($736 million), and community development
programs ($4.3 billion below the amount needed to maintain current
services).
Even the budget for Homeland Security is 24.9% lower than the amount
enacted in FY2006.
What I have just described is a systematic asphyxiation of funding
for vital elements that make up the fabric of our society--education,
healthcare, social security, housing, and homeland security.

[[Page H2737]]

All of us agree on the American future we want for our children and
generations yet unborn. An America that is highly educated, confident,
capable, globally competitive, strong, and sage. Whether we achieve
this goal depends upon what we do here today and now. This budget will
not make America smarter, stronger, safer, more competitive, or proud.
We can do much better. We must do better if we are to be true to the
best of ourselves and to be consistent with our fundamental values.
I urge all members of the House to reject this budget resolution. I
further urge my colleagues to support the Democratic Substitute Budget
(the Spratt Resolution) and to support the CBC amendment to the Budget
resolution.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, our constituents did not send us to Congress to create
debt and pass it on to our children and our grandchildren. Yet it is
estimated by the end of fiscal year 2006 that the Federal budget
deficit alone will be $337 billion. Now, there are many reasons
affecting this number, but the bottom line is spending is out of
control.
Later tonight we will be voting on House passage of the fiscal year
2007 Federal budget, and I believe the time is now to make drastic
reform. And the Republican Study Committee alternative budget is
definitely a step in the right direction. This budget allows us to
renew our purpose of fiscal restraint, pay down the national debt, and
balance the budget.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to spend on everything, because if
we do, we will not be able to spend on anything. So I am rising in
support of the amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Texas because
it moves us in the right direction. It moves us in the direction of
spending within our means and truly being accountable for our children
and our grandchildren.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if you kicked the Republican budget in the
heart, you would break your toe.
These guys tonight are going to vote to cut $162 billion out of
programs for the poor and the sick and the aged in our country in order
to accommodate a $228 billion tax break for the wealthy.
Now, it would not be so bad if you did not follow the details. They
are going to cut $18 billion out of public health programs for people
across our country. They are going to cut the Centers for Disease
Control. They are going to cut the research at the National Institutes
of Health, which is looking for the cures for Alzheimer's, for
Parkinson's, for juvenile diabetes. They are going to cut those
programs. They are going to cut $6 billion in veterans health care.
They are going to cut money for homeland security all to accommodate a
$228 billion tax break almost exclusively for the wealthy in our
country.
If you kicked the Republican budget in the heart, you would break
your toe.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1
minute to a gentlewoman who knows that spending will increase every
year under this budget, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, there are two clearly defined philosophies at
work in Washington. On one side are conservatives, such as my RSC
colleagues and I, who want to cut government spending and rein in the
Federal deficit. On the other side are liberals, who believe that more
government spending is the answer to all our problems, and these
liberals will raise your taxes to pay for it.
I am pleased to be a part of this group of conservatives who today
are proving that Republicans are indeed the party of fiscal discipline,
reform, and accountability. Our budget proposal provides a general
framework on how we can hold the line on spending, balance our budget
within 5 years, pay down our national debt, and maintain tax relief for
American families all at the same time.
Like every family across America, we need to make tough budget
decisions and cut back on wasteful spending. That is not easy, but it
is the right thing to do. After all, if your family was far into debt
and was spending out of control, you would have to cut wasteful or
unnecessary purchases.
With this budget we have a unique opportunity to streamline our
government, reform ineffective and outdated Federal programs, cut
spending, and provide greater accountability for the American people.
Let us get to work.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas. I want to thank him for all his
work in conjunction with the Republican Study Committee in advancing
additional fiscal restraint in the budgetary process.
While the underlying budget does a commendable job of balancing our
revenues with spending, the RSC does the same job. It just does it
faster. Mr. Chairman, without question, both the underlying budget and
this substitute budget make many tough choices. The budgetary process
is not easy, but we must never forget it is not any easier for the
taxpayer, who in every paycheck forks over too much of his or her
paycheck to fund this budget.
This RSC alternative aims to balance the budget by 2011 by
eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse and by pairing back unnecessary,
duplicative bureaucracy by eliminating 150 Federal programs. It also
protects Social Security and promotes a progrowth tax policy.
So I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I also want to thank Mr. Hensarling for his leadership on
budget reform. It is a pleasure to be a coauthor of the Family Budget
Protection Act with him.
Mr. Chairman, budgets are about values. Budgets are about priorities,
governing philosophies. What this Republican Study Committee budget
does, what this Contract with America budget, renewed, does is express
our values that the nucleus of the American economy and the American
society is the individual. It is the families. It is not the
government.
What this budget recognizes is that it is entirely possible not to
cut the deficit in half in 5 years. It is entirely pragmatic and
possible to eliminate the deficit in 5 years. What we are simply
proposing to do is what Congress tried to do and did in 1995. It is not
a ridiculous proposition that we can restrain the growth in government
to eliminate the deficit in 5 years. We can keep taxes low, and we can
restrain the growth of government to do this and reform the
entitlements that are in desperate need of reform.
I compliment the gentleman on this budget. I urge its adoption.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
this, the RSC budget, simply because I care. I care about my
constituents, the family budget. I care about American taxpayers
everywhere. I care about the fact that they send their money to an
overly bloated Federal Government. I care about growing our economy. I
care also about the fact that we are growing deficits instead.
Over the last several hours now, we have heard Members from both
sides of the aisle agree on one thing, and that is that we need to
reduce Federal spending, lower our deficits, balance the budget. This
budget plan will do that.
At the end of the day when all the rhetorical smoke clears, we are
left with the fact that deficits will burden our children. My kids,
your kids, our grandkids, American taxpayers today will all be
burdened. So we can no longer simply afford to push this issue off into
the future. We need to address it now.
I have the honor to serve on the Budget Committee and on the RSC as
well, and I am not going to stand here and say that this is a perfect
budget. But I will say it is a good budget, a budget that will do what
it says it will do, rein in Federal spending, get us to a balanced
budget. And anyone who wishes to reduce deficits should support this,
the RSC budget.

[[Page H2738]]

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
and for his work on this budget.
Mr. Chairman, I support this budget because it is the most
conservative, fiscally responsible budget that we have. It is not quite
as conservative or fiscally responsible as I would like. I would like
to put a balanced budget out here every year, and I would like to take
the pain every year, and we would slow this government down. We should
be able to do that in this Congress. This is as close as we can get and
pull together the maximum amount of votes. It sends a message to the
American people that we have people here that live by this budget the
same way that you live by your family budget.
And I am going to stand with this Study Committee budget for a couple
of other reasons. One is it allows some drilling in ANWR that can allow
for some resources so we can do something to grow the size of the
energy pie; and it repeals the Davis-Bacon wage scale, which is an
outrageous Federal requirement on the wages that we have, so that we
can let supply and demand set the marketplace.
Those are all good standards that have been put out here by the Study
Committee budget, and I applaud them for the work that they have done.
And I look forward to the time when we see a balanced budget come to
the floor of this Congress from the Budget Committee.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the esteemed
majority deputy whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would first like to recognize the leadership of Chairman Nussle on
the underlying budget and the terrific job that he has done in
compiling a budget that really reflects the will of the majority of
this House in making those tough choices. I want to commend him on
that.
But I rise today in support of this budget substitute because I
believe it really reflects the awesome responsibility that we have
here, the responsibility to care for our children, to lead this country
and to be concerned about what our future holds. This budget proposal
will save $358 billion from autopilot spending and provide $392 billion
in net deficit reduction over the next 5 years. It will balance the
Federal budget by 2011.
Mr. Chairman, Thomas Jefferson said in 1821: ``The multiplication of
public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and
entailment of a public debt are indications soliciting the employment
of the pruning knife.'' These words offer great insight today. It is
time for us to spend more time spending less and to focus on finding
ways to achieve savings and accomplish reform for the American people.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, since I know he has capability of being
twice as profound, I will yield him half the time. At this time I yield
30 seconds to the father of earmark reform, the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake).

{time} 2245

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want
to commend the gentleman from Texas for putting this budget forward and
for working so hard on it.
It is simple to support this budget. This budget balances the budget
within 5 years without tax increases. That is what we ought to support.
Anything less is not doing justice for the generations to come who are
going to be saddled with this debt unless we take bold action like this
alternative budget. With that, I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I tried to keep track on my
paper here of how many times the opposition to this budget proposal
used the word ``cut,'' and I ran off the edge of the page. It is 30-
something or 40-something times they used the word ``cut.''
The truth is, this budget that is before you increases spending every
single year. Let me repeat that. This budget increases spending every
single year. Increasing is not a cut. When you go from three to four,
that is not a cut. It does not increase spending as much as the current
rate of increase, which is unsustainable over time, which is why this
is such a responsible budget.
It also does not increase taxes and does not depress the economy in
the way an increase of taxes would do, but it does balance this budget
in 5 years in the only way we know we can do it; without smoke and
mirrors, without any games, by simply spending within our means.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
chairman of the Republican Study Committee, one of the great
conservative leaders in our Nation, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 2
minutes.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, with record deficits and national debt, the
time has come to level with the American people. We are not living
within our means. Therefore, House conservatives, under the capable
leadership of Jeb Hensarling of Texas, have put our own budget
alternative together. We call it the Contract with America Renewed.
The Contract with America Renewed is a balanced budget based on the
budget passed by the House of Representatives in 1995 as part of the
Contract with America. That budget passed this House by all but one
Republican vote, and this budget deserves the same level of support
tonight.
House conservatives believe that this Republican Congress should
return to our roots of fiscal discipline and reform. The Contract with
America Renewed would balance the Federal budget by cutting wasteful
government spending and ending outdated bureaucracies. It would protect
the tax cuts that have made our economy thrive, would strengthen Social
Security and provide for our veterans and national defense. And the
Contract with America Renewed would keep our promise to future
generations by reforming entitlements that threaten to bankrupt our
national government.
The American people know that unbridled government spending threatens
our future and our freedom, and they long for leaders who tell it like
it is and are honest about the choices we face.
In the original Contract with America were these words: ``America
stands at a crossroads. Down one path lies more debt and the continued
degradation of the Federal Government and the people it is intended to
serve. Down the other path lies the restoration of the American
dream.'' Those first Republicans in the majority in 40 years said, ``We
choose the second of these roads.''
I urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and reform. Support
the Republican Study Committee budget, and say yes again to the
Contract with America Renewed.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, this budget already cuts, the base bill on
the floor, education by $45 billion over the next 5 years; wipes out 42
programs; eliminates the Perkins plan for vocational education. Public
health, the cuts come to $18 billion. That is the NIH, Center for
Disease Control, Graduate Medical Education For Children's Hospitals,
rural health care programs, on and on and on, cut $18 billion.
Veterans, who should have a greater claim to our sympathy and support
now than at any time, you see the sacrifices they are making, 18,000
grievously wounded, veterans health care will be funded at $6 billion
below current services if this budget passes. To go deeper, to cut more
is just unconscionable. I simply cannot imagine it.
In truth, what you have got here are $162 billion cumulative cuts in
programs on which people depend over 5 years. You have already gone
beyond the reasons of limit. Going even further would be truly
unconscionable.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H2739]]

Mr. Chairman, back in 1995 as a brand new member of the Budget
Committee, we did go through the exercise of balancing the budget and
putting a plan together that actually accomplished that. We thought it
was going to take, I think at the time, 7 years. We got it done in 5
years as a result of a number of advantages and opportunities that were
happening at the time.
Certainly the budget in 1995 was not written during a recession, it
was not written during a war, it was not written during an attack on
our homeland, it was not written during one of the greatest natural
disasters that our country has ever witnessed in Hurricane Katrina.
Certainly the challenges we face today are different than 1995, and the
opportunities that we have today are certainly different than they were
in 1995.
But the one thing I like about this budget, even though I am going to
oppose the amendment, is that what my friend from Texas, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Pence from Indiana and so many of the very responsible
members of the Republican Study Committee who have put together a
detailed plan, is that they are blazing the trail. They are showing us
how.
We may not get there today, as my friend from Iowa said, and I know
for sure he can write a budget that can balance by tonight, or I am
pretty sure. I am sure there are a lot of Members who could do that.
But we are not writing the perfect budget tonight. That is not
possible. We are writing a majority budget. We are writing a budget
that can get 218 votes.
So if this budget does not get 218 votes because there are Members
who believe that it goes too far too fast, let us not forget the
principles, though, that it lays out, that we need to consider as we
write any budget, and that is, number one, we must continue to grow the
economy. That is lesson number one of the 1990s and the first historic
balanced budget in a generation.
Number two, we have got to control spending. What the underlying
budget does is it basically freezes domestic spending while we fight
this global war on terror and while we have men and women in the field.
Third, during the nineties, particularly with welfare reform, that we
had to drag President Clinton kicking and screaming to sign after he
vetoed it twice, is that we must reform government programs and
entitlements, constantly looking for better ways to deliver government
products and services in the best way possible to the taxpayers of
America.
This is what this budget attempts to do. The underlying budget will
accomplish that. We ask for its support.
I respectfully ask that Members do not support the RSC budget, but
that we take that lesson as a way to point us toward better fiscal
responsibility in the future and always be willing to blaze that trail
toward more discipline, more responsibility and more reform.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Republican Study Committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute.
On March 8, I joined with my colleagues from the Republican Study
Committee to renew our commitment to the principles of the Contract
With America. We must control government spending.
While I may not agree with every line of this substitute amendment, I
do support its overall goal of balancing the budget in five years and
saving taxpayers nearly $360 billion.
The attack of Sept. 11, the War on Terror and national emergencies
like Katrina are largely to blame for our deficit . . . but not
completely. Wasteful government spending also adds to the national
debt, and we need to address it.
Our Nation's growing deficit amounts to a generational transfer of
wealth. Today's youth will pay for the decisions we make today. For
years, we have increased government spending, and now, we must work
together to help rein it in and cut the deficit.
Here are some frightening statistics:
Since 2000, the amount the government spends on average per American
household has grown 15.1 percent--the highest level since World War II.
In recent years, the federal budget growth has far outpaced the
growth in the average American family budget.
This year's deficit may well exceed $400 billion.
Americans are saying enough is enough. The RSC budget will balance
the budget in 5 years and eliminate more than 150 federal programs that
are no longer making the grade.
Congress has some tough decisions to make during the 2007 budget
process. This is no different than those Americans who establish their
own annual budgets. Over the next five years, Americans will generously
provide the federal government with an average increase of 5.3 percent
in federal tax revenue. Congress must learn to live within that.
Think about it. When our constituents sit down to figure out their
family budgets, they don't start by figuring out how much they want to
spend. They start by figuring out how much they have to spend and then
they work back from there.
We should do no less.
In the end, we must ask ourselves, what legacy do we want to leave
our children? Will it be a massive government and crushing debt? Or the
legacy of hope, prosperity and a lean and responsible government?
Mr. Chairman, budgeting is about making tough choices. Congress must
return to the path of fiscal responsibility. We must balance the budget
and rein in spending, and the RSC budget alternative is the best place
to start.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment Made in Order in Lieu of Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr.
Spratt

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Amendment made in order in lieu of part B amendment No. 3
in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 109-468
offered by Mr. Spratt:

(For text of the amendment, see prior proceedings of the House of
today.)
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 817, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and a Member opposed each will control
20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we offer a budget substitute which offers a difference,
because, you see, our budget will return the budget to balance by the
year 2012. In the interim, it will run smaller deficits and rack up
less debt.
Our resolution will hold non-defense discretionary spending to the
level of current services over the next 5 years, showing that we can
exercise discipline and control without making devastating cuts in the
essential services. The Republican budget, the base bill, never reaches
balance, and, in my opinion, presents no plan or prospect of wiping out
the debt or reducing the deficit.
I just outlined a few minutes ago some of the draconian cuts that are
made over time. They may not seem that to start with, but they are
relentless over a 5-year period of time. Education, for example, will
be cut $45 billion; the environment will be cut substantially; and so
will health, public health. NIH, Center for Disease Control, Graduate
Medical Education for Children's Hospitals, on and on and on, rural
health care programs that people depend upon.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen), to discuss the health implications of the base bill and the
difference between our substitute and the base bill when it comes to
public health.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget we are voting on tonight does
nothing to address the plight of the 46 million Americans who do not
have health insurance. It does not improve our health care
infrastructure. It does not ensure that physicians receive adequate
Medicare reimbursement. It does not continue the level of Federal
investment in medical research that has led to great advances in new
treatments and cures for disease. Instead, this budget increases the
deficit and adds to our Nation's exploding national debt.
The Democratic budget, on the other hand, rejects the Republicans'
disastrous cuts to health care and other domestic priorities.

[[Page H2740]]

The Republican budget does not address the flawed sustainable growth
rate formula for physician payments. Under the Republican budget,
physicians will see a 4.6 percent cut to their Medicare payments in
2006, when their costs are going up continuously. The Democratic budget
creates a reserve fund to increase Medicare payments to physicians,
just like an amendment to the Senate budget resolution that passed
unanimously.
The Republican budget echoes the President's insufficient level of
funding for public health programs, shortchanging critical medical
research, treatment, prevention and training programs. Programs facing
cuts include 18 of 19 institutes at the National Institutes of Health,
critical prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control,
Graduate Medical Education for Children's Hospitals and scores of other
health programs that the President cut or eliminated.
The Democratic budget rejects the funding cuts to public health and
ensures that these important programs maintain their purchasing power
by providing $18 billion more than the Republican budget over 5 years.
I urge you to vote for the Democratic substitute and respect,
respect, the claims that have been made to us by people with cancer, by
people with ALS, just today in our offices saying if those research
funds are not increased, their lives and the lives of those like them
will be endangered.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for
20 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), an esteemed member of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, again, what we see in this budget
debate is it comes down to a debate about values, it comes down,
frankly, to a debate about spending, it comes down to a debate about
taxes.
Now, again, what we have heard all evening is that somehow the tax
relief passed by Republicans has led to great deficits. The only
problem is, that doesn't seem to jive with the facts.
I hold in my hand here the latest Treasury report on revenues. Since
we have actually passed tax relief, we have more tax revenues. More tax
revenues. When we allow the American people, the American families and
small businesses to keep more of what they earn, they go out and they
create jobs. And a lot of these jobs happen to be in my district. But,
Mr. Chairman, if we enact this Democrat alternative, you are going to
have a massive tax increase and you are going to start taking the jobs
away.
Since we passed tax relief, Hugh Dublin in my congressional district,
his business used to have three employees. Since we passed tax relief,
he added two new employees, a guy named Dan and a guy named David.

{time} 2300

Yet Democrats want to raise taxes on Hugh Dublin and his small
business. They want to take away these guys' paychecks, and they are
going to end up replacing them with welfare checks. And that is what
they call compassion. That is what the Democratic tax increase is all
about.
Let me tell you about Eddie Alexander of SSS Electric in my district
back in Texas. Since we have had tax relief, he has had to hire two new
people himself, a gentlemen by the name of Jared and a gentleman by the
name of John Feagins. They were both unemployed, looking for employment
in Henderson County, Texas.
Well, due to tax relief, they were able to expand their business. Yet
the Democrats in their substitute budget want to increase taxes on
Eddie Alexander and SSS Electric. They want to take away the paychecks
of Jared and John and replace them with welfare checks. That is not
compassion, Mr. Chairman. We need to reject this Democratic
alternative.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I stand in firm opposition to this budget
resolution. It is offensive. It is immoral. It does not reflect the
true priorities of the American people.
Speaking of priorities, just this week the Health Subcommittee of
Energy and Commerce held a hearing on Children's Hospital's graduate
medical education. This President's budget proposes cutting this
successful program from $297- way down to $99 million. This program
enables our Nation's independent children's hospitals to train the next
generation of pediatricians, pediatric specialists, pediatric
researchers who treat the sickest of our children.
I asked the administration's representative why the President wants
to cut funding for children's hospitals, and she responded that this
administration will be focusing those funds toward higher priorities.
I must ask, what is a higher priority than sick children? What is a
higher priority than investments into life-saving medical research at
the NIH, cancer patients waiting for the next clinical trial which will
save their life? What is a higher priority than health care for our
Nation's veterans coming home today from Iraq with such severe
injuries? Judging by yesterday's tax vote, it would seem to be a
further higher priority for this Republican Congress to have the
wealthiest in our country have a tax cut.
That is what adopting this budget comes down to. I urge my colleagues
to reject this budget resolution, the underlying resolution, and prove
that you are committed to protecting funding for our Nation's hard-
working families. Vote for the Democratic substitute and not for the
special interests.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to analyze this budget in several
different ways. First of all, I want to compliment the Member from
South Carolina for bringing the substitute to the floor. That is an
important first step, because without competing ideas and competing
budgets, we cannot really have a good debate here.
But what is this substitute we are dealing with right here? Number
one, if you take a look at this substitute, it has enormous tax
increases in it, and that is okay. It just defines the difference
between the two parties and the two philosophies that we have.
Why does it have what I just said? Well, this budget claims to want
to extend the extension of the child tax credit, extend the marriage
penalty relief, 10 percent individual tax bracket, alternative minimum
tax rate, estate tax relief, research and development tax credit,
extension for the deduction of State and local sales taxes, marriage
penalty, all of the kinds of things that we passed in the 2003 tax cuts
that we all think are good ideas.
But the question, Mr. Chairman, is do they pay for it? No, they do
not. They claim in their budget they have $150 billion set aside for
this. Well, if you add up the costs, if you add up what it would take
to continue this tax relief, that is $922 billion.
So they put in $150 billion in the budget for this tax policy, when
it costs $922 billion. Where do they make up the difference? How do
they come up with this $772 billion difference?
Well, that is the little asterisk that they have on their budget.
That is the little footnote that they have on their budget. That is the
tax gap. What they propose to do is simply this: If we just give the
IRS some more money, if we hire more IRS agents, audit more Americans,
and crack down harder on enforcement of the Tax Code, we will get this
$772 billion.
So just trust us, the budget adds up. We know we are only setting
aside $150 billion for the $922 billion of tax cuts we would like to
pay for in this budget. So to make up the difference, we are just going
to send the IRS after more people, and that is how we make up the
additional $772 billion.
Now, the other question you want to ask is, well, are they being more
frugal with the taxpayer dollars? Are they spending less money? Well,
no this budget does not do this either. This budget spends more money
than the majority budget, than the proposed budget. This budget spends
$139 billion more.
Well, where do they spend that money? We have heard a lot of talk
here on the floor about the need to support our troops. We need to
support our soldiers. We need to invest in science and basic research.
We need more

[[Page H2741]]

mathematicians, more scientists to compete in the global economy and
globalization.
Those are not extra funding in this budget. What about our veterans?
Our veterans are returning from our wars, from Iraq and Afghanistan,
coming back from other tours of duty. We need to work on our veterans.
They do not propose any additional veterans spending over the base
budget in here. They have $139 billion of more spending in other areas.
So they are not proposing more money for veterans, for science, for
defense, which we believe are the top priorities. They are basically
sticking with our numbers.
Mr. Chairman, I think what you have here is the same old same old:
more spending, higher taxes, and a budget that just does not add up.
Mr. Chairman, I think the base budget that we are passing here today
is a good budget. I prefer to do less on spending.
I was here speaking on the Contract with America renewed budget, the
Study Committee budget, just a moment ago. But this budget honors our
commitment to our troops, honors our commitment to our veterans, makes
sure that we do think about the global economy and invest in basic
research and science, and, more importantly, this budget budgets for
that tax policy so our constituents, the American economy and the
American taxpayer does not get stuck with higher taxes.
Gasoline is $3 a gallon. The cost of living is high in America
because health insurance premiums are going up double digits a year.
The last thing the American taxpayer needs is a tax increase. Yet if
this budget were to pass, something tells me that these IRS agents, as
smart as they are, as aggressive as they are, as good at doing audits
as they may be, these IRS agents are not going to go out and get
another $772 billion to make up and fill this hole to prevent those big
tax increases from hitting the American people, from hitting the
American economy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentlemen before yielding to Mr.
Hoyer. What we have provided here is that there will be $150 billion of
tax cuts before the PAYGO rule applies.
Otherwise, we just would take the PAYGO rule, which worked so well
for us in the 1990s, which on three occasions, the gentleman heard him,
Alan Greenspan said we should reinstate, double edge, applicable to tax
cuts as well as to entitlement increases.
And what we are saying is, applying the PAYGO rule, go through the
Code, as we did in 1986, $2\1/2\ trillion, surely the deductions and
credits and exemptions and preferences there that can help you offset
the taxes that will come up for renewable in 2010. That is what we are
proposing.
You have got $228 billion in this budget resolution alone calls for
tax cuts of that amount. It does not have a dime of them covered. And
that is why, one of the reasons, that the deficit next year will be
$545 billion on budget, before applying Social Security surplus. And 5
years from now it will be $428 billion. That is assuming no fix of the
AMT and no additional costs after 2007 for Iraq.
That is why they do not get anywhere. It is a tread-water budget. So
what we have proposed simply is that there would be additional tax
cuts, of course, up to $150 billion without having to apply the PAYGO
rule. But after that they would have to be offset so we can get about
the business of working off these enormous deficits, which everybody
knows are not sustainable into the future.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that Democrats have
not spent any money over the last 6 years. None of our budgets have
passed. The appropriations bills would not have passed but for
Republican votes, and the Republican President signed the budgets. That
is what this crowd has offered. They have done it all. What has that
meant? Three trillion dollars of additional deficit spending. That is
what it has meant. This budget continues that practice.
Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming majority of Americans now believe that
our great Nation is headed in the wrong direction. Not difficult to
understand why they think that.
The Republican Party's incompetence over the past 5\1/2\ years is
undeniable, from the miscalculations in Iraq to the inept response to
Hurricane Katrina, to failure to secure our ports and borders, to the
historic turnaround in our fiscal health from the $5.6 trillion surplus
that they inherited, which they have turned into a $4 trillion deficit,
a $9.6 trillion turnaround in 64 months; 5.4 million more Americans
live in poverty, 6 million more are uninsured. Real median household
income has dropped nearly $1,700. Thus, today it is stunning that our
Republican colleagues have brought a budget resolution to this floor
that so badly betrays our values and fails to meet our Nation's
priorities.
This shamefully short-sighted budget resolution cuts crucial
investment in our Nation and our people. The difference, I tell my
friend from Wisconsin, is we want to pay for what we buy. You are
buying a lot. You are buying more than we bought when we were in
charge. You are not paying. You are borrowing from the Japanese, the
Chinese, the Saudis. You borrowed more money from foreigners over the
last 5 years than were borrowed in the 210 years before that.
Over the next 5 years, it slashes education by $45 billion; veterans
health care, to which the gentleman referred, by $6 billion; public
health by $18 billion; and environmental protection by $25 billion.
Even worse, this budget resolution is a continuation of the most
reckless fiscal policies in the history of our Nation, policies that
have squandered, as I said, a $5.6 trillion budget surplus. Who said
that? George Bush, March 2001, said that is what we had.
They added more than $3 trillion to the national debt and weakened
our ability, weakened our ability to respond to national and
international crises.
Listen, my friends, to the warning of the nonpartisan Comptroller
General David Walker, not a Democrat, appointed by your side, who
stated in February, ``Continuing on the unsustainable fiscal path will
gradually erode if not suddenly damage our economy, our standard of
living, and ultimately our national security.''
Mr. Chairman, that is what Mr. Walker says their budgets are doing to
America; yet that is precisely what this Republican budget continues to
do. It not only fails to rein in the record Republican deficits of the
last 5 years, it makes them worse. Hear me. This budget makes the
deficits worse. It not only fails to arrest our exploding national
debt, it calls for a debt limit increase of 653 billion additional
dollars.
Last year during our debate on the budget resolution, the chairman of
the Budget Committee confidently proclaimed, and I quote, ``We will be
able to give, I believe, our kids and grandkids the opportunities of a
debt-free world if we begin with a small step again this year.''
That is the chairman who brings to this floor a $653 billion
additional increase in our national debt. The chairman's assertion then
has been eviscerated by the facts now. Vote for this responsible Spratt
alternative and reject this fiscally reckless proposal on top of the
last five fiscally reckless proposals.
The reality is, this budget resolution--and the Republican party's
policies--have instigated a dangerous spiral of deficits and debt that
constitute nothing less than fiscal child abuse, because they will
immorally force our children and grandchildren to pay our bills.
In sharp contrast, the Democratic alternative is reasonable and
responsible.
It would balance the budget by 2012; reinstate the pay-as-you-go
budget rules that were instrumental in creating four consecutive budget
surpluses in the 1990s; and invest in our Nation and our people.
Our Democratic alternative provides matching resources for defense,
and more resources for education, veterans' health care and other
health priorities, and the environment.
I urge my colleagues: vote for fiscal sanity.
Vote for the budget that puts America back on the right track.
Vote for the Democratic substitute.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Nussle.

[[Page H2742]]

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, you know it is interesting that the
distinguished minority whip indicated that all of the spending has been
Republican spending in the last 6 years.
Mr. Chairman, I had a chance to go and check the gentlemen's Website,
and, interestingly enough, he takes credit for spending. He voted for
spending. He got projects for Maryland. Is not this interesting? Well,
I think you may need to change your press release, I would say to the
gentlemen. Maybe these are Republican projects that we provided the
fine people of Maryland that you take credit for on your Website.
No, I think what is really going on here is that there is a lot of
finger pointing.

{time} 2315

There is a lot of interesting partisanship with regard to spending
tonight, because the gentleman comes to the floor and says it is all
our spending and it is all our fault, and yet the gentleman is the same
gentleman on the Appropriations Committee who rolled out most of these
bills, who takes credit for most of the projects, who voted for final
passage in the conference reports on most of those bills as they move
through the process. And so to blame us for spending I think is a
little bit ridiculous.
Let me take the second one. He blames us for Katrina. I think that
was a hurricane; I don't think it was a partisan issue. And instead of
doing something about it in your budget, we actually put a reserve fund
to plan for hurricanes, to plan for emergencies, to plan for natural
disasters, the first time we have ever done this as a Congress. Not
when the gentleman was in control in the majority. We have done this.
We learned our lessons from Katrina. We are going to plan for natural
disasters. We believe it is high time that we do that. So the gentleman
comes to the floor and blames us. No, he blamed the President for
Katrina, and then does nothing about it in his budget.
One final point. For the gentleman to say on the floor tonight that
we cut too much on the one hand and that we provide too much tax relief
on the other, there is only one plan that solves both and that is the
Spratt Democrat substitute, and that is a massive tax increase on
America. It is a secret, no one wants to talk about it; it is in the
plan that they have rolled out. But the only way you deal with your
huge increases of spending and your huge reductions in the tax relief
policy that has been put out there to grow our economy is to increase
taxes. That is the only way.
So I would say to the gentleman that he has certainly laid out a fine
argument, but his own Web site demonstrates that I think he has a lot
of credit that he can take for the challenges that this budget and this
deficit and this fiscal situation have caused.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Maryland 1
additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rose to express my appreciation on behalf of the
people of Maryland for allowing us to invest in some very important
projects. I will continue to take credit for those. But your budgets
are the only ones that have passed, and the appropriations bills are
the ones you have offered on the floor.
But let me say to the gentleman, I have been here long enough so that
in 1993 I heard all the arguments from all your leadership that
adopting our budget proposal would send the country to rack and ruin,
would explode the deficit, explode unemployment, and create a deep
recession. Dick Armey, your leader, said that, the Speaker said that,
the chairman, Mr. Kasich, of your Budget Committee said that.
You are 180 degrees wrong, dead flat wrong. Exactly the opposite
happened. Under a proposal that we made that you said was a massive tax
increase, you never talk about of course the $250-plus billion spending
cut, but we had the best economy in the history of America.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from
Texas, let me say that there are certain promises that we are bound to
keep in government, and I think one of the most important are promises
we have made to our veterans, because they were purchased for a dear
price and usually therefore services are sorely needed, particularly
veterans health care.
I yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas to talk about the
difference between our budget substitute and the base bill when it
comes to this vitally important thing called veterans health services.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, if the House
Republican leadership were to be accused in a court of law of being
fiscally responsible, there would not be enough evidence to convict it.
In fact, the evidence shows that this leader's free lunch philosophy
has taken America in just 5 years from the largest surpluses in
American history to the largest deficits in American history. We are
now facing $1 billion-a-day deficits. Who is financing them? Communist
China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela; and this budget
continues the status quo.
This budget isn't just fiscally irresponsible; it turns its back on
the American value of fairness. How? Just a few days ago, based on
these budget numbers, the Republicans in this House voted for a $2
million dividend tax cut for poor Mr. Lee Raymond, the just-retired CEO
of ExxonMobil who just got a $400 million retirement package. I guess
that wasn't enough; he got $2 million more in dividend tax cuts from
the same people who in this budget are saying to veterans making
$28,000 a year, you make too much money to deserve VA health care in
our hospital system even if you did serve our country in combat.
Worse yet, this budget resolution that I hope we will defeat would
cut $8.6 billion during a time of war out of present services to our
veterans health care. I don't think that reflects the American values.
To servicemen and -women, it says that we are going to, at least
according to the present budget, cut $735 million out of defense health
care services. That service is not just to military retirees; that is
health care services to the men and women fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan today. That appropriation bill will be on the floor of the
House this week because of this budget resolution. Those aren't
America's values.
The choice is clear. If you think America is on the right track, if
you like $1 billion-a-day deficits financed by the Communist Chinese,
Russia, and Iran, vote for the Republican leadership budget. If you
think Lee Raymond really needs a $2 million dividend tax cut this week
while saying ``no'' to men and women who served our country in uniform
and those who continue to serve our country in uniform, then vote for
the Republican budget. But if you think veterans deserve better and our
country deserves better, vote for the Spratt substitute, lower
deficits, true fiscal responsibility, and an $8.6 billion increase,
compared to the Republican budget for VA health care over the next 5
years.
If the Spratt budget were accused of being fiscally responsible,
there would be enough evidence to convict it. It also passes the
American values test of fairness, fairness for veterans, fairness to
our servicemen and -women, fairness to future generations of our
children and grandchildren.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I guess as I listened to this, I think it makes it very
clear the difference in philosophy of the two parties that have put
forth these budgets. Because, on the one hand you have got the
Republican budget that takes the money that is available, sets a
spending limit, does like every American family has to do, you sit down
and you decide how much you are going to be able to spend on the
priorities that you set out. And it does just that, it gets a handle on
the spending, which is what the American people want. And then it tries
to reform some of these areas of the government that need to be
reformed. And, thirdly, it says that, look, there are some things we
can do like establish a rainy day fund, we can set aside money for
emergencies we know we are going to have, and it does those three
things.
And yet you look on the other side and you see the Democratic
alternative. There is no ounce of reform,

[[Page H2743]]

none whatsoever. There is no real effort to set aside money for true
emergencies.
I guess the most drastic difference between the budget that I support
and the Republicans have offered and the budget that Mr. Spratt has
talked about is just that age-old philosophy of you just spend a little
more money, you make a little more people happy, but how do you pay for
it? Where do you get the money? And you all proudly talk about how you
are going to spend more money, but you are not so proud about where the
money is coming from because it is like magic money. You don't say we
are going to raise taxes. You just do the things you do that
automatically increase taxes on the middle class, the folks that you
are saying you are going to help by spending more money, and that is
just an endless cycle.
When I was a kid, I used to watch TV and there was a thing called
Bullwinkle and he was a moose, and he had a friend that was named Rocky
and he was a squirrel. And Bullwinkle would always say to Rocky, ``Hey,
watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat.'' And old Rocky the squirrel
said, ``No way. You are not going to be able to pull a rabbit out of
the hat.'' And sure enough Bullwinkle would reach into that hat for
that elusive rabbit, and he would always pull out something other than
a rabbit. One time he pulled out a lion.
And I submit to you all that our Democratic colleagues once again are
reaching in that hat just like Bullwinkle did; and instead of pulling
out the magic money, they are going to pull out a tax increase. It is
just the way it goes.
So let me just say to everyone, I think we all know we need money to
provide services, but right now it seems to me we need something more.
We need discipline to rein in spending. We need courage to make the
right decisions even when they are hard. And we need a commitment to
make sure that every task of government is accomplished more
efficiently and more effectively than it ever has been before, because
if life is going to change in America, life has got to change here in
Washington.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me these 2 minutes. And I would like to respond to the
gentleman from Texas who talked about veterans health care.
Let me just run through some of the numbers, because actually we are
significantly increasing veterans health care spending in this budget.
The 2006 appropriated number was $33.6 billion for veterans health
care. In this budget under the chairman's mark, it was $36.1 billion.
Under an amendment that was supported on a bipartisan basis and
supported by the chairman, we increase that by nearly $800 million this
year and for the next 4 years, bringing the total veterans health care
number to $36.9 billion, which is a 9.8 percent increase.
We all know this is a 1-year budget. We have to continue to support
our Nation's veterans, and we will do so. This year's budget allocates
10 percent of the health care dollars for mental health. We know how
important that is with veterans returning from Iraq. Over the last
several years we have doubled the health care numbers of veterans who
are receiving top quality veterans health care from $2.5 million to $5
million. Over that 5-year period of time, the veterans health care
dollars in the budget have gone from $21 billion to $33.6 billion last
year, and under this budget, again, as I said before, $36.9 billion.
We have done other things, too, for veterans over the last 5 years,
which have been very significant. We have more than doubled the GI
education benefit. We have increased the death benefit for those who
have given the ultimate sacrifice to $100,000. We have increased the VA
home loan guarantee by 67 percent. We have expanded national
cemeteries. Under the defense bills for the last couple of years, we
have increased survivor benefits phased in over the next several years
to the 55 percent promised level. And we have finally helped resolve
the concurrent receipts disability payments for our Nation's veterans.
We have made significant progress for our Nation's veterans. This
budget continues that.

{time} 2330

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend and colleague
Mr. Spratt for giving me this time, but also for the leadership he has
shown on the Budget Committee of which I am a member and for helping us
present an alternative, an alternative for a different direction for
our Nation, but also, I think, passes the tests of fairness and decency
and reflects the values and the priorities that we have as Americans
coming together.
Mr. Chairman, people are entitled to their own opinions, they are
entitled to their own ideology, they are entitled to their own spin,
but they are not entitled to their own facts. As President Reagan was
fond of saying, facts can be a stubborn thing.
The fact of the matter is they have presided over the largest and
quickest expansion of our national debt in our Nation's history. Their
budget moves forward without pay-as-you-go rules in place, something
that we have embraced with our own budget, which led to 4 years of
budget surpluses in the 1990s, which actually helped us start paying
down the national debt, rather than increasing our dependence on China
to be financing these deficits of today.
People are wondering, well, what is the big deal about borrow and
spend, borrow and spend, a philosophy they seem to have embraced. The
problem is that the borrow-and-spend philosophy asks those who can
contribute the least to sacrifice the most, and nothing is more
apparent than the difference in our philosophy in regards to our
support for the investment in the future of our country, in education,
and what they are doing to education programs under their budget
resolution.
Their budget calls for another $4.6 billion of education funding cuts
from current funding levels. This follows on the heels of a $12 billion
raid on student aid in the budget reconciliation that they passed
earlier this year.
Their budget resolution, which tracks the President's number, calls
for the elimination of 42 education programs such as Safe and Drug Free
Schools, Education Technology, Even Start Family Literacy program.
Their budget calls for underfunding No Child Left Behind by an
additional $15 billion, leaving that unfunded Federal mandate for
States and local school districts to wrestle with, which increases the
property tax burden in States like Wisconsin, we are finding.
Their budget also reduces funding for special education from 17.7
percent cost share at the Federal level down to 17 percent cost share,
even though we have had a bipartisan attempt in this Congress to reach
a 40 percent Federal cost share in special education. Again, another
unfunded Federal mandate falling on the laps of local school districts.
Our substitute saves these programs. In fact, it also calls for the
reduction of the student interest rate burden that our students are
facing when they go on to postsecondary education, making it easier to
afford higher education.
Our budget is fully paid for with pay-as-you-go rules. It recognizes
the key investment that we have to make in the future of our country,
to make sure that higher education is not just a dream for some, but an
opportunity for all, because right now under current education policy,
close to one-half of low-income students in this country who are
qualified and want to go on to school don't because they cannot afford
it. That is a recipe for economic disaster.
Our budget addresses that, and I encourage our colleagues to support
the Democratic substitute.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, it seems that the debate is supposed to
offer choices, and today the Republican Party of which I am a proud
member offered a choice.
We stood with the President of the United States as we extended the
tax relief to prevent the largest tax increase in history on the
American people, and yet tonight we cannot seem to draw a clear
distinction, and not for lack of trying on our side.

[[Page H2744]]

The reality is, with this budget that is before us for debate, is
there are two fundamental premises which I think are not only flawed,
but which will a aggrieve the American taxpayer when they find out what
they are.
The first is the concept of PAYGO. We have heard a lot of talk about
that. PAYGO means that unless Washington stops spending your money, you
continue to pay high taxes. I assure you that that will not be a
benefit to you because you will get the short end of the stick.
If the PAYGO provisions are not sufficient, we also see in the budget
before us is the concept of the magic asterisk or the tax gap, whereby
we will then be dependent upon the receipts of tax deadbeats to
continue to spend money. We addressed the tax gap issue in the House
Budget Committee by adopting an amendment I put forward with a couple
of votes from the minority party which said that any tax gap or
delinquent tax money that was recovered would be used for deficit
reduction or debt elimination. What we see in the budget before us is
that the money that is recovered from delinquent taxes under this will
then instead be spent on new programs by the government.
The reality, in my mind, remains quite simply this. If PAYGO does not
prove successful, if the Washington politicians somehow continue to
spend your money, which is their forte, you will receive no tax relief,
and if that is not sufficient for you to feel disgruntled, the reality
then becomes that you can have your tax relief held hostage by tax
deadbeats, because the reality is, under this budget, you get no tax
relief unless a tax deadbeat decides to pay, and that is wrong for the
American public. That is simply unfair, and it is unfair not to give a
clear choice, with the laudatory talk about tax and spend of the 1990s
is insufficient for true debate.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the Spratt substitute.
Once again, the Republicans in the House have proved that there is
little compassion in their brand of conservatism. If anything, with
this budget they are declaring themselves to be fiscally irresponsible;
soft on national security, veteran neglecting, anti-tax cuts for the
middle class, pro-drug company, against real reform in rural health
care as well as making quality education affordable.
I don't know what brand of conservatism you would call that, but it
certainly isn't compassionate. If anything it's irrational; irrational
conservatism. Because what the GOP proposes to do is wrong for America.
Here's a look:

fiscal responsibility

The GOP budget calls for deficits for as far as the eye can see,
never achieving balance--adding another $2.3 trillion to the national
debt over the next 5 years.
Democrats propose to lower the deficit over the next 5 years, and get
to balance in 6 years. Our plan would reimpose the pay-as-you-go rules,
which require that spending increases and tax cuts to be paid for, and
which brought us to budget surpluses in 1990s.

makes america safer here at home?

GOP budget cuts homeland security by almost $500 this year and $6.1
billion over 5 years. It is not much better than the President's
budget, which eliminates port security grants and rail and transit
security grants--rolling them into a larger grant program.
Democrats would provide $6.5 billion more over the next 5 years for
homeland security, thereby guaranteeing funding for port security,
first responders, and Justice Assistance Grants.

adequately funds veterans' programs?

The GOP budget cuts funding for veterans' health care by $6 billion
over the next 5 years.
Democrats have a better way, by providing $6 billion more over the
next 5 years for veterans' health care than the GOP budget. Also
rejects increases in TRICARE health care costs for more than 3 million
military retirees and their families.

targets tax cuts to the middle class?

No. The GOP budget follows the President's budget, which provides
$2.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years, targeted to the very
wealthiest taxpayers.
Democrats would provide $150 billion for middle-class tax relief
including child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and 10 percent
individual bracket.

addresses problems with the prescription drug benefit?

The GOP budget does nothing to address the serious problems in the
confusing and costly Bush Prescription Drug plan.
Democrats would use PPO slush fund and savings from negotiating drug
prices to improve the Prescription Drug plan by working to close the
donut hole and providing that drug coverage is reliable. We would also
extend the enrollment deadline without penalty.

Provides Funding for Key Discretionary Health Care Initiatives?

No. The GOP budget is identical to the Bush budget, which slashes
rural health activities, underfunds NIH, and cuts prevention programs
at the Centers for Disease Control. It also cuts physician payments by
5 percent each year.
Democrats would provide $18 billion more over the next 5 years for
discretionary health care programs than the GOP budget, including NIH
and the Centers for Disease Control. And we would provide for an
increase in Medicare physician payments in 2007.

Makes College More Affordable?

No. The GOP Budget is identical to the Bush budget, which freezes
Pell Grants for college and denies more than 460,000 students low-cost
loans. This is on top of the $12 billion cut in student loan funding
that Republicans just enacted.
Democrats reject the GOP cuts in higher education programs. We would
also lower the cost of student loans--cutting the interest rate on
student loans in half in 2007.

Expands Educational Opportunity?

No. The GOP Budget is identical to the Bush budget, which underfunds
No Child Left Behind by 39 percent, denying extra math and reading help
to 3.7 million children and shutting 2 million children out of
afterschool programs.
Democrats would provide $4.6 billion more in 2007 and $45.3 billion
more over the next 5 years for education and training programs than the
GOP budget.

Provides Funding for Key Environmental Protection Initiatives?

No. The GOP budget is similar to the Bush budget, which slashes Clean
Water funds by 22 percent, cuts Safe Drinking Water funds, and
underfunds land and water conservation programs.
Democrats would provides $2.9 billion more in 2007 and $25 billion
more over the next 5 years for environmental protection programs than
the GOP budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Let me just point out to the gentleman that amongst those who support
the idea of closing the tax gap, using it in the budget, is the
President himself. In his 2006 budget, he requested $446 million in
extra funding for tax enforcement. The Senate side has bought into the
idea. They have provided in the 2007 budget resolution $500 million,
unanimously approved in the Senate for the same purpose. So it is not
just a pipe dream by any means. It is something we should be about.
What we are simply proposing in PAYGO is what Mr. Greenspan asked on
three occasions before our committee strongly recommended, that we
reinstate the rules.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to close to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
for yielding and acknowledge his tremendous leadership of putting forth
the Spratt Democratic budget, which reflects the values of our country
and is in balance.
Mr. Chairman, our most important responsibility as elected officials
is to provide for the common defense. Keeping the American people safe
is our first responsibility. That personal safety and America's
national security are seriously jeopardized by the Republican budget. A
vote for the Spratt Democratic alternative is a vote for a safer and
more secure America.
Close to home in our neighborhoods, the Republican budget slashes
funding for our first responders, including the COPS program and the
SAFER Act, initiatives which put cops on the beat and equip our
firefighters. The Spratt Democratic budget restores all of these cuts.
The Republican budget cuts homeland security funding by over $450
million in fiscal year 2007 and $6 billion over 5 years. I repeat, when
it comes to our homeland security, the Republican budget cuts over $450
million for fiscal year 2007 alone and $6 billion over 5 years. The
Democratic budget provides $1 billion more for port security and
overall $6.5 billion more to keep our country safe.

[[Page H2745]]

The Republican budget continues to hide the cost of the Iraq war from
the American public and cuts the Army National Guard strength by more
than 17,000 troops despite the tremendous strain that the war has
placed on them and now the additional charge that the President has
made of them on immigration. The Democratic budget fully funds our Army
National Guard.
The Republican budget betrays our veterans by cutting $6 billion over
the next 5 years from current services and tripling TRICARE health
fees. Mr. Spratt's budget, the Democratic budget, keeps our commitment
to veterans.
Republicans are abandoning our veterans and failing to invest in
America's safety in order to give huge tax cuts to the wealthy that
leave Americans awash in red ink.
Today the President signed a tax bill. Tonight, in this budget, we
have to deal with the consequences of those tax cuts, largely for the
wealthiest people in America. Under the President's bill and passed by
this Republican Congress, Americans making $20,000 a year will receive
$2 a year in tax cuts; $20,000, $2. Americans making $40,000 a year
will receive $16, barely enough for a couple to go to the movies. Those
making $50,000 a year will receive a $46 tax cut, barely enough to fill
up your gas tank these days, thanks to Mr. Cheney's energy policy. But
if you make more than $1 million a year, $1 million a year, you get
1,000 times what somebody making $50,000 a year gets. You make $42,000
in tax cuts. Fifty thousand dollars a year, you can barely fill up your
tank; $1 million a year, you can buy a luxury car because the American
taxpayers are giving you $42,000.
In effect, American taxpayers are going into debt to China in order
to give a tax cut to America's wealthiest people. When Republicans
spend the Federal budget into the red, the U.S. Treasury borrows money
from foreign countries. Since President Bush took office, the amount of
foreign-owned debt has increased by over $1 trillion. In fact, it is
more than all of the foreign-owned debt of the 42 previous Presidents
combined, a horrible record.
The Japanese now own about $670 billion and the Chinese own $260
billion of our foreign debt. Our national debt is a national security
issue. Countries that own our debt will not only be making our toys,
our clothes and our computers, pretty soon they will be making our
foreign policy. They have far too much leverage over us.
While the Republican budget is never balanced and has deficits as far
as the eye can see, the Democratic budget, the Spratt substitute,
reaches balance by 2012 and follows the strict pay-as-you-go rules, no
deficit spending.
Instead of investing in our veterans, instead of securing our ports,
the Republican policy of tax cuts for the wealthy have meant that the
interest payments to foreign countries are the fastest-growing item in
this budget.
Democrats take seriously our first responsibility to provide for the
common defense. Our Democratic budget reflects that commitment. Mr.
Spratt is not only the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, he is
a very senior member of the Armed Services Committee, and his
commitment to tough and smart national security for our country where
we project America's power to protect our people and protect our
interests throughout the world is a strong commitment, and his, Mr.
Spratt's, patriotism and his commitment to our national security, they
are reflected in this budget that he has proposed. He has helped create
a Democratic budget that makes us all proud, and he does it in a
fiscally sound way.
I urge our colleagues to support the Spratt substitute and to reject
the unpatriotic, irresponsible and, as the religious community says,
immoral budget that the Republicans are proposing tonight.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, on unpatriotic, irresponsible, immoral, wow, those are
big words. First, a couple of facts. Veterans spending, defense
spending, homeland security spending, they are increased in the budget.
They are not cut. They are not savagely cut. Increased.
Let us talk about the differences between the Spratt Democrat
substitute and the majority budget that is on the floor here today.
Number one, we believe it is important that we reform government.
Just because we take our taxpayer dollars and spend them on government
programs does not mean we cannot always look at reforming government.
That is why this budget proposes reconciliation, going and looking and
trying to find savings on the 60 percent of the Federal budget that is
entitlement. They do not even touch that part of the budget. We are
saying let us do it every year. That is important reform, number one.
Number two, we are trying to bring some common sense to the emergency
spending process. Far too long in Congress, Congress has been able to
declare virtually anything an emergency. Not anymore. We are saying if
we are going to do emergency spending, it has to fit a tight definition
of what truly is an emergency, an act of terrorism, a natural disaster,
an act of war, things like that.

{time} 2345

And more importantly, Mr. Chairman, we are going to budget for those
emergencies because we always know that there is going to be that
hurricane, that tornado, or that flood. That is smart and prudent
budgeting. That is what we do. The Democrat substitute doesn't do any
of that.
But where is the real difference? The real difference is this: we
believe that the money that is made in America is the individual's
money. We believe that the fruit of the labor of people who are working
hard and paying taxes is theirs. It is their money. That is different
from the premise on the other side of the aisle.
Let me explain it. One of the great things we accomplished in the
2003 tax cuts were that we saw that the vast majority of income tax
ratepayers, the top ratepayers, were small businesses; yet we were
taxing them at 40 percent when we were taxing IBM, Microsoft, and Exxon
at 35 percent. So we lowered that tax rate on small businesses, on
entrepreneurs, on family businesses and on farmers so they are at least
not paying more taxes than the largest corporations in America.
What did the Democrats decide to do? Raise those taxes. Let's make
sure we raise taxes on family farmers, raise taxes on small businesses
so that that small business in America, the job-creating engine of
America, pays higher taxes than Exxon and Microsoft and IBM. That is
wrong. I think that is immoral. I think that is irresponsible. Yet that
is what they are proposing to do.
You know what they are saying to the rest of America? You know what
they are saying to the families that are getting a per-child tax
credit, people who are married and who aren't paying a marriage penalty
any more, people who are trying to save to send their kids to school,
people who are saving for their IRAs or their pensions or their
401(k)s? You know what they are saying? They are saying to those
people, if you don't want a massive tax increase, if you don't want a
huge tax increase, we have to make sure we go after deadbeat tax
cheats. And if we can collect more money from tax cheats, then we won't
raise your taxes.
But if the government can't collect money from tax cheats, if the IRS
can't do a good enough job and go get an extra $772 billion, then we
are going to raise your taxes. That is what their budget proposal is.
And on top of that, they propose even more spending.
Reject tax increases, reject high spending, and, Mr. Chairman, let us
hold the line on domestic spending. Let's fund our veterans, let's
protect our troops, let's support the war on terror, and let's not
raise taxes. Defeat the Spratt substitute and support the majority
budget.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Democratic Substitute Budget for fiscal year 2007. As a member of the
Blue Dog Coalition I have fought for a balanced budget that represents
our Nation's ideals. I believe that this Democratic amendment is the
appropriate path for us to reach that goal.
This amendment promises to provide the fiscal discipline that is
lacking in the Majority's proposed budget, which will allow us to
achieve balance in less than 10 years. By 2012 our Nation's fiscal
health will be restored, while providing for $150 billion in future
middle-class tax cuts and matching or exceeding the Majority's proposed
spending for national defense and domestic programs.

[[Page H2746]]

The current budget threatens the programs that our people depend on--
Medicare, veterans' benefits, pension programs, and human services are
in jeopardy yet again. The Spratt Substitute protects these crucial
programs and the millions of Americans who have earned access to them.
This Democratic proposal matches the Republic budget dollar-for-
dollar on National Defense and Homeland Security, while increasing
funds for our troops and their families, preventing terrorists from
accessing weapons of mass destruction, and fully adopting the
recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress's irresponsible spending must be stopped
and the Democratic proposal will do just that. With pay-as-you-go
rules, unwavering support for national security, and moral allocations
of money to those who need it most, this Democratic proposal is a rock-
solid budget with American values and I ask for your support.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget
resolution. The Republican budget resolution is no plan to bring the
budget back to balance. The Republican budget includes a deficit for
2006 of $372 billion, and a deficit for 2007 of $348 billion. These
deficits mean that, under Republican policies, the five largest
deficits in history will have occurred in five consecutive years. Over
the next five years (2007-2011), the budget resolution calls for
deficits totaling $1.1 trillion.
Since this Administration took office, it has requested and the
Congress has provided four increases in the statutory debt ceiling
totaling $3 trillion. Under this budget, by 2011 the statutory debt
will increase by another $2.3 trillion, for a total increase of $5.3
trillion. It will leave the statutory debt at a record level of $11.3
trillion. The President's reckless economic policies have doubled our
nation's debt. Further, I am concerned by the amount of the debt that
has been accumulated by foreign bank, individuals and governments. In
1980, 17 percent of the federal debt held by the public was in foreign
hands. By 2006, 45 percent of the debt held by the public was owned
overseas. Unfortunately, this trend seems to be increasing rapidly.
During the past year, approximately 90 percent of the debt we have
accumulated has been purchased by foreign banks, individuals and
governments.
I support the Representative John Spratt's alternative budget, which
would reach balance in 2012. The Spratt budget also has smaller
deficits than the Republican budget, and accumulates less debt. By
contrast, the Republican budget never returns to balance, and even
refuses to show how big its deficits will be after 2011. The Spratt
budget backs the two-sided Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) budget enforcement
rules that require that the cost of any new mandatory spending or
revenue legislation be fully offset. During the 1990s, two-sided PAYGO
rules played a critical role in turning record deficits to record
surpluses. The Spratt budget also requires a separate vote to increase
the debt limit, and prohibits using fast-track reconciliation
procedures to make the deficit worse.
The Republican budget cuts appropriations for domestic services by
$9.4 billion relative to current services, and by $3.2 billion below
the level passed by Republicans in the Senate. Meanwhile, the budget
continues Medicare subsidies close to $60 billion for managed care
providers of Medicare even though they are supposed to save Medicare
money, not cost more. The resolution also includes $228 billion over
five years for additional tax cuts, part of a $3 trillion ten-year
Republican tax cut agenda.
The Republican resolution cuts appropriated funding for education and
related programs below current services, providing the same inadequate
level as provided by the President. For 2007, that Republican level
cuts funding for the Department of Education by $2.2 billion below last
year's comparable level, and eliminates 42 education programs.
The Spratt budget provides $4.6 billion more than the Republican
budget for education appropriations, and over five years provides $45.3
billion more than the Republican resolution. The Spratt budget rejects
the deep cuts proposed by the Republican budget, and preserves programs
such as vocational education, Perkins loans, Safe and Drug-Free Schools
state grants, and the GEAR-UP college readiness program. The Spratt
budget also makes a down payment on college affordability by cutting
student loan interest rates.
After a temporary one year gain, the Republican budget after five
years cuts funding for veterans' health care by $6.0 billion below
current services. The Spratt budget includes $6.0 billion more than the
Republican budget over five years for veterans' health care. The Spratt
budget also rejects the increase on health care fees on military
retirees who are enrolled in Tricare. The Republican budget asks
additional sacrifices from those who have served and sacrificed for our
country; the Spratt budget rejects the misguided Republican policies
and keeps our commitment to our veterans.
The Republican budget cuts funding for health by $18.1 billion below
current services over five years, the same insufficient level provided
by the President. The Republican level means cuts to priorities such as
the Centers for Disease Control, 18 of 19 institutes at the National
Institutes of Health, and rural health activities.
The Spratt budget provides $18 billion more over five years to fund
health priorities cut by the Republican budget, including medical
research at NIH and graduate medical education for children's
hospitals. The Spratt budget also takes steps to address the problems
with the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit,
including extending the May 15 signup period through the end of year
and protecting seniors from any enrollment penalties. The Spratt budget
also takes steps to help the uninsured, and creates a reserve fund to
increase Medicare payments to physicians, which are currently scheduled
to be cut.
For the environment and natural resources, this Republican budget
imposes a $25.0 billion cut relative to current services over the next
five years and imposes a $2.9 billion cut for next year alone. This is
the same level as the President's budget, which cuts funding for the
Environmental Protection Agency (including the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund), the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Park
Service.
Mr. Chairman, the House Republican budget resolution actually makes
the deficit worse, offers no plan to bring the budget back to balance,
and adds to the growing burden of the national debt. Meanwhile, the
Republican budget makes harmful cuts to critical services for the
American people--including education, veterans' services, health, and
environmental protection. I ask my colleagues to oppose this budget and
support the Spratt alternative budget.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be
present today because of a family medical emergency. I am in strong
opposition to the Republican's budget plan and in support of the
Democratic alternative. This budget bill represents how out of touch
the Republican Majority is with the needs of the American public.
The budget is a moral document and this budget highlights the
priorities of the Republican leadership--cutting more taxes for the
wealthy while making harmful cuts to critical programs for working
families--including health, education, veterans' services and
environmental protection. Most concerning about this budget is that it
continues the Republican record of huge deficits and irresponsible debt
accumulation. This budget plan writes a check that Congress cannot cash
without increasing the debt limit to $9.618 trillion--hidden on page
121 of the report accompanying the budget resolution is a provision
that will automatically increase the debt limit by $653 billion.
In contrast, the Democratic budget alternative would balance the
federal budget by 2012 and immediately stop the Majority's record of
increasing the national debt, again and again. Among other things, the
Democratic alternative would reinstate the effective pay-as-you-go
(PAYGO) budget rules to eliminate deficit spending and give the
American people a budget that is fair and responsible. The Democratic
alternative would provide $4.6 billion more for education; would
provide $18 billion more for health programs over 5 years, which
includes medical research at the National Institute of Health and the
Centers for Disease Control and would protect seniors from Medicare
prescription drug enrollment penalties; would provide $8.6 billion more
for our veterans in healthcare over five years and rejects increases in
fees for military retirees enrolled in Tricare; and finally would
provide $2.9 billion more for environmental protection and conservation
programs.
The Republican budget resolution does not reflect the priorities of
the American people. As Members of Congress, we cannot abandon our
obligations to our children, to our parents and future generations by
cutting vital programs and increasing the debt limit to finance tax
cuts bigger than we can afford and hiding the true cost of the ongoing
war in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill and
support the Democratic budget alternative.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina will be postponed.

[[Page H2747]]

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
Amendment made in order in lieu of amendment No. 3 offered by Mr.
Spratt of South Carolina.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second vote in
this series.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 94,
noes 331, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 156]

AYES--94

Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Deal (GA)
Dreier
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gutknecht
Harris
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McHenry
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)

NOES--331

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Shimkus

NOT VOTING--6

Evans
Kennedy (RI)
Kuhl (NY)
Larson (CT)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Stupak

{time} 0016

Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. INSLEE and Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. MACK and Mr. BOOZMAN changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
Messrs. CROWLEY, NEAL of Massachusetts, RUSH, STARK, CRAMER, THOMPSON
of California, FRANK of Massachusetts, ORTIZ, McDERMOTT, HASTINGS of
Florida, RUPPERSBERGER, CLAY, THOMPSON of Mississippi, AL GREEN of
Texas, HINCHEY, CLEAVER, CAPUANO, DELAHUNT, COSTA and SKELTON and Ms.
PELOSI, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote
from ``present'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Made in Order in Lieu of Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr.
Spratt

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 241, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 157]

AYES--184

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin

[[Page H2748]]

Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--241

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Evans
Kennedy (RI)
Kuhl (NY)
Larson (CT)
Melancon
Serrano
Stupak

{time} 0024

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 817, it is now in
order to consider a period of final debate on the concurrent
resolution.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, we reserve to close.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say something first on a personal note. For 6
years now, Jim Nussle and I have sat side by side on the Budget
Committee and collaborated and worked together in the spirit of
cooperation and comity. We have had our vigorous disagreements from
time to time; but there was always, always, the civility and friendship
born of mutual respect between the two of us. We never had the pleasure
of converging and collaborating on a budget itself, and I am sorry for
that, Jim; but we always had I think the same goals in mind, the good
of the country.
We are going to miss you here. I am going to be the first to come to
the well and salute you for your service to the House and to the
country and for the work you have done in particular on the Budget
Committee.
Mr. Chairman, with all the jargon and all the numbers and all the
rhetoric, it is hard to find your way around this budget maze, so let
me start with just the basics, so basic that let's do something
revolutionary, read the resolution before you.
Read this resolution and you will see that right here, page 1, the
public debt of the United States will be $11.3 trillion in the year
2011, 5 years from now. At the end of 2001, 5 years ago, the day
President Bush took office, the public debt was $5.7 trillion. That
means that between 2002 and 2011, under the policies of this
administration and this budget resolution, the public debt of the
United States is going to double. In a 10-year period of time, we are
going to double the debt from $5.7 trillion to $11.3 trillion. It is
right here in your own resolution.
Keep on reading and you will see that the on-budget deficit for next
year, the year 2007, is $545 billion. Now, on-budget, that means before
you offset that against the surplus in Social Security. But there is a
reason it is listed as an on-budget surplus or an on-budget deficit in
this resolution. The law requires it, just as the law requires that
Social Security be taken off budget.
Off budget, when it is treated that way, the deficit is $545 billion
in the year 2007. In the year 2011, the on-budget deficit will be $428
billion. But that doesn't include anything for fixing the AMT. We all
know that has to be done. It will have a significant effect on revenues
when it is. Nor does it include anything after 2007 for the war in Iraq
and Afghanistan. So when you make adjustments for those two factors,
you are really back up to $550 billion.
For 5 years we will tread water, go nowhere. It is right here, the
numbers in this resolution, the first two pages of this resolution.
That is why I say this budget resolution presents no plan and no
prospect of ever balancing the budget.
Indeed, our calculations show, from the staff of the Budget
Committee, our calculations shows that this budget will actually make
the deficit $400 billion worse over 5 years than if we just stood still
and had a current services budget.

{time} 0030

We actually lose ground if we pass this budget tonight, and we
certainly do not move into a future that any of us thinks is fiscally
sound.
Mr. Chairman, I want to show you one other chart which we used
several times today so that you all will be aware of something when you
vote on this budget. Buried in this budget on page 121 is a provision
that is written in legalese, but it says that the joint resolution, if
enacted to raise the debt, the debt will be increased, the debt ceiling
of the United States will be increased by $653 billion.
Tonight if you vote for this budget resolution, you are, in effect,
according to this language on page 121 of the budget resolution, voting
to raise the debt ceiling of the United States by $653 billion.
Now, let me put that in context. Let me put it on the back of an
envelope for you. This simple chart right here shows you the increases
in the debt ceiling of the United States, the legal limit to which the
United States Government can borrow that have been passed by this
Congress over the last 5 years.
June 2002, those of you on the Budget Committee will recall that the
Bush administration came to us selling their budget. They told us,
look, pass this budget with $1.7 to $1.8 trillion in tax cuts, and we
still will not be back until

[[Page H2749]]

2008 to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling. That is how much spare
capacity we have got.
They missed it by a mile. A year later they were back, hat in hand,
and they said, we need an increase in the debt ceiling of $450 billion.
That was 1 year.
The next year they came back with a phenomenal increase. May 24,
2004, the increase was $984 billion. That lasted 15 months. Following
the 15-month period there was another increase, $800 billion. Just 2
months ago, in March, there was a $781 billion increase. And now
tonight, if you vote for this resolution, you can add $653- to that.
Those will be the 5 increases over 5 years in the debt ceiling of the
United States in order to accommodate the budgets that this Congress
has passed during that period of time, all together $3.7 trillion in 5
years.
On the back of an envelope that is as dire as I can present it to
you. In this budget, as I said, look at the numbers on the first page,
$545 billion in 2007, $428 billion in 2011, does not take us anywhere.
It does not present a plan or a solution or anything. At best it treads
water.
Now, let me show you one other thing that is a problematic feature of
this budget. The cuts in this budget are not, at least do not seem to
be, Draconian, at least not at the outset, but they are relentless. And
they take a toll over time, and they come down on one small segment of
the budget, something we call nondefense discretionary spending.
Nondefense discretionary spending.
Now, it is odd that this would be the object of all of the deficit
reduction effort, because, number one, this is not the source of the
problem. This is not where spending has been growing by any means. And,
number two, it is less than 15 percent of the budget. You will never
get a $400 or $500 billion deficit resolved out of an account or series
that do not come to more than $380 billion all together.
But that is what you have chosen to do in this resolution. That is
why for another reason it will not work over time, but it will hurt. It
will hurt people who depend on programs that are essential, such as
transitional Medicaid assistance, such as education. This budget takes
a $45 billion hit on education.
What you see is that over time, as you freeze, this is what our
Republican colleagues call this budget on its effects on discretionary
spending, a freeze, if you simply hold it in place and do not allow it
to increase, actually cut it a bit below inflation over a 5-year period
of time, the total effect of spending is $162 billion. That is coming
out of NIH, that is coming out of CDC, that is coming out of education,
that is coming out of veterans health care. The list goes on and on and
on.
And there are some things in there that are real anomalies. I was out
here on the floor for much of the debate on the immigration reform
bill. You remember that, I am sure. And often the question came up
about stiffer sanctions and tougher rules. Obviously the issue was
raised, how do you enforce them? And frequently the answer was, we go
to State and local government; we are going to use them in addition to
the immigration service and the Customs Service and the Border Patrol.
We want to enlist, engage our sheriffs and our deputy sheriffs and our
city policemen to get involved in immigration enforcement, too. Well,
guess what is cut out in this budget? State criminal assistance
programs, $400 million.
This is not the budget that will take us to the future that we all
want. The best thing that we can do tonight is to take this budget,
take this budget, reject it, send the budgeteers back to the drawing
board, and come up with something different.
That is not going to happen. I know it will not happen. So we will
just kick the can down the road one more time. But I warn you, you know
as well as I, this problem will only get tougher with time, only get
harder to resolve with time. But sooner or later the day of reckoning
is coming. In the meantime, what we have got with this budget is more
deficits, more debt and more denial.
Vote against this budget resolution.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, first let me say thank you to my friend Mr.
Spratt. I liked the first part of his speech a little bit better than
the last part, but I do thank him for his friendship, for his
professionalism. There is nobody in the House of Representatives that
knows more about the budget than he does, and he has been a worthy
partner and friend in this effort. I want to thank him for that.
Also I want to thank my committee members and the staff that worked
so hard to put together this product. When it comes right down to it,
as Mr. Spratt said, this is, I suppose, a document with numbers on it.
There is no such thing as a perfect budget, only the budget that gets
218 votes.
If I wrote the budget for the budget that I personally wanted, it
might look a little differently. We have seen substitute opportunities
tonight that did not quite get the votes. We need to pass a budget that
gets the votes. That may not be perfect to fit everybody's idea of
exactly what the priorities are, but what we in a democracy can agree
is the right direction.
So to close on our side, I would like to recognize and yield the
balance of our time to our friend and the Speaker of the House, Denny
Hastert.
Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. Chairman, as he moves his last budget before the House of
Representatives, I want to thank him for his years of service, his
steadfastness, and, Jim, we wish you well in all your future endeavors.
Thank you very much. God bless you.
Friends, the hour is late, and we have heard a lot of arguments, and
we voted on a lot of budgets today. But three things I just want to
talk about very briefly. First of all, I have heard some arguments on
the other side of the aisle saying, well, you know, if you earn $40,000
a year, you would not get a very big tax cut.
Well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year, a family of two children,
you do not pay any taxes. So you probably, if you do not pay any taxes,
you are not going to get a very big tax cut.
Now, if you earn, as somebody said, $1 million a year, you are going
to pay about, when all of the taxes are paid, about $400,000 of taxes.
And maybe you will get a $40,000 tax cut, maybe. Well, look at the
math.
But I am saying, you know, those are relative things. Now you have to
look at it.
We also heard that, you know, we have a lot of numbers. But I will
tell you, one of the numbers that are important this year because of
the fiscal discipline that this House has had, and our tax policy that
this conference has had, and this Congress has had, is that just in our
revenues this year alone, we have almost $140 billion more in revenue
than we projected even in January, and we are only 5 months into the
year.
So, you know, if you can grow the economy, if you can make things
work, if you create jobs for people, and incidentally those taxes that
some folks talked about that were so terrible, is putting small
business and letting them take their money and create new jobs. As a
result, we have had almost 2 million new jobs in the last year. We have
had 5 million new jobs since 2003. We have created an economy that is
moving, and probably the most vibrant and healthy economy that we have
had in years.
Unemployment is down. Gross national product is up. Consumer
confidence is up. More people own their own homes in this country than
ever before in the history of this country, and more minority folks own
their own homes than ever before in the history of this country, so
something is happening that is right.
But the last thing I want to remind you of is being able to pass a
budget is being able to govern. And it is time that we quit talking,
that we quit, you know, throwing numbers around here. I have been to
auctions before. I have seen a lot of numbers move across the ring. But
I will tell you, we are not going to the highest bidder. We are going
to make sure that we do what is right, what the American taxpayers
expect us to do. That is to be fiscally responsible, to pass a budget
so that we govern and get the work of this House done.
Mr. Chairman, I have talked long enough. Let's vote.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, for several years now, the budgets brought
before this Congress have not adequately represented the interests of
the American people. Rather than approach budgeting in a bipartisan
fashion, Republicans have consistently chosen to

[[Page H2750]]

gild the lily, electing to enact large tax cuts while simultaneously
failing to reign in government spending. These actions by today's
leaders have passed a tremendous financial burden on to future
generations of Americans.
The Republicans' Fiscal Year 2007 budget is no better. It makes the
deficit worse, offers no plan to bring the budget back to balance, and
adds to the growing weight of the national debt. The budget also makes
harmful cuts to critical services for working families--including
education, veterans' services, and health care.
In contrast, the Democratic budget plan proposed by Mr. Spratt of
South Carolina would reach balance in 2012, has smaller deficits,
accumulates less debt, and repeals the House rule providing for
automatic debt ceiling increases. It also would reject the Republican
budget's cuts to domestic priorities and reinstate pay-as-you-go rules
that helped spur the budget surpluses of the 1990s.
I come from Missouri--the ``Show-Me State.'' If the leaders in
Congress and at the White House want to be fiscally responsible, they
ought to show Missourians and the rest of the American people they mean
business by rejecting the failed budget policies of the past and by
immediately convening a bipartisan budget summit. President George H.W.
Bush did this during a similarly challenging time and America is better
for it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Majority's
budget.
We need to acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong
with the budgetary policies the Republican Leadership has pursued for
the last 5 years. It is time for a little honesty about where these
policies are taking this country. Since 2001, the Federal Government
has posted record budget deficits year after year.
During the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans worked together with the
Clinton Administration to cut the red ink and balance the budget. For
the first time in many years, we balanced the budget in 1998. We kept
it balanced in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Indeed, we ran budget surpluses
during those years and, for the first time in a generation, actually
began to pay down the national debt.
Since the Bush Administration took office in 2001, we've swung from
balanced budgets to massive annual budget deficits. In 2002--the year
after the Congress adopted the Administration's tax policies--the
Federal Government posted a $128 billion deficit. In 2003, the deficit
rose to $378 billion. In 2004, the deficit soared to an all-time high
of $412 billion. In 2005, the deficit was $318 billion.
As bad as these deficits are, they do not tell the whole story, since
these figures do not include the money the Federal Government borrows
from Social Security and Medicare trust funds each year. In 2005 alone,
the Federal Government borrowed nearly $175 billion from the trust
funds, and we're on course to borrow even more this year.
We cannot continue on the course we're on. It is wrong for this
Congress and this President to--keep borrowing half a trillion dollars
each and every year and then pass this debt along to our children. It
is wrong for Congress and the President to keep borrowing more and more
from foreigners to fund tax cuts for the very wealthy. China alone owns
more than $818 billion of our debt.
The Majority's budget simply digs the deficit hole deeper. The
Republican budget proposes a $348 billion deficit for 2007. If you add
in the borrowing from Social Security and Medicare--money that, by law,
must be repaid--the total deficit for 2007 soars to $543 billion. The
hard truth is that under the Majority's budget, the Federal budget
never comes into balance. The tide of red ink rises forever. This
policy is unsustainable and morally indefensible.
Tucked away in this budget is a provision to raise the government's
borrowing limit another $653 billion. This would be on top of the $3
trillion in debt limit increases already approved since President Bush
took office. At the very least, there should be a straight up-or-down
vote on a debt limit of this magnitude, but evidently the plan is to
try to sneak this through.
The Majority's budget also contains irresponsible cuts in critical
domestic programs. In this regard, the Majority has mirrored the Bush
Administration's budget, which included deep cuts in education,
critical medical research, environmental protection, veterans' health
care, to name only a few areas. There has been an attempt tonight to
place a fig leaf over some of these cuts with a vague half promise of
perhaps adding an additional $7.1 billion for domestic programs later.
All this fig leaf does is acknowledge that the funding shortfall exists
in the Republican budget without taking any action to actually address
it.
I will vote for the Democratic budget substitute offered by
Representative Spratt. The Spratt budget pays down the deficits over
the next 5 years and achieves balance in 2012. We restore fiscal
discipline by bringing back the pay-as-you-go budgeting rules and we
force a degree of accountability by requiring the House to take a
separate up-or-down vote on measures to increase the national debt
limit. In addition, the Democratic budget alternative provides $150
billion for future tax cuts, and requires that any further tax cuts
meet the pay-as-you-go rules. Lastly, our budget alternative rejects
yet another round of spending cuts to key domestic programs that have
been cut repeatedly in recent years.
The choice before the House could not be more clear. We can vote to
continue the failed economic policies of the last 5 years--policies
that have resulted in massive annual deficits. Or we can say $3
trillion of debt and borrowing over 5 years is enough and vote for the
Spratt budget alternative that pays down these deficits and balances
the budget.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for Representative
Spratt's budget.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, it appears the third time's the charm for
the Republican leadership. Unfortunately, the same is not true for
working Americans who will be worse off under yet another morally
reprehensible Republican budget. This budget insults students, attacks
veterans, and bankrupts future generations.
A budget is a statement about priorities. For the party of Tom Delay
and Jack Abramoff, that means rewarding corporate contributors at the
expense of ordinary Americans. Republicans protected billions of
dollars in giveaways to an oil industry awash in profits. But despite
President Bush's State of the Union rhetoric, this budget underfunded
investments in alternative energy that are necessary to prevent global
warming.
What else do the Republicans believe is less important than
additional billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy? Education,
health care, and the financial well being of our children and
grandchildren.
Despite record enrollment from pre-K to college, Republicans support
large cuts to education. This budget cuts Department of Education
funding by $2.2 billion--and provides $15.4 billion less than
Republicans promised when they passed No Child Left Behind. Even though
college costs have risen 40 percent since 2001, the Republican budget
again freezes the maximum Pell Grant and denies more than 460,000
students low-cost higher education loans.
Though 46 million Americans lack health insurance, the Republican
budget does nothing to improve access to quality care--and actually
includes policies that would increase the numbers of people without
health insurance and who are underinsured. Rather than embrace
necessary fixes to the Medicare prescription drug program, Republicans
instead chose to continue billions of dollars in overpayments to
managed care plans. And despite regularly thumping their chests while
claiming to support the troops, Republicans propose $6.0 billion in
cuts to veterans' health care over five years. Many Americans volunteer
to serve their country, but the Republican Party rarely serves them.
When George Bush was elected President, a satirical newspaper joked
that `our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity' was finally
over. In the years since, Americans have learned the Republican record
of warmongering and fiscal mismanagement is no laughing matter. Prior
to this year, Republicans had already turned a 10-year, $5.6 trillion
surplus and turned it into a $3.2 trillion deficit. Though this budget
cowardly rails to include tens of billions in supplemental requests
related to a misguided Iraq War, it nonetheless adds another $2.3
trillion to the rational debt over the next five years.
This budget makes clear what no amount of spin and lies can hide.
Republicans care more about wealthy corporations and campaign
contributors than they do about America's families, our environment,
land our future.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this cruel and heartless bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution represents
more of the same misplaced priorities and, misguided policies that over
the last 5 years have brought only deficits, debt, and danger. It does
not deserve adoption, and I can not vote for it.
Even before last year's hurricanes, the Federal budget was on a
dangerous course marked by tidal waves of red ink and towering piles of
debt. Since 2001, the budget surplus that President Clinton and a
Republican Congress bequeathed President Bush has been erased and our
country is now in debt to the tune of $8 trillion, or $25,000 for every
American man, woman and child.
There were several causes, but the size and scope of the Bush tax
cuts must bear a large part of the blame.
Several parts of those tax cuts--for example, eliminating the
marriage penalty, fixing the 10 percent bracket and extending child
care tax credits--were good. They gave a reasonable boost for the
economy and increased the fairness of the tax laws. But having
campaigned on giving back most of the budget surplus in tax cuts,
President Bush insisted on much more, and Congress went along. Many of
us warned against reducing the surplus so

[[Page H2751]]

recklessly, and urged the administration and Congress to remember the
need to be ready for future emergencies.
But our pleas for restraint were ignored--and then came the attacks
of 9/11 and the need for increased spending on homeland security, a
military response in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq. The budget
nosedived from surplus into deep deficit.
Since then, even in the face of national emergency, neither the
president nor this Republican Congress has seen fit to call on
Americans for any sacrifice, and instead of temporarily scaling back
tax cuts, the president and his supporters have insisted on making them
permanent even as federal spending has skyrocketed.
So now we are putting the costs of war and everything else the
government does on the national credit card--and much of the debt is
owed not just to ourselves (as in the past), but to China, Japan and
India.
Of course, this cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has
to give. And, if the result is a new sense of responsibility, sooner is
better--because there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our
budget policies, including both taxes and spending.
Unfortunately, however, with this budget resolution the Republican
leadership is doing just the opposite--instead of new thinking they are
insisting on following the same policies that have produced the
problem.
Even though the national debt has reached $8 trillion, under this
Republican budget we will add another $2.3 trillion to the debt over
the next 5 years in order to endorse the President's tax policies,
which squander as much as $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years on
permanent, top-heavy tax cuts.
And, even worse, this budget resolution still fails to meet the most
important challenges that face us--protecting America, caring for our
veterans, and making the investments needed for our future.
It shortchanges key homeland security programs--cutting them by $488
million this year and $6.1 billion over 5 years from the amount needed
to keep up with inflation--while failing to provide for needed
increases in our armed forces, including the National Guard, and
shortchanging the program to dispose of the hundreds of tons of
unsecured nuclear material around the world, particularly in Russia and
former Soviet Union countries.
And even though the VA is already treating more than 144,000 veterans
from Iraq and Afghanistan, with more to come, the budget resolution
would cut veterans' health care by $6 billion over 5 years, and
increase TRICARE health care premiums for more than 3 million military
retirees and their families.
In addition, the budget resolution falls short in other areas.
For example, despite record enrollment growth, it follows the
President's budget, which proposes the largest cuts in education in 23
years. It cuts discretionary appropriations for the Education
Department--meaning an even greater gap between promise and performance
in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. And it also follows the
lead of the President's budget in proposing to freeze the maximum Pell
Grant for college at $4,050--for the fifth year in a row--while setting
the stage for other cuts in programs to boost college opportunities and
access.
And, like the President's budget, this resolution shortchanges NIH
funding and public health programs, including prevention programs at
the Centers for Disease Control and rural health activities, while also
reducing funding for programs to protect and improve our water
supplies, to protect open space, and to conserve natural resources.
I voted for the Spratt substitute, which would have led to lower
deficits over the next 5 years and put us on the path to a balanced
budget in 6 years while still doing more for homeland security,
veterans care, education and training, and to protect public health and
the environment.
Unfortunately, that alternative was not adopted, and so I am left
with no choice but to vote against the Republican leadership's budget
resolution.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the Federal budget should be about meeting
responsibilities and setting priorities that will help move America
toward a better future. Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership has
failed yet again to draft a balanced proposal that meets America's
needs. Instead their Budget Resolution (H. Con. Res 376) is a testament
to misguided priorities--underinvesting in education, the environment,
the economy, and out Nation's veterans, while providing tax cuts to the
wealthiest Americans and multiplying the Federal deficit to its highest
levels ever.
The Republican budget matches the President's cuts in education by
slashing $2.2 billion from the Department of Education. This is the
second consecutive year in which the Republican Leadership has cut
Federal education funding. The Administration's own initiative, No
Child Left Behind, is now underfunded by a total of $40 billion since
its passage 5 years ago. While the cost of higher education is almost
unaffordable for middle-class American families, the Republican budget
cuts the Perkins Loan program by $66 million.
The environment also gets short shrift in the Republican budget. The
budget resolution cuts the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by
$199 million, including a cut to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
The National Park Service, perennially underfunded by the
Administration and Republican majority, is cut by $102 million. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which funds
important programs for the Central Coast like the Bay Watershed
Education and Training (BWET) Program and the National Marine Sanctuary
Program, is cut by 6 percent.
H. Con. Res. 376 provides $228 billion in tax cuts that primarily go
to the wealthiest of Americans. While tax cuts to the rich are extended
for 5 years, Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief, which affects
millions of middle- income taxpayers, is only extended for a year. In
addition, the budget resolution increases our already huge deficit.
Over the next 5 years, the budget resolution counts a total of $1.2
trillion in the Social Security trust funds to partially offset these
record deficits. This is sham accounting and saddles our children and
grandchildren with huge debt.
As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee with oversight
over the Veterans' Administration, I am deeply concerned about
Republican cuts to veterans' health care. H. Con. Res 376 proposes
spending $6.6 billion less on veterans programs over the next 5 years,
while the U.S. fights a global war on terrorism. We are a nation at
war, and our men and women in uniform are making extreme sacrifices.
Yet, the Republican Budget Resolution increases fees for TRICARE, the
military health care program: Fees for retired officers will triple,
double for retired senior enlisted personnel and increase by 40 percent
for junior enlisted retirees.
The American people deserve better. I will support the Spratt budget
substitute that fully invests in education, the environment and the
economy and truly reflects the values of the Central Coast of
California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to
the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Resolution.
The Budget Resolution is a reflection of our values and a statement
of our national priorities. As in the previous years under President
Bush, the 2007 Budget Resolution will force cuts in health care,
environmental protection, education, housing, and other essential
programs that enjoy broad public support.
And, as in previous years, a new round of tax cuts skewed to benefit
our wealthiest citizens will threaten our long-term economic health and
pile more debt onto our children. Eighty-seven percent of the benefits
of the tax cuts the House just passed will go to the 14 percent of
households with more than $100,000 in annual income. Less than 2
percent of the benefits will go to the 60 percent of households with
less than $50,000 in annual income.
The year before President Bush took office, we enjoyed a record-
breaking $236 billion surplus and projected surpluses that were
expected to reach $5.6 trillion by 2011. In an unprecedented reversal,
the policies of President Bush and congressional Republicans have
brought us the five largest deficits in our history. According to the
Bush Administration's own numbers, its policy of massive tax cuts and
deficit borrowing will increase the gross federal debt by a total of
$4.2 trillion over fiscal years 2001 to 2008. Our nation will have
accumulated more debt in eight years under President Bush than under
the first 41 presidents combined.
The Administration's reckless budget and tax policies are
unsustainable and damaging to our nation. In 2006, for the first time
since 1970, the President and Congressional Republicans reduced funding
for the National Institutes of Health, the nation's largest federal
supporter of basic research, applied research, and R&D. This year's
budget reduces the budgets again of 18 of the 19 Institutes.
Just last September, overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House
and Senate wrote President Bush to express strong support for working
aggressively toward the goal of eliminating cancer death and suffering
by 2015. Incomprehensibly, eight short months later congressional
Republicans are pushing through a budget that reduces funding for the
National Cancer Institute (NCI) by $40 million.
This year, more than 1.4 million Americans will be diagnosed with
cancer. Due to the investments we have made in research, prevention,
and early detection, nearly 70% of to day's cancer patients will
survive more than five years, compared to just 50% in 1976. These gains
will be reversed if we do not maintain a vigorous federal commitment to
biomedical research.
The Republican budget carries with it senseless human costs. Dr. Evan
Ross, a young medical doctor who has waged a valiant fight against
cancer, has eloquently expressed below how our misplaced priorities

[[Page H2752]]

are having far-reaching consequences on individual Americans:

It is my understanding that the President's FY 2007 budget
proposal calls for a cut of $40 million for the National
Cancer Institute (which was cut .7 percent in FY 2006) . . .
People like me need as much research as possible to be
occurring. It's great that the President wants to fight a
`war' in Iraq, but to do so at the expense of those Americans
suffering when more can be done to fight the war on cancer is
simply not right. I'm 36 years old and I've had cancer four
times. I have a two year old son. I should be dead, or should
have earned a medal of honor. Neither are true. Yet, I'm
still here, trying to help people as best I can by
integrating Eastern medicine into the Western world.
I intend to get through this battle too, and when I do, it
would be nice to know that someone out there is doing
whatever he or she can to make sure I don't have to fight my
own war yet again, rather than throwing more obstacles in my
path.

I urge my colleagues to consider the millions of Americans who are
being hurt by the misguided policies of the Bush Administration and
congressional Republicans. I urge you in the strongest terms to oppose
this budget resolution and to support the advancement of medical
research, affordable health care, education, environmental protections,
and adequate housing for our citizens.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I will not support a budget plan that
makes the overall budget deficit worse while providing further tax cuts
for people who need them the least. The Republicans not only borrow the
cost of their war, they refuse to honestly account for these costs by
handling appropriations through emergency spending bills instead of the
regular budget process. Playing politics with the budget short changes
our future while creating an unsustainable mountain of debt. Refusing
to provide permanent relief to tens of thousands of Oregonians
threatened by the Alternative Minimum Tax, only providing a one year
``fix'' to the AMT, gambles with middle-class families' futures.
It is time for Congress to face up to the fiscal problems that they
have created and deal honestly with American taxpayers about the
budgeting sleight of hand and deficits. This budget doesn't begin to do
this.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H. Con.
Res. 376, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Budget Resolution, which will
result in a deficit of $348 billion in FY 2007. To make matters worse,
rather than offering a plan to balance our federal budget, this five-
year spending plan would add an additional $2.3 trillion to the
nation's already burgeoning $8.3 trillion debt over the next five
years. It is time for Congress to pass a Budget Resolution that takes
steps to begin paying down our federal debt and return to balanced
budgets.
It is time for Congress to reinstate fiscal responsibility. Congress
should enact budget enforcement mechanisms such as the pay-as-you-go
(PAYGO) rule for new tax cuts and new mandatory spending, which would
require the government to live within its means.
The Budget Resolution as reported by the Budget Committee contains
harmful cuts to education, veterans and healthcare. I commend our
colleague from South Carolina for crafting an alternative to this
budget that will restore these devastating cuts while still balancing
the federal budget by 2012. The Spratt Substitute will also protect
America's families by enacting PAYGO rules.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H. Con. Res. 376 and support the
Spratt Substitute.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the FY 07
Republican Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 376 and the Rule currently
under consideration.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican FY07 Budget sets a record--not for
balancing the budget, not for lowering the deficit, or for reducing our
reliance on foreign debt--but for exceeding the callousness evident in
President Bush's FY07 Budget for American families.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is devoid of direction, balance
and compassion.
It slashes by $2.2 billion K-12 programs, school improvement funds,
job training, Community Services Block grants, and the Social Services
Block grants. This budget cuts veterans health care and the homeland
security function; eliminates the Hope VI program; fails to adequately
fund public health programs; slashes environmental and conservation
funding; cuts programs that help feed low-income elderly, mothers and
children; cuts housing assistance for the elderly and disabled; and
cuts or flat-funds 18 of the 19 institutes at the National Institutes
of Health. On the mandatory spending side, it includes reconciled
spending cuts for Medicare, Medicaid and the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation.
All of these cuts come at a time when the economy is floundering.
They come at time when most Americans are trying to make ends meet--to
take care of themselves, their children and their parents--all while
being squeezed by flat wages, high gas prices and declining incomes.
Yes, these cuts deeply hurt the least and most vulnerable of Americans,
but in fact, they hurt nearly all American families.
The sad truth is that all of these cuts are the sacrificial lamb for
funding tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. In fact,
while the national debt is rising and deficits are mounting, this
Republican Budget funds another shameless $228 billion in tax over the
next five years.
Meanwhile, since President Bush has been in office, 6 million more
Americans lack health insurance, 1.4 million more children live in
poverty, 1.2 million more are unemployed and long-term unemployment is
two times larger at 1.4 million. The impact of these numbers
intensifies by almost double in minority communities.
The CBC Alternative Budget offers a real budget for all Americans. It
would balance the budget, restore pay-as-you-go budget principles, and
in fact generate a surplus by 2011. It would restore funding to
critical programs, not by creating deficits, but by rescinding the tax
cuts for those making over $200,000, eliminating the corporate tax
incentives for off-shoring jobs, closing corporate loopholes; and
reducing ballistic missile defense spending--all while getting rid of
waste, fraud and abuse.
I urge my colleagues to support the CBC and Spratt Alternative
Budgets--to vote to return to fiscal discipline and responsibility--to
vote to focus our spending priorities on all Americans.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I again must rise in
opposition to the budget before the House. I cannot support another
budget that not only adds to the deficit, but for the fifth consecutive
year creates the largest deficit in history.
The Congressional budget is a reflection of our priorities--and at
the risk of sounding like a broken record--I must say that this
Republican budget once again gives priority to massive handouts for
their fat cat buddies, and forces working families, veterans and
students to foot the bill. Unfortunately, this seems to have become
somewhat of a Republican tradition.
Some of my colleagues will praise this budget for its so-called
``savings''. What they fail to mention is that all of the spending cuts
are not going towards reducing the deficit but instead are being used
to partially offset the $228 billion price tag of a massive new tax
cut.
Mr. Chairman, there is no rationale whatsoever to explain how you can
decrease revenues while increasing spending and still balance the
budget. Anyone with common sense can tell you that if you want to spend
more, you must either earn more or save in other areas--otherwise you
go into debt. Yet in each of the past six years, the Administration has
increased spending faster than national income.
As bad as the numbers before us are, the true picture is in fact
worse, because the budget resolution includes no funding after 2007 for
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for 2007 includes only
a $50 billion ``placeholder''--less than half of the amount
appropriated for 2006.
The war costs are only one of the many budgetary gimmicks used to
hide the true nature of this budget. Another is the deceptive cut in
veterans' health care. Republicans like to say that they have greatly
increased funding for veterans' healthcare. This is true if you are
speaking of total spending, but the only reason for the Republican
spending increase is the increase in the number patients. On a per
capita basis, increases in veterans' health care funding average only
0.1 percent per year, well below inflation.
Two days ago, President Bush announced that he will deploy up to
6,000 National Guard members to ``assist the Border Patrol'' along our
southern border. It is important to note that in 2004, Congress
authorized annual increases of 2,000 border patrol agents from 2006
through 2010. Ironically, for the first two years of this increase, the
Administration and the Republican Congress have failed to meet this
target. The President's budget proposal for fiscal years 2006 and 2007
failed to include enough funding for an additional 2,000 Border Patrol
agents, and subsequently, Congress failed to appropriate full funding
for the authorized increase. Under the tight spending constraints
provided by the Republican budget framework, the House Homeland
Security Appropriations Subcommittee reported a bill that provides only
1,200 new border patrol agents--800 agents less than the authorized
level. In contrast, the Democratic Substitute provides more than enough
funding to provide for an additional 2,000 Border Patrol agents.

Education also takes a hit in this budget resolution. The Department
of Education is cut by $2.2 billion--the second year in a row that
Republicans will cut federal education funding despite school
districts' need for promised assistance to meet demanding standards
under No Child Left Behind, and the increasing cost of higher
education. In addition to funding cuts, 42 education programs will be
eliminated under this budget, including the Even Start family literacy
program, the TRIO Upward Bound program, the Perkins loan program and
all federal vocational education programs.

[[Page H2753]]

In particular, the Perkins loan program is extremely important to
colleges and universities throughout the state of Michigan. At the
University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University, both of which
are located in my district, 8,658 students received Perkins loans
during the 2004-2005 school year. At a time when we should be actively
supporting opportunities for higher education, this proposed cut is a
cruel slap in the face for our colleges and universities and for their
students.
The environment will also suffer if this bill passes. Funding for the
Environmental Protection Agency will be cut by $304 million from 2006,
with most of this cut coming from programs that ensure clean drinking
water and protect public health. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund
is cut by 22 percent from 2006 which, when added to past years' cuts,
represents a 49 percent decrease since 2004. Additionally, despite the
growing backlog of infrastructure construction and maintenance
projects, funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would be slashed by
11 percent. These cuts are ill-advised and will greatly undermine our
Nation's ability to preserve and protect the resources we have been
blessed with.
I would also like to mention one specific program that has been
placed on the chopping block--the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP). This program provides nutritional food packages to over 475,000
low-income elderly, mothers and children, including 75,000 from my home
state of Michigan. Under this budget resolution, CSFP would be
eliminated, and all of these individuals would simply stop receiving
their food packages. This is unacceptable. CSFP costs approximately
$110 million per year, which is .03 percent of the projected deficit
for FY2007. This means that eliminating the CSFP program will barely
make a dent in the deficit, but 475,000 seniors, women and infants will
be in danger of going hungry.
It is for these reasons and many more that I stand here today to
oppose this budget. The Democratic alternative would balance the budget
by 2012 while rejecting deep cuts in essential federal programs. I urge
my colleagues to vote yes on the Democratic substitute and no on the
Republican budget.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further debate time, under the
rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Boozman) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) establishing the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011,
pursuant to House Resolution 817, he reported the concurrent
resolution, as amended pursuant to that rule, back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of
the concurrent resolution will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the
motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 740.
The vote on House Resolution 795 will be taken tomorrow.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 210, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 158]

YEAS--218

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--210

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--5

Evans
Kennedy (RI)
Larson (CT)
Paul
Stupak

{time} 0102

So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________