[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5386-5396]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 766 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 766

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for 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. The first reading 
     of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution are waived. General debate shall not exceed four 
     hours, with three hours of general debate confined to the 
     congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget and one hour of general debate on the subject of 
     economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Saxton of New Jersey and Representative 
     Maloney of New York or their designees. After general debate 
     the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No 
     further consideration of the concurrent resolution shall be 
     in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putman) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 766 is a rule that provides for general 
debate of House Concurrent Resolution 376, the bill establishing the 
congressional budget for the Federal Government for fiscal year 2007, 
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
2008 through 2011.
  As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, I 
am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for consideration. 
This rule provides for 4 hours of general debate, with 3 hours equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, 
again equally divided and controlled by Representative Saxton of New 
Jersey and Representative Maloney of New York or their designees.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, and it provides that after general debate the 
Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further 
consideration of the bill shall be in order except by subsequent order 
of the House.
  This rule allows the House to begin consideration of the 
congressional

[[Page 5387]]

budget. The budget is an important tool of the Congress, allowing us to 
establish our priorities for the coming year. I am proud that this 
budget responds to the Nation's complex challenges with the 
straightforward principles of strength, spending control, and a 
continued commitment to reform.
  The budget resolution continues policies that have helped to 
reestablish a strong United States economy. We have included savings 
for working Americans to the tune of $228 billion. We extend the 2001 
and 2003 tax reforms, preventing what would otherwise be an automatic 
tax increase from their scheduled expiration. The budget also assumes 
the extension of other expiring tax provisions, including the 
alternative minimum tax relief, a House-passed pension bill, and other 
important economic growth measures.
  While working to give Americans back some of their hard-earned 
dollars and letting them keep more of their hard-earned dollars, we are 
also working to enact a responsible spending plan that exercises 
control and restraint. I am proud that once again this House has 
delivered a budget that practices conscientious spending. Our goal is 
to stem the ever expanding outflow of Federal dollars.
  House Concurrent Resolution 376 has an overall discretionary spending 
level that is equal to the President's budget request of $873 billion. 
It allows for the President's requested 7 percent increase in defense 
and a 3.8 percent increase for homeland security. As always, the 
discretion lies with the House Appropriations Committee to determine 
the final allocation of these funds. This budget essentially freezes 
nonsecurity discretionary spending, with only a 0.1 percent increase 
over last year's level, a tenth of a percent. As an additional savings 
method, the budget caps advance appropriations, spending that is for 
the year after the budget year.
  In the area of mandatory spending, entitlement spending, we provide a 
total of $1.5 trillion. In an effort to control the automatic effusion 
of dollars, the budget resolution calls for mandatory spending reforms 
from several committees. These savings, these mandatory spending 
savings, total $6.75 billion over 5 years.
  This is an important distinction. This is one of the first times in 
the history of modern budgeting that there has been back-to-back 
reconciliation instructions in the House budget. Today, over half of 
Federal spending is essentially on autopilot. Fifty-five percent of 
Federal expenditures today are going into what is known in budget 
parlance as mandatory accounts. So all of the discretion that lies 
within this body and lies within the Senate is not even half of the 
Federal budget. And within 10 years, if these reconciliation 
instructions are not implemented, that are embedded in this budget for 
the second year in a row, then within 10 years it will consume two-
thirds of the Federal budget, two-thirds of the Federal budget being on 
autopilot if we don't implement the reforms that this budget calls for.
  Last year was the first year since 1997 that we had made the effort 
through passage of the Budget Act to get our arms around mandatory 
spending through reconciliation instructions. This year we do that 
again. This is an important reform effort. Again, it is one of the few 
times in modern history where there has been back-to-back 
reconciliation instructions that allows us to reduce the size of the 
Federal deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this year the Budget Committee 
included an emergency reserve fund to help Congress plan for unforeseen 
costs that may arise in the future. We have set aside $50 billion 
toward an expected wartime supplemental, as well as $4.3 billion for 
unanticipated emergencies, such as natural disasters, and $2.3 billion 
for potential avian flu costs.
  As a Congressman from the great State of Florida, I can tell you with 
a great deal of certainty that the last several years have been very 
active in the Atlantic hurricane season. We know, without being able to 
see into the future, we know that somewhere in the next year there is 
likely to be a hurricane that will make landfall in the United States. 
Somewhere in the United States this year there will almost certainly be 
devastating wildfires. Somewhere in the United States in the coming 
fiscal year there will almost certainly be an earthquake or devastating 
tornadoes.
  Hopefully, we will not have a natural disaster that reaches the 
catastrophic level that Hurricane Katrina reached. But nevertheless, 
just like responsible businesses and responsible homeowners who set 
aside money in their savings accounts for when the hot water heater 
breaks or when the car needs new tires or when the transmission goes 
out, the Federal Government, a little bit slowly, but nevertheless has 
come around to the notion that we should plan for emergencies, 
particularly those types of very expensive natural disasters that do 
frequently strike our shores.
  With increased spending control, tax relief, and these important 
budget reforms, this budget makes a sizable dent in our deficits. Under 
these policies, the deficit will fall by more than half, from $521 
billion, which is projected in fiscal year 2004, to $191 billion in 
fiscal year 2009, which is below the President's planned budget 
achievements.
  I am proud of the work of the Budget Committee this year. I thank 
Chairman Nussle for pushing forward with fiscal discipline and bringing 
us this excellent budget for our consideration, and I urge Members to 
support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen this movie before. Just like last year and 
the year before that and the year before that, the budget resolution 
put forward by the House Republican leadership today is an awful piece 
of legislation. There is no other way to describe it.
  It is a budget that hurts American families. It is a budget that 
continues to create a government without a conscience. It is a budget 
that punishes the poor and the middle class and rewards the very 
wealthy and special interests. It is a budget that explodes our 
Nation's deficit and passes mountains of debt onto our children and 
grandchildren. It is a budget that deliberately misleads the American 
people about the cost of our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 
short, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that deserves to be defeated 
soundly by every Member of this House.
  The details speak for themselves. This budget includes a deficit for 
2006 of $372 billion and a deficit for 2007 of $348 billion. In fact, 
if this budget is approved, the five largest deficits in the history of 
the United States of America will have occurred in the past 5 
consecutive years, all during the period when the House, the Senate, 
and the White House are totally under Republican control. What in the 
world has happened to the party of fiscal discipline? They have become 
the party of runaway spending and reckless tax giveaways.
  Even worse than this unchecked spending binge is the Republican 
leadership's deliberate misleading of the American people. We are at 
war, Mr. Speaker, and every day our brave soldiers patrol the most 
remote areas of Afghanistan and the most dangerous neighborhoods in 
Iraq. Every day the American people learn of more roadside bombings, 
insurgent attacks, and death in Iraq. Every day the Iraqis seem more 
and more unable to form a functioning government, and every day Iraq 
slips further and further into chaos and civil war. And every day our 
credibility around the world gets lower and lower. And every day our 
Nation sinks deeper and deeper into a violent quagmire.
  But with all of this, Mr. Speaker, how do you explain only $50 
billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 
2007, and after that no funding at all? Now, if the Republicans 
actually carry out what they are promising in this budget, the United 
States won't be spending a penny in Iraq or Afghanistan after 2007.

[[Page 5388]]

Maybe they have miraculously stumbled upon an exit strategy, which 
would be just fine with me. But last year, the United States spent over 
$100 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all told we have 
spent $357 billion over the past 4 years on fighting these wars.
  President Bush recently announced that the American troops will be in 
Iraq until at least 2009. The truth, of course, is that the Bush 
administration will be back before we know it asking for tens, if not 
hundreds of billions of dollars more in so-called emergency funding to 
pay for their failed foreign policy. But then, Mr. Speaker, why should 
we expect the Republicans in Washington to start telling the truth 
about Iraq now, given the fact we have been lied to, deceived, and 
misled from day one.
  What will happen is that the Republican leadership will write a blank 
check without asking the tough questions, without demanding the 
straight answers, and without conducting the kind of oversight that is 
our responsibility as Members of Congress.
  And while we are on the subject of war and its aftermath, Mr. 
Speaker, let us examine how this budget handles our veterans. Now, my 
Republican colleagues will pat themselves on the back and crow about 
how they have increased funding for veterans in fiscal year 2007, but 
once again the devil is in the details. The truth is that over the next 
5 years, the Republicans actually cut the same funding by a total of $4 
billion.
  Do they think our current and future veterans are just going to fade 
away? Talk about cutting and running. At a time when America is 
creating hundreds, if not thousands of new veterans, and when thousands 
of those veterans are going to need significant health care support for 
the rest of their lives because of their service in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, it is shameful that the Republicans in Washington are 
blatantly ignoring our veterans. Sending our brave servicemen and women 
to war without providing for their care when they return is not an 
American value.
  Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you 
are going to send our servicemen and women into war, you have an 
obligation to them, a moral obligation to them that when they return 
home as veterans that they will be cared for. To do otherwise is to 
disrespect their service. And that is what this budget does. How does 
anyone in this Chamber vote for this budget and then go back to their 
districts, look their veterans in the eye and say with a straight face 
that we have done our best for you? You can't.
  The list of misplaced priorities in this budget, Mr. Speaker, goes on 
and on. This budget slashes critical programs in the areas of 
education, job training, environmental protection and conservation 
funding, public health programs, medical research, and social services. 
It fails our responsibility to protect America by allowing $6.2 billion 
worth of cuts to homeland security programs.
  And where is the money for port security? Didn't my Republican 
friends say that they were concerned about our ports when joining with 
Democrats in opposing the President's selling of our port security to 
the United Arab Emirates?

                              {time}  1045

  Maybe I need new bifocals, but I cannot find the necessary funding to 
make our ports secure in this budget.
  This budget cuts programs that helps low-wage workers and vulnerable 
families. In fact, the Republican leadership cuts into these programs 
even more deeply than President Bush's proposal.
  To top it all off with a Nation at war, with desperate priorities 
that need to be met, with veterans who need our help and the gulf coast 
still devastated from last year's hurricanes, the Republican leadership 
still has the audacity to give the wealthiest Americans $228 billion in 
new tax cuts while passing the cost of those tax cuts onto our 
children. It just takes my breath away.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle will say this budget 
reflects necessary tough choices. My question, however, is this: Why do 
all of the tough choices hurt average families? Why don't some of the 
tough choices include forgoing tax cuts for wealthy people or ending 
subsidies in tax breaks for oil companies that are gouging families at 
the pump, or no more giveaways to pharmaceutical companies until they 
provide cheaper drugs for our citizens? Why is it all of the Republican 
tough choices spell tough choices for working families, senior 
citizens, students, veterans and the most vulnerable?
  Mr. Speaker, there is a better way. Democrats have a plan that works, 
a plan that reestablishes fiscal discipline by implementing a pay-as-
you-go strategy, a plan that provides our veterans over $8 billion more 
in assistance than the Republican budget, a plan that balances the 
budget by 2012, a plan that properly funds our domestic priorities 
including homeland security, a plan that gives our veterans the care 
and the respect they deserve, and a plan that provides fiscally 
responsible tax relief to millions of hardworking middle-class 
Americans.
  What the Republicans have proposed today is out of step with the 
American people. Indeed, it is way out of the mainstream. This is a 
budget that reflects a heart of stone. I can only say to my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle that the day has come for a new direction, a 
new set of priorities, a new commitment to the American people. The day 
has come for us to recreate a government with a conscience.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it is always fun to have these debates. We 
ought to at least start out with our facts straight, though. For the 
last 10 years, spending per veteran under Republican leadership has 
doubled. In the last 10 years, spending budget authority for veterans 
medical care nearly doubled going from $16.2 billion to $31 billion.
  Facts are stubborn things, my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, the 
elder statesman, Mr. Putnam, and I as a Member of the House can say 
that to my good friend, Mr. Putnam.
  Today I want to quote from the ranking member on the Budget 
Committee: ``A budget is a statement of moral choices, and this budget 
makes the wrong choices, cutting education, Medicare and Medicaid and 
barely funding the bold initiatives that the President set out in his 
State of the Union. Its greatest moral fault is that it leaves our 
children a legacy of debt and an even heavier burden to bear as the 
baby boomers begin to retire.'' That is from the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the House Budget 
Committee.
  The fault in his quote there, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not cutting 
education. We are not cutting Medicare. We are not cutting Medicaid. 
These things are absolutely off base. What our budget does say to the 
American people, these are our moral choices so Congressman Spratt 
should be commended for saying that a budget is a moral choice, and I 
agree with that.
  But what we do with this budget is say boldly that we will set out 
the fences around which government spending should be held within. That 
is a positive thing.
  I ask my colleagues on the left wing of this body, the Democrats and 
the liberals here, to come and support this budget because what we are 
saying is our children should not be left with a legacy of debt. We 
need to control wasteful government spending.
  What this rule provides for in this budget document is a restraint of 
spending. It does not hurt people. It takes out and gives the 
opportunity for the policy-making committees of this House and the 
appropriating committees of this House to reform much-needed government 
services and programs.
  I ask my colleagues to join with us in supporting this rule to 
provide for a reasonable debate and reasonable amendments to this 
budget document that will constrain spending and provide for priorities 
for all Americans.

[[Page 5389]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam). Facts are indeed a stubborn thing. The fact is 
that this budget that the Republicans have put forward cuts funding for 
veterans. Over 5 years, the budget cuts funding for veterans health 
care by $6 billion below current services.
  Republicans will tout the fact that the budget raises discretionary 
spending for 2007 by some $2.6 billion, but these apparent gains are 
quickly reversed with a cut for 2008 of $59 million below current 
services, and cuts of increasing amounts in subsequent years 
culminating in a cut of $4 billion for 2011.
  One other fact: a couple years ago, the VA itself testified it needed 
a 13 to 14 percent increase each year to maintain what it is doing. 
This budget in no way reflects what this Veterans Administration has 
said.
  So facts are a stubborn thing. This budget is not good for veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Matsui), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution. The 
impact this budget will have on families demonstrates how misguided it 
really is. Our Nation has had a long-standing commitment to investing 
in medical research. We all know someone, a friend or a relative, who 
has fought breast cancer. Each one is an inspiration as they exhibit a 
reservoir of strength and perseverance.
  This is an issue that is very close to me as members of my family 
have been diagnosed with the dreadful disease.
  When I am home in Sacramento, I make it a priority to meet with 
survivors. As each woman shares her personal battle with me, the one 
thing they all reiterate is how appreciative they are that research and 
technology exists to help them win their fight with cancer, and they 
ask me to express their appreciation to my colleagues for their 
continued support of the medical research programs that have driven the 
development of life-saving techniques and technology.
  One example is innovative advances that the UC Davis Cancer Center 
located in my district has made. Last year, its researchers discovered 
a new method to improve early detection of breast cancer. As that group 
of survivors has emphasized, early detection is essential to surviving 
breast cancer.
  Tragically, this budget underfunds critical medical research. As a 
result, dynamic institutions like the UC Davis Cancer Center will not 
have access to the same level of Federal resources as they did in last 
year's budget.
  What do you tell the children or the spouse of a woman who may have 
benefited from additional cancer research, but will not now because of 
this budget?
  The fact is this budget chooses tax cuts for the very, very, very 
wealthiest instead of investing in medical research. This is a choice 
that Congress is making.
  We need a budget that makes sense for America's families. I think 
about my 2\1/2\-year-old granddaughter, Anna. It is Congress's 
responsibility to invest the resources today so that Anna and her 
friends have at least the same opportunities that you and I have had. 
To accomplish this goal, we must devote long-term resources to health 
care, education, and scientific discovery. Yet with this budget, we are 
reducing our capability in these areas while continuing to run a 
massive deficit. So not only are we not investing in Anna and her 
friends, but we are passing our debt to them.
  Congress cannot continue to run this government in the same selfish, 
shortsighted manner that we have over the past 5 years. Congress risks 
breaking America's foundation of opportunity and prosperity and 
imperiling the quality of life for our children and our grandchildren.
  When we talk about the quality of life, that means your grandchildren 
and those of you who may hope for grandchildren. They may not have 
access to world-class education. It means that the Annas of our country 
may not benefit from the world's best health care system or be a part 
of the most innovative and productive economy. It means that citizens 
of the United States may look at foreign countries and see people who 
have better opportunities and better lives.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and vote in favor of Mr. 
Spratt's alternative.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman raises an important 
point about the need for us to continue to invest in research and 
development, in health care initiatives that allow us to remain a 
Nation on the cutting edge of technology both in biosciences, basic 
research, and the whole gamut of diseases and disorders that afflict 
the human condition.
  This majority takes a back seat to no one on investments in health. 
The National Institutes of Health are preeminent research institutions 
run by this Federal Government that are making great strides against 
cancer, against juvenile diabetes, against HIV/AIDS, against a whole 
host of orphan diseases and disorders that only afflict a small number 
of Americans, but nevertheless in a huge, huge way to that individual 
family.
  Since 1998, NIH funding, because of the investments that this 
majority has made, has more than doubled. More than doubled since 1998. 
Funding in 1998 was at $13.5 billion. Today this Nation invests nearly 
$28.5 billion in the National Institutes of Health.
  We take a back seat to no one in recognizing that it is fundamentally 
important that America remain on the cutting edge of innovation, that 
it is fundamentally important that we continue to produce graduates in 
the health sciences, in engineering, in mathematics to keep us on that 
cutting edge. We take a back seat to no one in recognizing that it is 
important to have in place economic policies, tax policies that 
encourage people to make those investments in this country instead of 
in other countries; that we have in place incentives to people to add 
new lines of scientists at their workbenches and their laboratories in 
Silicon Valley, California, or at the CDC in Atlanta.
  We recognize it is important to have a growing economy that allows us 
the luxury of being able to invest in research that may not bear fruit 
for decades to come. And we take a back seat to no one in the 
commitment we have made for the last dozen years in funding the 
National Institutes of Health.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the major Jewish 
community service providers in our country, and they ask all of us to 
oppose this Republican budget resolution because it will force, in 
their view, harmful cuts in education, health care, nutrition, housing 
and other services critical for children, families, seniors, and people 
with disabilities.
  I ask my colleagues to listen to the plea of these faith-based 
groups.

                                                     April 5, 2006
       Dear Representative: The Jewish community has long 
     demonstrated a commitment to economic and social justice. We 
     have been vigorous in advocating policies and programs to 
     fight poverty and to help address the needs of 
     disenfranchised vulnerable populations, including the 
     elderly, working poor, disabled, youth, and refugees.
       The budget process is one of the most important actions 
     taken by our government each year and is an integral part of 
     allocating funds for important human needs programs. While we 
     recognize that deficit reduction is critical to the economic 
     stability of our country, we believe it is essential that it 
     be done in a fair and balanced manner. Over the past months 
     we have spoken out against cuts that we believed would 
     disproportionately hurt those in most need.
       The budget plan passed out of the House Budget Committee 
     would make huge cuts to domestic discretionary programs. 
     These cuts would be extremely harmful both to our social 
     service agencies that are dependent on public funding as well 
     as the vulnerable populations we advocate on behalf of. 
     Programs such as the Older Americans Act, the Social Services 
     Block Grant, the Community Services Block Grant, and the Low 
     Income Heating Energy Assistance Program are critical to the 
     elderly, refugees, children, and persons with disabilities, 
     and all would likely face severe cuts if this budget proposal 
     is enacted.
       We believe that budgets are documents which reflect the 
     values and priorities of

[[Page 5390]]

     those who create them. With the increase in hunger in 
     American households; housing costs rising faster than wages; 
     and more than 45 million Americans lacking adequate health 
     care coverage, funding for social services to assist these 
     individuals is more critical than ever. This budget does not 
     accurately reflect our values.
       As you consider the Budget this week, we ask you to oppose 
     this Resolution that will force harmful cuts in education, 
     health care, nutrition, housing, and other services that are 
     critical for children, families, seniors, and people with 
     disabilities.
           Sincerely,
       Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America.
       Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies.
       B'nai B'rith International.
       Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
       International Association of Jewish Vocational Services.
       Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
       Jewish Labor Committee.
       Jewish War Veterans of the USA.
       National Council of Jewish Women.
       Union for Reform Judaism.
       United Jewish Communities.
       Women of Reform Judaism.
       Women's American ORT.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, later today the Committee on Rules will 
decide what modifications to the budget bill Congress may consider. In 
the spirit of the remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) 
with respect to how we need to concentrate on research, I want to offer 
these remarks. I hope that the Rules Committee does not deny this House 
the opportunity to correct the mistreatment of the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration which is occurring in this budget.

                              {time}  1100

  I am not as optimistic about this rule, so I rise to draw Members' 
attention to the underlying issue. NASA's contributions in the field of 
research, in the field of aeronautics to this Nation and the world are 
profound. From surveillance systems that monitor aircraft flight paths 
to the development of secure communications systems, NASA's research 
has been instrumental in improving our national security.
  NASA's research and NASA's aeronautics programs have also contributed 
substantially to the Nation's economy. Civil aeronautics is the major 
contributor to this sector's positive balance of trade, more than any 
other industry. We have a positive balance of trade in aeronautics, and 
we can attribute that directly to the work of research and development 
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and this enables 
a new generation of service based industries, like e-commerce to 
flourish by performing the research that leads to inexpensive and 
reliable flights.
  Congress recognizes the value of aeronautics, which is why it 
restored cuts that were proposed in the administration's fiscal year 
2006 budget. Once in the CCJS appropriations bill, and again in the 
NASA reauthorization bill, Congress protected aeronautics with strong 
bipartisan support bringing funding back to fiscal year 2005 levels. 
And I am proud to have played a role in that and working with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in focusing in on the necessity 
of protecting our ability to do basic research and research which leads 
to developments in aeronautics.
  Now, in spite of this, this administration is proposing an even 
bigger aeronautics cut, $179 million, or 25 percent of the aeronautics 
budget they are trying to cut. I mean, if this was farming, it would be 
like throwing away your seed corn.
  This shortfall is a direct result of the administration's consistent 
and inexplicable failure to fund the very vision for space exploration 
that it launched. Now, in order to keep this vision alive, NASA is 
forced to take the money from other essential programs like 
aeronautics.
  About a month ago our colleagues in the Senate passed a budget 
amendment with four Republican cosponsors that increased funding for 
aeronautics at fiscal year 2005 levels. I tried to introduce the same 
amendment with bipartisan support, but it has not been approved by the 
Rules Committee. We cannot afford to stand by and watch the erosion of 
research of aeronautics and the erosion of these NASA programs that are 
connected. If the Rules Committee produces a rule that lets Congress 
have the ability to focus on protecting NASA's aeronautics research, 
then we ought to support the rule.
  However, if the Rules Committee denies Congress the ability to debate 
the mistreatment of NASA, then I will ask that we vote ``no.'' And 
later, at the appropriate time, I will ask my colleagues to urge 
conferees to agree with the Senate's position on the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. This is about our ability to grow 
America's future, and vitally connected to that is the work of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. And let's not forget 
national aeronautics, aeronautics, aeronautics, research, research, 
research. Fund it.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues join me in complimenting your 
selection of neckwear this morning.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), 
one of our newer members of the Budget Committee and a CPA.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have to say the course of 
this budget debate is somewhat perplexing. My friends on the other side 
of the aisle here, the Democrats, are consistently railing about the 
deficit and the evils of the deficit and how bad the deficit is and how 
big the deficit is, and I confess that I concur. I have problems with 
this deficit and that we ought to be reducing this deficit.
  But it seems like their solution to reducing the deficit is to spend 
more money. My friends, this is like saying that we have a boat and our 
boat is sinking, and the way to fix the boat is to punch holes in the 
bottom of it.
  Spending more money does not reduce the deficit. You don't need to be 
a CPA to know that. You only need second grade math to know that. 
Spending more money does not reduce the deficit. In the Budget 
Committee the vast majority of the amendments to the budget offered by 
the Democrat side were amendments that spent more money.
  Now, to be fair, they do propose to close the deficit by raising 
taxes, and that is their argument and their proposal. But they claim 
that the tax rate cuts, and I want to point out that they were tax rate 
cuts, that happened in 2003 have increased the deficit. Except, since 
those tax rate cuts went into place, the income to the Federal 
Government, the revenue coming into the Federal Government has 
increased by an average of nearly 7 percent a year because tax rate 
cuts stimulate the economy, and tax rate cuts, these particular tax 
rate cuts, allowed capital to move to where it is best used and it 
resulted in more revenue. So you can't say that tax rate cuts have 
worsened the deficit when the revenue has gone up by higher than 
historic averages since the rates were cut.
  Now, this budget that is before us increases spending. That is 
another thing. You are hearing about all the cuts in this budget and, 
sure, some things go up and some things go down. But overall it 
increases spending by 3\1/2\ percent. My friends, that is not a cut. An 
increase of 3\1/2\ percent is not a cut.
  It spends $2.7 trillion. That ought to be enough to make things work 
around here, you would think. And it reduces the deficit because the 
revenue by this stimulated increased economy will go up by more than 
that 3\1/2\ percent.
  So this budget does not cut spending. It increases it. It does not 
increase the deficit. It reduces it. And it does not raise taxes. It 
maintains the stimulative tax policy that currently exists in our 
economy.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
California's comments. But I will tell you, most CPAs that fudge the 
numbers in real life go to jail. And the fact of the matter is in this 
budget, the numbers are fudged.
  $50 billion for Iraq for the next 5 years? Give me a break. You know 
what is going on. You know what is going on. The bottom line is you are 
going to be coming back and back and back for more and more money.
  Look, the gentleman raised the Democratic budget proposal. Well, let

[[Page 5391]]

me just elaborate a little bit and suggest that he read it. The 
Democratic budget proposal would return the budget to balance. We reach 
balance by the year 2012, and we also have smaller deficits than the 
Republican budget and accumulate less debt.
  By contrast, the Republican budget never returns to balance and even 
refuses to show how big the deficit will be after 2011. Our proposal 
includes fiscally responsible budget enforcement rules. The Democratic 
budget backs the two-sided pay-as-you-go budget enforcement rule that 
requires that the cost of any new mandatory spending or revenue 
legislation be fully offset.
  This is the way families operate. They pay as they go. They can't 
accumulate the debt that you have accumulated. There is no way that 
families could operate the way the Republican majority has operated 
here.
  During the 1990s, the two-sided PAYGO rules played a critical role in 
turning record deficits into record surpluses. Do you remember those 
days?
  The Democratic budget also requires a separate vote to increase the 
debt limit. You used to be concerned about that, but no longer. Now we 
sneak the increase in the debt limit through without having to put 
Members on record, and it prohibits using fast track reconciliation 
procedures to make the deficit even worse.
  We invest in education, and we keep our commitment to veterans. I 
mean, to me one of the most egregious elements of the budget that the 
Republicans have proposed is that you turn your back on America's 
veterans. We have sent them to war. There will be more veterans in the 
future, not less, and you did not put aside the adequate funding to 
make sure that these men and women who have served our country with 
great honor get the respect that they have earned and that they 
deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman of two points. 
First, spending per veteran and spending for veterans' medical care 
both have nearly doubled in the last 10 years. I remind the gentleman 
of that.
  Second point, with regard to the procedure around here for changing 
the debt limit, it is known as the Gephardt rule. The process for 
adjusting the debt limit was put in place when your team was in charge. 
So the gentleman takes issue with a process that was invented by his 
team.
  I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this Democrat budget 
alternative is laughable in the extreme. They want to balance the 
budget on the backs of the taxpayers. They want every American citizen 
to pay more in taxes next year than they did this year, and they call 
that rolling back the Bush tax cuts. That is a tax increase, and that 
is how they want to balance the budget.
  On top of that, they don't want to eliminate wasteful government 
programs. They don't want to look at government programs that have long 
outlived their usefulness and effectiveness for people. They just want 
to keep spending, and they want more money for Washington, more money 
for Washington bureaucrats, more money for Washington government 
programs. And they do that, and they nod and wink and laugh to 
themselves that they are balancing the budget. Right.
  What we have done, what this Republican Congress has done through 
President Bush's tax cuts, through the stimulus to the economy, is we 
have let people keep more of what they earn. And by keeping more of 
what they earn, they spend, they employ people, the economy grows. And 
when the economy grows, Mr. Speaker, tax revenues increase with 
economic growth. With tax increases it stifles economic growth, and in 
the end the Treasury doesn't net out as much as it would with pro-
growth tax policies.
  Just this year, Mr. Speaker, tax receipts have gone up 15 percent. 
Yet the Democrats want more money for Washington bureaucratic programs. 
Then they scream and hem and haw that we are cutting. We are not 
cutting, Mr. Speaker. And as a conservative, I believe we should cut. 
But I think this is a reasonable budget, a reasonable budget that funds 
much needed national defense and homeland security programs while 
freezing government spending in other areas. That is not a cut, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of veterans 
funding again. The gentleman from Florida keeps on bragging about how 
the Republicans have been so good to our veterans and have increased 
dramatically veterans funding over the last decade.
  First of all, let me just say that I don't know of a single Member of 
Congress who have gone back to their districts and heard from veterans 
and people who work in VA facilities and other veterans health benefit 
facilities that somehow, boy, you have given us all we need. We don't 
need any more. What you have handed us is enough to meet the demand. I 
mean, in fact, what you hear is the opposite. And I am going to just 
say one thing to the gentleman. Over the past 10 years, all this 
bragging he is doing about increasing the veterans budget, from 1996 to 
the year 2000, the number of unique patients increased by $2.4 million. 
And on a per capita basis, veterans health care funding increases 
average only 0.1 percent per year, a level well below inflation for 
medical care.
  So we are not meeting the current needs of our veterans, and in this 
budget there is no way we are going to meet the future needs of our 
veterans when we are creating more veterans because of the wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. Our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are creating 
thousands of new veterans. That is an undeniable fact. Thousands of 
these men and women have been severely injured, and most will need 
medical services and benefits for the rest of their lives. And even 
without the influx of this new generation of veterans, the fiscal year 
2006 and fiscal year 2007 spending for the VA doesn't even meet the 
health care needs of our current number of veterans and military 
retirees. According to every major veterans organization in the 
country, we are still about $1 billion short each year. But the 
Republican budget before us actually decreases the discretionary 
funding for VA benefits and services each and every year over the next 
5 years. So FY 2011, just 5 years away, is actually $4 billion less 
than FY 2006. That is their budget.
  So I ask, is this how we honor our troops? Is this how we support 
them when they come home? I hope not. And I would urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the gentleman's 
concerns about funding for veterans, and I would remind him again that 
since 1995 veterans medical care spending has increased from $16 
billion to more than $31 billion, an increase of 92 percent. The 
funding increase for next year, over this one, year-to-year increase is 
nearly 4 percent, a substantial jump, especially relative to other 
discretionary programs who will see a tenth of a point cut.

                              {time}  1115

  They are getting a 4 percent increase.
  We recognize the sacrifices that veterans make. We recognize our 
lifelong commitment to them for the sacrifices that they have made and 
continue to make. This budget builds on that strong foundation. It 
accommodates general veterans funding at $75 billion, and it is $800 
million above even what the President requested. This Congress is 
meeting the needs of America's veterans. In addition to increasing over 
the President's request, it does not increase the fees that were called 
for in his request.
  Frequently on this floor we get sucked into these debates based on 
what the President's proposal is, and that is not the document that we 
are debating here this morning. This is the House budget. In fact, in 
the budget markup, we had an opportunity to vote on the President's 
budget, and we chose to go a different path with the document that this 
House is producing.

[[Page 5392]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
comments. Again, I would simply say that the spending he is bragging 
about for the last 10 years didn't even keep up with inflation.
  But putting that aside, let's talk about the next 5 years. Let's talk 
about your budget, the budget you have. I have got the numbers here. In 
fiscal year 2007, it goes up by $2.6 billion. Then in fiscal year 2008, 
you go down by $100 billion. In fiscal year 2009, you go down by $1.4 
billion. And in fiscal year 2010, you go down by $3.1 billion. And then 
in fiscal 2011, you go down by $4 billion.
  And I would just remind the gentleman, maybe he has not been reading 
the newspapers lately, but we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
Thousands of new veterans are going to come into this system. And your 
budget shortchanges not only them, it doesn't even meet the needs of 
the current veterans. So from the veterans' perspective, this budget is 
deeply flawed. I think it shows a disrespect for the service of those 
men and women whom we have sent over to fight for our country. We owe 
them more than this.
  And I would urge my colleagues if you want to support veterans, this 
is not the way to do it. This is the place you take a stand. You say no 
to this budget, send them back, and let them do what is right by our 
veterans. There is no way we should be shortchanging our veterans, and 
this budget does that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would at this time like to submit into the Record a 
letter from the Interreligous Working Group on Domestic Human Needs, 
representing the major Protestant and Catholic churches and faith 
organizations. They state that ``as communities of faith . . . we are 
called upon to hold ourselves and our communities accountable to the 
moral standard of our Biblical tradition. We speak together now to 
express our concern about our national priorities.'' The letter is 
called a ``Faith Reflection on the Federal Budget,'' and it opposes 
what is before us today.

          Interreligious Working Group on Domestic Human Needs


                A Faith Reflection on the Federal Budget

       As communities of faith, we are grounded in a shared 
     tradition of justice and compassion, and we are called upon 
     to hold ourselves and our communities accountable to the 
     moral standard of our Biblical tradition. We speak together 
     now to express our concern about our national priorities.
       In the year that has passed since this reflection was 
     originally written, this concern has deepened as we have 
     watched poverty, food insecurity, and the number of people 
     without health insurance climb for the fourth year in a row. 
     Across the country, churches and faith-based organizations 
     who care for our most vulnerable people are straining under 
     increased demand for services due to cuts in federal funding 
     for critical safety net programs. Devastating hurricanes have 
     underscored real problems of racism and inequality in our 
     country and along the Gulf Coast, and scattered throughout 
     the country survivors are struggling to provide for their 
     families while waiting for the bold action that has yet to 
     materialize from our national leaders.
       These circumstances make it necessary to even more closely 
     examine our government's decisions, particularly those 
     concerning the budget, through a moral lens. The federal 
     budget remains a fundamental statement of who we are as a 
     nation. The choices we make about how we generate revenues 
     and spend our shared resources reveal our true allegiance. As 
     people of faith we must continue to ask: Do these choices 
     uphold values that will strengthen our life together as a 
     nation and as part of the global community?
       We offer this reflection as a starting point for such a 
     dialogue and to make clear the values to which we hold 
     ourselves and our nation accountable.
     Community and the common good
       ``But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you . 
     . . and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare 
     you will have your welfare'' (Jeremiah 29:7, NRSV).
       Our nation's well-being is dependent on the well-being of 
     all its members. In order to form a more perfect union, the 
     preamble to the U.S. Constitution commits this nation to 
     promoting the general welfare. In faith language we would 
     call that the ``common good.'' The budget should reflect a 
     commitment to the common good by ensuring that the basic 
     needs of all members of society are met. At this time, when 
     Gulf Coast communities are still struggling to recover from 
     last year's hurricanes, when nearly 46 million Americans are 
     uninsured, 37 million live in poverty and one in five 
     children lives in a household experiencing food insecurity, 
     additional cuts to critical human needs programs cannot be 
     justified.
       Investments in education, job training, work supports, 
     health care, housing, food assistance and environmental 
     protection strengthen families and communities and promote 
     opportunity for all. These should be budget priorities.
       Budget decisions must be evaluated not just in the short 
     term, but with respect to their long-term effects on our 
     children's children, the global community and on all of 
     creation.
     Concern for those who are poor and vulnerable
       ``Give the king your justice, O God . . . May he judge your 
     people with righteousness, and your poor with justice . . . . 
     May he defend the cause of the poor of the people and give 
     deliverance to the needy (Psalm 72: 1-4, NRSV).
       As a nation we have a special responsibility to care for 
     the most vulnerable members of society. All budget decisions 
     and administrative procedures must be judged by their impact 
     on children, low-income families, the elderly, people with 
     disabilities and other vulnerable populations.
       Whatever one's position on the war in Iraq or on the tax 
     cuts, these policies are driving the deficit. Attempting to 
     pay off the deficit by cutting programs that affect needy 
     populations, when these programs did not lead to the deficit, 
     is unjust.
     Economic justice
       ``Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue 
     oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and 
     withhold justice from the oppressed of my people'' (Isaiah 
     10:1-2, NIV).
       God has created a world of sufficiency for all; the problem 
     is not the lack of natural and economic resources, but how 
     they are shared, distributed and made accessible within 
     society and throughout the world.
       Our government should be a tool to correct inequalities, 
     not a means of institutionalizing them. The federal budget 
     should share the burdens of taxation, according to one's 
     ability to pay, and distribute government resources fairly to 
     create opportunity for all.
     Endorsing organizations
       National: American Baptist Churches USA; American Friends 
     Service Committee; Bread for the World; Call to Renewal; 
     Central Conference of American Rabbis; Church of the Brethren 
     Witness/Washington Office; Church Women United; Conference of 
     Major Superiors of Men; The Episcopal Church; Evangelical 
     Lutheran Church in America; Friends Committee on National 
     Legislation; Institute Justice Team--Sisters of Mercy of the 
     Americas; Jesuit Conference USA; Jewish Council for Public 
     Affairs.
       Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Maryknoll Office 
     for Global Concerns; Mennonite Central Committee U.S. 
     Washington Office; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of 
     the Good Shepherd; National Council of Churches of Christ in 
     the USA; NCCC Justice for Women Working Group; NETWORK, A 
     National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Pax Christi USA; 
     Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office; Union for 
     Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association of 
     Congregations; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness 
     Ministries; The United Methodist Church--General Board of 
     Church and Society; Women of Reform Judaism.
       State and Local: Arizona--Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in 
     Arizona. California--Lutheran Office of Public Policy--
     California; Pacific Central West Region of Union for Reform 
     Judaism; Sisters of the Good Shepherd, San Francisco. 
     Colorado--Lutheran Advocacy Ministry--Colorado. Delaware--
     Lutheran Office on Public Policy, Delaware. Florida--Union 
     for Reform Judaism--Southeast Council. Illinois--Lutheran 
     Network for Justice Advocacy; Lutheran Social Services of 
     Illinois; Protestants for the Common Good. Minnesota--
     Institute for Welcoming Resources; Minnesota Council of 
     Churches. Missouri--Sisters of the Good Shepherd--St. Louis, 
     MO.
       New Jersey--Church and Society Committee, Sparta United 
     Methodist Church (Sparta, NJ); The Crisis Ministry of 
     Princeton and Trenton; Family Promise; Lutheran Office of 
     Governmental Ministry in New Jersey; Union for Reform 
     Judaism, New Jersey-West Hudson Valley Council. New Mexico--
     ELCA-Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry-New Mexico. 
     Ohio--Union for Reform Judaism, Northeast Lakes Council/
     Detroit Federation. Pennsylvania--Roots of Promise/Thomas 
     Merton Center; Social Action Committee at the Lutheran 
     Theological Seminary in Gettysburg. Washington--Washington 
     Association of Churches; Lutheran Public Policy Office of 
     Washington State. Wisconsin--Lutheran Office for Public 
     Policy in Wisconsin.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the gentleman's stack of letters 
that we are entering into the Record, he could find the thank you notes 
from

[[Page 5393]]

the veterans who thank us for finally, after decades of inactivity 
under the previous leadership, acting on concurrent receipts giving 
veterans what they need; doubling funding for veterans in 10 years; a 4 
percent increase next year over this.
  We budget year to year, and the gentleman knows it. Every year this 
majority has come through for our veterans. Every year we have been 
there, and we will continue to be there for America's veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), my good friend from the Rules Committee and the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from 
Florida and the Rules Committee, Mr. Putnam, the chairman of our policy 
committee here in the House Republican Conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule for this 
budget resolution, which strikes a delicate balance between fully 
funding our priorities and exercising restraint of spending.
  Mr. Speaker, already we have heard the debate and the dialogue here. 
I have known this a long time. Every Member of Congress understands 
this: needs outpace resources. It has always been that way. That is why 
we have a Budget Committee. That is why we have Mr. Putnam here on the 
floor today and other Members who are going to say, golly, we could 
spend as much money as we really wanted if we could come to some 
resolution of how much was enough. But the fact of the matter is that 
the insatiable appetites that continue to be fed in this House and in 
this government for more and more and more spending will not be ever 
satisfied; so we have to strike that balance.
  We know that we have had devastating challenges that have faced this 
country, terrorists attacks of 9/11, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and 
yet our economy has demonstrated strength and resiliency. It is 
Republicans who come to the floor of the House of Representatives in 
the majority and every year defend what we do. And, Mr. Speaker, I want 
to tell you that I am proud of what we did last year for this year and 
what we are doing proudly to make sure next year will work properly, we 
are doing this year.
  This last year our economy grew at an impressive rate of 3.5 percent. 
The greatest, most vibrant economy that is in the world that we know 
today from a G-8 country. This was no accident, but it came as the 
direct result of Congress's planning, planning for growth and tax 
relief, planning for giving Americans more of their own money, and 
planning to make sure that we had investment that was made here in 
America.
  Since comprehensive tax relief was passed in 2003, 5 million new jobs 
have been created. At just 4.8 percent, the unemployment rate remains 
at the historically low figure, below the averages of the 1970s, the 
1980s, and the 1990s. This rapid economic growth has also generated 
rapid Federal tax growth.
  We are pro-growth Republicans. We do not want to run a deficit. But 
we must make sure that we look at both sides of the equation, that is, 
growing the economy as well as being careful by what we spend.
  Treasury figures show our booming tax receipts grew by 14.5 percent 
in 2005, the fastest pace in 25 years. However, on the flip side, Mr. 
Speaker, since 2001 our government has expanded in spending by 45 
percent. We are saying with last year's budget this spending spree has 
got to end. And that is what we did last year for this year and what we 
are going to do this year for next year.
  Jim Nussle, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has led this House 
to an important conclusion, and that is what Mr. Putnam is here selling 
to the Members today, and that is we are not about politics in this 
budget. It is about structure. It is about saying how much money we are 
going to make available and then we are going to let other important 
committees, our appropriators, be able to understand where the present 
needs are, and then we are going to give them the authority to go and 
spend the money based on priorities.
  This is the right way to run the railroad, Mr. Speaker. This is the 
right way to do things. But we must have the responsibility by passing 
a responsible bill, or this House will fall to the whims of every 
single person who wants their own special project to be passed. 
Spending will be out of control.
  So I urge my colleagues to recognize and understand that the process 
that the Budget Committee has been going through has been very 
important, and it has produced a winner. It has produced the ability 
that we have in a framework to put the needs and priorities into 
balance for this United States Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what we have done. I am proud of what Mr. 
Putnam supports today. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
the budget.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from 
Texas, my colleague on the Rules Committee. He says he is proud of this 
budget. Quite frankly, I am ashamed that this budget is coming out of 
this Congress with the cuts that are contained in this budget that I 
think are going to hurt working families and also be devastating for 
our veterans.
  I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side that in 1995 
the VA treated 2.6 million people. Last year it was 5.4 million people. 
And that number is going to go up and up and up. And yet in this 
budget, we see over the next few years a $4 billion cut. That to me 
makes absolutely no sense. We know that the demand on the VA is going 
to become greater and greater, and yet we are deliberately 
shortchanging veterans health and veterans benefits. We know what the 
future is going to hold, but we are fudging the numbers here. I think 
that that is not only irresponsible but, Mr. Speaker, it is dishonest.
  The gentleman from Texas talked about planning. Well, boy, the 
planning that the Republicans have done here has just led to such great 
success. We have the biggest deficits in the history of the United 
States of America. Boy, that is great planning. More of our debt is 
owned by foreign countries than at any other time in our history. I 
don't know too many people who feel good about that.
  Your planning has done such a great job that, quite frankly, it is 
pushing our country towards bankruptcy.
  And he talked about the insatiable appetite of people who want to 
spend money. Look, I am all for fiscal restraint. We want to pay as you 
go. We want to make sure that every new program that we talk about, 
every new revenue initiative that we talk about is paid for. That is 
the way families do it. That is not the case with Republicans.
  But when you talk about insatiable appetite, I can't help but think 
of your energy bill, which provides these incredible tax breaks and 
subsidies to oil companies that have never made more profits than they 
are right now, that are gouging American taxpayers at the pump, and you 
are giving them billions of dollars. Talk about insatiable appetite. Or 
the drug companies that can't provide our senior citizens a decent cost 
for prescription drugs and you are sending more and more subsidies and 
tax breaks and liability protections to these industries that, quite 
frankly, need to respect our citizens more.
  So that is the kind of insatiable appetite that has gotten us into 
this mess, and we have had enough of it. We need new priorities; and I 
hope that my colleagues, again, will turn down this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend from Massachusetts 
in the conversation about insatiable appetites that nearly every 
amendment offered by the Democratic minority on the Budget Committee 
spent more money. There was no amendment offered by the Democratic 
minority that changed the Tax Code in any way. In previous years they 
had sought to raise taxes. They have learned that lesson, that it does 
not fly with small business men and women across the America, that it 
is not particularly popular, and

[[Page 5394]]

it is terrible economic policy to raise taxes. So they dropped that. 
But nearly every amendment offered in the committee markup was to spend 
more money and to pay for it using the mythical potential of what is 
called the ``tax gap,'' which is the difference between taxes owed and 
taxes collected. That is money that may or may not appear based on an 
aggressive IRS. That was their pay-for to feed their insatiable 
appetite for more spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to the gentleman, in 
case he has not read it, the Democratic proposal actually balances the 
budget by 2012, which is something that the Republican budget does not 
do.
  What we have a problem with is giving tax breaks to Donald Trump at a 
time when you are shortchanging veterans. We think those are misplaced 
priorities.
  At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts on the Rules Committee for yielding.
  I heard my colleague from Florida (Mr. Putnam) talk about it being 
terrible economic policy. I am curious, does that mean terrible 
economic policy to balance the budget?
  I also heard you in your comments say that the Democrats' budget is 
mythical. Well, let me tell you what is not mythical. When you make bad 
deficits worse, that simply is not mythical. The Republican budget 
resolution has no plan to bring the budget back to balance and, in 
fact, makes the deficit $410 billion over 5 years, compared to current 
deficit estimates.

                              {time}  1130

  It calls for a mounting legacy of debt.
  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 as proposed by the Republicans, 
the statutory debt by the year 2011, footnote there, the baby boomers 
hit at 2009, 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. What part of that is mythical? 
What we are talking about is something that is going to destroy the 
economic base of this country.
  This budget that the Democrats propose makes sure that this budget 
comes into balance. It does not cut, as does the Republican budget, 
funds for public health programs. It does not cut new money for 
transitional Medicaid assistance. The Republicans cut low-wage workers 
and vulnerable families. They cut nutrition assistance. They slash 
education, education, by $2.2 billion. They cut veterans care by $8.6 
billion. It cuts budget functions that fund homeland security.
  I am curious, what is the myth that you would perpetuate upon the 
public when we are about to go down the drain?
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the myth is this: in your plan, you assume 
that the $200 billion tax gap will magically appear tomorrow. If we 
knew where the $200 billion was, we would find it now. You assume that 
the $200 billion in uncollected taxes are available to be collected and 
then be spent under your budget plan the day your proposal passes. It 
wouldn't be uncollected if we knew where it was. It wouldn't be 
uncollected if we could go get it. Somebody has to go hassle these 
people to pay their taxes.
  That is the myth. Does it need to be done? Absolutely. Should we 
close it? Absolutely. But that is a crap shoot. You will not have 100 
percent collections of all income taxes due by the day that your bill 
passes, if it were to pass tomorrow. That is the myth.
  You point out that our deficit is different than the CBO baseline. 
You are correct. The CBO baseline assumes, and your budget assumes, 
that you will allow the tax reforms that passed in 2001 and 2003 to 
expire. So capital gains taxes go up; dividend taxes go up; taxes on 
middle-income brackets go up; the 10 percent bracket disappears; AMT 
relief, no action.
  You allow those things to expire. The CBO assumes those things will 
expire. We assume they will stay in place because we believe that those 
are the drivers of the economic engine that is giving this country 4.8 
percent unemployment, which is lower than the average of the 1970s, the 
1980s and the 1990s. It is what allows this government to collect 15 
percent more revenues, more money from the taxpayers this year than 
last year, even though the tax rate is lower.
  That is the difference. That is the myth. That is the problem with 
the competing budgets as ours stacks up against yours.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying there are 
numerous reasons to oppose this budget. Education funding goes down, 
health care funding goes down, environmental protection money goes 
down, and I go on and on and on. But what particularly I find 
astounding is the way our veterans are being disrespected in this 
budget.
  The gentleman mentioned before all these veterans groups that are 
thanking him for what they are doing. The fact of the matter is, I am 
hearing the opposite from every major veterans organization in this 
country. I have a letter here from the Disabled Veterans of America 
asking us to end the cycle of the constant cutting of benefits, that 
people right now are waiting in lines. And we have more veterans that 
are going to be produced as a result of this war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  I have been to Iraq, and I have seen those men and women serving our 
country. I have a disagreement with our policy, but they are doing an 
incredible job. And you on the majority are doing a disservice to these 
veterans by not providing the necessary funding not only to meet the 
needs of the veterans that currently exist, but you don't even account 
for the veterans, the thousands of veterans, that will be produced as a 
result of this war. It is wrong, it is immoral for us to pass a budget 
that doesn't respect our veterans.
  Vote ``no'' on this budget. Vote ``yes'' for the Spratt substitute.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it has been a good debate. We have 4 more 
hours to go. We need to pass this rule.
  The gentleman has grabbed the veterans issue by the horns, and 
appropriately so. We will stand by our veterans funding. It is a 4 
percent increase in an era when the rest of the budget is assumed to be 
reduced by a tenth of a point.
  This is a two-step process, and the gentleman knows it. The budget 
lays out the fences, the appropriations process decides what is spent 
within those fences. We have doubled spending per veteran, not spending 
on veterans, spending per veteran in the last 10 years. We have doubled 
spending on veterans medical care. These are issues that are hugely 
important.
  I am proud of the way this debate has been conducted, because this 
budget lays out the competing visions for America, one that inspires 
economic growth through sensible tax policies, and one that wants to 
spend, spend, and spend some more based on the myth of the tax gap 
collections that would miraculously appear tomorrow under the 
Democrats' proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, I move the previous 
question on the resolution and urge the adoption of this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

[[Page 5395]]

  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 199, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 91]

                               YEAS--226

     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
     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)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     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
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     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 (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     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)

                               NAYS--199

     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
     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)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     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
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     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
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Crenshaw
     Evans
     Hayes
     Price (GA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Tanner
     Watson

                              {time}  1159

  Messrs. McDERMOTT, RUPPERSBERGER, FORD and KENNEDY of Rhode Island 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LEWIS of California and Mr. HALL changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 196, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 92]

                               AYES--225

     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
     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
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     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 (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     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)

                               NOES--196

     Abercrombie
     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

[[Page 5396]]


     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
     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-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     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
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     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
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ackerman
     Crenshaw
     Evans
     Gohmert
     Hayes
     Latham
     Lewis (GA)
     Price (GA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Tanner
     Watson

                              {time}  1206

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 92. I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________