[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8452-8459]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1345
    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 815 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 815

       Resolved,  That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House

[[Page 8453]]

     is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of May 17, 2006: (1) providing 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; or (2) 
     addressing budget enforcement or priorities.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 815 is a same-day rule that 
waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which requires a two-thirds vote to 
consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee 
against certain resolutions reported from the Rules Committee. It 
applies the waiver to any resolution reported on the legislative day of 
May 17, 2006, providing 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.
  Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we pass this same-day rule. This 
resolution will prepare the ground so that the House may complete its 
business and pass a budget resolution. We are working to moving this 
process along toward the goal of setting the spending priorities for 
the next fiscal year.
  The House is prepared to begin consideration of several 
appropriations measures to fund our government's activities, but we 
must pass this budget first. We must set the priorities in funding 
levels before we proceed with the appropriations process. The budget is 
our congressional spending blueprint. We must complete its 
consideration to move on with the business of the House.
  The Committee on Rules will meet later today to provide a rule for 
the consideration of H. Con. Res. 376, the budget for fiscal year 2007, 
and I am pleased that this same-day rule facilitates the timely 
deliberation of this important legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the same-day rule so that we can move 
forward to a serious discussion about the budget legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam), my very good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and 
in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague this 
House. Apparently the Republican leadership has twisted enough arms and 
broken enough legs to try to ram through their mystery budget package. 
And I call it a mystery because, aside from a select few chosen by the 
leadership, no one has actually seen this budget.
  We are not talking about naming a post office here, Mr. Speaker, or 
congratulating a sports team. What we are talking about is the budget 
priorities that will affect every single American on issues like health 
care, education, veterans care, environmental protection, national 
defense, and it goes on and on and on.
  So what is in this thing that we are going to see sometime later 
today? If it is anything like the last version of the budget, which 
came up a few weeks ago that was pulled, it is probably full of 
misplaced priorities, broken promises, and empty rhetoric. If it is 
anything like the last version, it will bankrupt our children and our 
grandchildren at the expense of the very wealthy. If it is anything 
like the last version, it will be an assault on our veterans. And if it 
is anything like the last version, it slashes critical programs in the 
areas of education, job training, environmental protection and 
conservation funding, public health programs, medical research, and 
social services.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we do not really know what is in this budget 
because the leadership of this House would prefer us not to know. They 
would prefer the American people not to know.
  To make a bad situation even worse, we have before us a martial law 
rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the 
House and the procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law 
is no way to run a democracy. Mr. Speaker, no matter what your 
ideology, no matter what your party affiliation, no matter what you 
believe about what the budget priorities of this Nation should be, 
every single Member of this House should have the opportunity to review 
a bill of this magnitude before voting on it.
  Mr. Speaker, we really are in the Land of Oz here with the leadership 
saying, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. We know 
somebody is back there, and we know they are putting together a budget, 
in my opinion probably a lousy budget, but we really do not want anyone 
to know the truth. We do not want anyone to know the facts.
  Mr. Speaker, those across this country who are watching these 
proceedings on their television must be wondering how and why the House 
of Representatives, the greatest deliberative body in the world, could 
be bringing a budget to the House floor without allowing all Members, 
even supporters and those who probably will oppose this bill, the 
opportunity to be able to look at it, to be able to understand what the 
implications are. But the fact is this much talked about budget, this 
much talked about but rarely seen budget, will be working its way to 
the House floor sometime today. I hope the Members will have an 
opportunity to look at the budget. They are not going to be given 
enough time, but I hope they will be given some time to see what it is 
before we begin the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I agree with my friend from Massachusetts about the magnitude of this 
budget process and its importance and how we establish priorities in 
this government, how we lay out a spending blueprint.
  My friend from Massachusetts has referred to this as the greatest 
deliberative body in the world on a couple of occasions, and I would 
just offer a slight correction that perhaps the Senate is the greatest 
deliberative body in the world, and we are the greatest legislative 
body in the world. They talk about it, and we act. We move forward on 
the agendas that are important to Americans, and we do it in a bold and 
decisive way, while perhaps the more deliberative body talks things to 
death and produces nothing.
  The budget of the Federal Government works a bit differently than it 
does for those Members who came from a State legislative background or 
from local government background. It is a two-step process. The budget 
lays down the markers, the fence lines, if you will, around the big 
numbers: X amount for Defense, X amount for Transportation, X amount 
for Health and Human Services. And the second step of the process then 
is the appropriations process, which consists of 11 separate bills 
moving to fill in the blanks: How many tanks and jeeps and bullets and 
bombs do you buy within the budget framework for defense? How many post 
offices do you construct or repair within the Postal Subcommittee? How 
many bridges and roads do you get within the Transportation? They put 
the meat on the bones.
  The skeletal framework is this budget, this blueprint, this spending 
priority for the Federal Government. And the rule that we are here to 
debate, and I suspect that this will become a proxy debate on the 
budget itself, which is not what we are considering before the Speaker 
today; what we are considering is the procedure that allows us to move 
forward with the budget that is a hugely important blueprint for this 
Nation. It is important that we get going on it. We have now been 
considering it for several weeks. The committee mark has been available 
for over a month. The substitute amendments

[[Page 8454]]

that undoubtedly will be presented to the Rules Committee as 
alternatives have been available for weeks.
  So there is no mystery here. There is no secret. We are attempting to 
facilitate the work of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for his comments. 
And we should be the greatest deliberative body in the world. We should 
be the greatest legislative body in the world. But to be the greatest 
legislative body in the world, I think, requires some deliberation. And 
that is why so many of us have strong objections to this martial law 
rule.
  We are faced with some very serious challenges in this country. The 
fiscal irresponsibility and misplaced priorities, I think, of the last 
several Congresses and by this administration have resulted in an 
incredible debt that I think is probably the biggest debt that this 
country has ever seen in our history. We are concerned about whether 
our veterans are going to be treated with the respect that they not 
only deserve, but they have earned. We are worried about whether or not 
these unfunded mandates that are contained in No Child Left Behind will 
get adequate funding. We are worried about health care, over 43 million 
Americans without health care in this country. We are worried about 
environmental protection and job creation and so many other things. We 
are worried about the high cost of energy and whether or not we are 
going to invest appropriately in alternative forms of energy.
  But the gentleman is correct that what we are debating right now is 
not the budget, but the process under which that budget will be 
considered. And it just strikes me and a lot of other people on this 
side somewhat astounding that a bill of this magnitude would be brought 
to the floor under this proceeding.
  The gentleman says that the budget has been available, that people 
know what is in the budget. Well, we know what was in the last budget 
that was brought before the House floor and that it was pulled when we 
did not have the votes. The question is what is new in the budget 
brought forward today? I assume that there are going to be some 
changes. If there are no changes, then I can understand the gentleman's 
point about this is not that big of a deal. But my understanding is 
that there are changes; that as we speak right now, there are back-room 
deals being negotiated and secret negotiations going on that most 
Members of this House, Republican and Democrat, have no clue about its 
content.
  So this is a very, very serious matter. I do not think it is 
unreasonable to demand that every Member of this Chamber, Democrat and 
Republican alike, should be given the opportunity and the courtesy to 
be able to know what they are voting on, to know the implications of 
what they are voting on before this moves forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and 
also strong opposition to the budget resolution that we will be dealing 
with later this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that we will be debating is wrong 
and very bad public policy for at least three reasons: First, it is 
grossly unfair at a time when the middle class is shrinking, when the 
incomes of ordinary people are not keeping up with inflation, at a time 
when under President Bush 5 million more Americans have slipped into 
poverty, and at a time when the wealthiest people in this country have 
never had it so good, it is wrong, wrong, to continue to give tens of 
billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America. 
They do not need it.
  Frankly, Mr. Lee Raymond, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, who received 
a $398 million retirement package, can survive. He will just about make 
it okay, trust me, without another Republican tax break.
  Secondly, while the middle class is struggling, it is just plain 
wrong, as Mr. McGovern has just indicated, to cut back a desperately 
needed program. At a time when the cost of college education is 
soaring, when middle-class families are finding it harder and harder to 
afford a college education for their kids, how do we cut back on 
financial aid for college education at the same time as we give tax 
breaks for billionaires? That is wrong.
  Everybody knows that the Veterans Administration is undergoing 
enormous financial stress. There are waiting lines for veterans in the 
State of Vermont, all over this country. 17,000 American soldiers have 
been wounded in Iraq.

                              {time}  1400

  More and more are coming back with post-traumatic stress disorder. At 
a time when the VA is already underfunded, we cannot cut back on the 
needs of our veterans.
  Thirdly, thirdly, we presently have a $8.3 trillion national debt, a 
heck of a legacy to be leaving to our kids and our grandchildren. This 
budget resolution will increase the national debt.
  This is bad public policy. This martial law rule should be defeated 
and the budget resolution should be defeated.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Vermont for raising the points 
that he did. They are very timely in that almost as we speak, the White 
House signing ceremony will be occurring, where the President, along 
with the congressional leadership, will be celebrating the fact that we 
have prevented taxes from automatically increasing, something that the 
other side would have advocated by virtue of opposing the tax plan.
  Now, let's talk a little bit about this tax issue.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PUTNAM. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, how does my friend feel about a tax bill, 
the one that the President is signing, which will give $43,000 in tax 
breaks to millionaires and a $10 a year tax cut to people making 
$50,000 a year or less? Does my friend think that that is a fair 
proposal?
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time to answer the gentleman's 
question, I would answer the question with a question, which is how 
does the gentleman feel about the fact that 40 percent of American 
taxpayers end up with no tax liability, and the fact that the top half 
of all taxpayers in this country contribute almost 97 percent of all 
income tax revenues to the government? So you have to have a situation 
where the people who pay taxes are getting tax relief, because we have 
created such an upside down system where 40 percent of Americans have 
no tax liability. How is that sharing in the burdens of democracy? How 
is that contributing to the needs of the Federal Government?
  Let me go into this a bit. Up to 40 percent of Federal tax filers 
cannot receive further tax relief because they have no tax liability. 
Millions of families in the bottom 20 percent have either zero tax 
liability or get money back from the government after April 15 through 
the Earned Income Tax Credit or the child tax credit. In 2003, as I 
said, the top half of taxpayers, the top 50 percent of taxpayers, 
contributed 96.5 percent of all Federal individual income taxes, while 
the bottom 50 percent, the bottom half, contributed less than 3.5 
percent. This reflects the early effects of the Republican tax reforms 
under the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act and the Jobs and 
Growth Tax Reconciliation Act.
  The top 1 percent, the top 1 percent of tax filers paid 34 percent of 
all Federal personal income taxes in 2003, while the top 10 percent 
accounted for 66 percent of those taxes.
  So this is not just about going after athletes and rock stars and 
Hall of Fame pitchers. It is small businesses who pay at the individual 
rate that are receiving the benefits of these tax reforms. It is 
married couples who have

[[Page 8455]]

benefited from seeing the marriage tax penalty eliminated. It is 
families with children. It is an extension of the 10 percent bracket. 
It is the increase in the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, the 
Rostenkowski tax that was put in place under the Democratic leadership 
of the Congress, that now, like the insidious effects of the Federal 
Government, has found its way into the pockets of millions of middle-
class Americans.
  The tax bill the President is signing today prevents those taxes from 
going up on middle-class Americans, it prevents the AMT from taking 
effect on millions of people who don't know what AMT even stands for 
but are going to get stuck with a tax bill for it and it encourages 
investment in this strong economy.
  Frankly, the results have been staggering, where revenues to the 
government have gone up 14 percent because of the fact that we have had 
in place capital gains rates, dividend tax rates, AMT relief, sales tax 
deductions, that allow people to continue to invest and take on new 
employees and take risks, which is the heart of a free enterprise 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his presentation, but 
when you talk about who is paying what in income tax, you are 
forgetting a very important part of the equation, and that is who is 
making what in income.
  As the gentleman knows, or should know, in the United States today we 
have the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major 
country on Earth. The gentleman knows, or should know, that the 
wealthiest 1 percent in America own more wealth than the bottom 90 
percent. And the gentleman should know that the wealthiest 13,000 
families earn more income than do the bottom 20 million families.
  So when the gentleman said, my goodness, look at how much the wealthy 
are paying, those are the people, and in many cases, the only people 
who are seeing an increase in their income. The gentleman knows that 
family household income is stagnant, that working people are working 
longer hours for lower wages because the jobs that are being created by 
and large in this country are low wage jobs.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my very good friend from Florida talk 
about the signing ceremony at the White House today where the President 
is supposedly celebrating his tax bill. I would argue that what they 
are celebrating is increased debt on the American people. I don't think 
that is anything to celebrate over.
  I want to get back to process here for a minute, if I can. Democrats 
and Republicans differ on a whole range of issues, and we can argue 
that appropriately when the full budget comes before the House. But 
what is troublesome is the fact that we don't know what you are going 
to bring to the floor later today, and I have to believe that if the 
roles were reversed here and the Democrats were in control of the 
Congress and we were to rush a budget to the floor today without you 
having seen it, that you wouldn't be too happy either, that you would 
think that is not an appropriate way to do business.
  This is May 17. We have been here 127 days this year, and we have 
only been in session 41 of those 127 days. To argue that we don't have 
the time or that we need to rush to get this budget passed or we don't 
have the time to deliberate, to even be able to read what is actually 
in the bill coming before us, I just think is hard to defend.
  Also in this budget, unless it changes, but I am assuming it will be 
similar to the last budget, is that when we pass this plan, there will 
be an automatic passage of a $653 debt limit increase by the House. We 
would not have a separate debate or a separate vote on that.
  When I go home and people want to know why aren't we doing more to 
control the spending, why aren't we doing more to control the debt, why 
don't you have a debate on the debt limit, my answer has to be, well, 
the issue of the debt limit is hidden in a budget. It is automatic. We 
don't even get a chance to vote up or down on something like that. That 
is an important issue, I would think, that even my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle would agree with.
  So putting the policy disagreements aside for one moment, the main 
objection to this martial law rule is the process, a process that 
doesn't even allow Members of both parties to have the opportunity to 
review what is in it. And deliberation is important, I would say to my 
friend from Florida. It is important that we debate issues seriously, 
that we debate important issues seriously, and not just the trivial 
ones. And this is important. Increasing the debt limit, the 
implications of this budget, this is important, and we should have that 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask, why are we resorting to 
this extraordinary procedure, where we override all the rules of the 
House, on a matter of this magnitude including a rule that requires 
that a bill of this kind, a budget resolution, lay overnight for our 
examination before we bring it to the floor? The martial law rule mows 
down all exceptions, all of those procedural guards and guidelines, and 
makes something immediately subject to consideration by the House.
  We have no idea what is going to be in that resolution when it comes, 
yet we are put to a vote here on a martial law resolution. It simply 
isn't good procedure, a good way to run the House.
  I think that the reason we are playing this game of ``hide the ball'' 
is that the Republicans cannot muster the vote in their own ranks, 
still not yet, to pass their own resolution. Democrats aren't going to 
vote for it, because we haven't found it to be worthy of our support. 
But the reasons for their reluctance are they can't close the deal on 
their side either, plainly because it is a bad deal.
  I want to show you just a few highlights, Mr. Speaker, of this 
particular bill to understand exactly why it is not a good piece of 
legislation and why we should adopt the Democratic substitute, a far 
superior approach to the problem at hand.
  First of all, let's go back to what Mr. McGovern just said. When this 
Congress passed President Bush's first budget, we were assured by the 
Office of Management and Budget, that even with their tax cuts, $1.7 to 
$1.8 trillion, even with their tax cuts, they would not be back to us 
to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling, the limit to which we can 
legally borrow, for at least another six or seven years. 2008 was the 
year they indicated.
  But the next year, hat in hand, June of 2002, they came back and 
said, we erred a bit and we will need to increase the debt ceiling by 
$450 billion. This Congress, with Republican support, voted for that 
debt ceiling increase.
  The next year, May of 2003, they were back again, and this time they 
wanted a phenomenal sum of money, $984 billion, the biggest single 
increase ever in the debt ceiling of the United States. You would have 
thought that would have taken us for some period of time. But under the 
budgets of this administration, in order to accommodate those budgets, 
the debt ceiling had to be raised again in November of 2004, within 15 
months after this huge increase of $984 billion, by another $800 
billion.
  Two months ago, just 2 months ago in March, this Congress raised the 
debt ceiling of the United States by $781 billion. That was 2 months 
ago, last March.
  Now, in this resolution, when you vote for this, and I will show you 
an excerpt from the budget resolution right now, when you vote for 
this, everyone should read and be aware of page 121 of this resolution 
because it effectively says in voting for this, you are voting to 
increase the legal debt ceiling of the United States by $653 billion. 
Don't take it from me, look at the hard copy, the black and white print 
shown here on this poster, reproduced from page 121 of the budget 
resolution.

[[Page 8456]]

  This resolution will increase the debt ceiling of the United States 
by $653 billion, or at least it will be the action of the House must 
take. The Senate would have to follow through. This will be the vote in 
the House, raising the ceiling by $653 billion.
  When you add those increases, $450, $984, $800, $781 and finally 
$653, all of which have been necessary to make room for the budgets of 
the Bush administration with their enormous deficits, when you add all 
these together, you get $3.668 trillion, $3.7 trillion since June of 
2002. In 5 years, 5 years, we have had to raise virtually by 50 percent 
the debt ceiling of the United States, by $3.7 trillion. That is why we 
have got a martial law rule now. This budget won't stand scrutiny. 
These numbers simply are indefensible.
  Let me show you, for example, what has happened to the deficits since 
the Bush administration took office. Over the last 5 years, with this 
budget we will experience the five largest deficits in nominal terms in 
the history of the United States.

                              {time}  1415

  Once again, this is why, not only on our side are we not supporting 
it, but on their side, too, the votes are not there to pass this 
resolution, because it will not bear scrutiny.
  Now, one of the things the administration and also the Budget 
Committee is attempting to do in order to begin squeezing this budget 
back into balance is they are coming down hard on one particular sector 
of the budget known as domestic discretionary spending.
  Domestic discretionary spending includes education, it includes 
highways, it includes the government basically as we know it, including 
the operation of the government. It does not include defense, it does 
not include foreign affairs, it does not include entitlement programs; 
it includes the money we appropriate every year in 10 appropriation 
bills.
  That is the one sector of the budget which constitutes less than 15 
percent of the budget which they are bearing down on, and here is what 
is happening to those different functions in that particular part of 
the budget.
  Over the next 5 years, the purchasing power, the real value of the 
amount of money that we appropriate for education, for health care, for 
research, for scientific endeavors, for the operation of the 
government, the park system, the court system, you name it, will 
decrease in value by $167 billion cumulative over that period of time.
  This will begin to hurt. Let me illustrate how. Education. Surely 
this is a time in our national history when we should be unstinting in 
what we spend on education, because our survival in the global economy 
depends critically upon it. Education will be cut $45.294 billion below 
current services, $45 billion over the next 5 years.
  This budget will lay the basis for what the President has proposed, 
namely to eliminate 42 programs in education, and, for the second time 
in a row, to cut what we appropriate for education below the level of 
the previous year.
  Veterans. If there is ever a time when we should appreciate what our 
veterans do for us, it is now. There were 17,000 grievously wounded in 
the Persian Gulf. Surely, surely we should be providing amply for 
veterans health care. But this budget is $6 billion below what we call 
current services, maintaining what we provide now over the next 5 
years. It cuts veterans.
  Health. Now, that is a broad category, a big category, because it 
includes the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease 
Control. It includes a number of rural health care initiatives, a whole 
host of health care programs. This budget cuts those programs $18 
billion.
  Just 5 years ago, when we had a surplus, a $236 billion surplus in 
the year 2000, we resolved, Democrats and Republicans, House and 
Senate, that we would double the budget of the NIH, but we are now 
reneging on that commitment. We achieved that goal; we are now backing 
back down the slope, and each year NIH is going to take a hit under 
this budget because it is $18 billion short of current services for 
health.
  And then finally the environment. The Environmental Protection 
Agency, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Water Drinking Act, the Corps of 
Engineers, which has extraordinary demands on it because of Katrina, 
the National Park Service, this budget imposes a cut of $25 billion 
below current services over the next 5 years.
  Why are we here? Why are we seeking a martial law rule? Why? Because 
this budget will not stand scrutiny. Thank you.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from South 
Carolina's diligent efforts on the Budget Committee as the ranking 
member. He, along with our chairman, have forged a very strong working 
relationship. I respect his efforts on these issues, and he has 
certainly been working on them for years.
  Let me take a moment, though, to scrutinize the Democratic 
substitute, where, if our budget is the Land of Oz, theirs is worthy of 
a good Sherlock Holmes novel, a who-done-it and where-did-they-put-it, 
because they seem to rely on revenues that just do not exist.
  For example, the key component of their revenue in the Democratic 
substitute is over $700 billion in what the IRS calls the tax gap. In 
other words, it is the difference between what people owe the IRS in 
taxes and the collections that actually come in.
  They assume, my friends on the other side of the aisle, in their 
budget projections that all $727 billion of that so-called tax gap 
shows up. Now, if they know where it is now to project it in their 
budget, please share it with us so that we may meet these needs, these 
unmet needs that have been described with great elaboration.
  You seem to know where it is, because you know for a fact such that 
you budget for it, that it will appear, poof, that it will show up in 
time to make your budget balance.
  They allow the important tax reforms that we have worked so hard to 
implement over the past several years to expire. They allow taxes to go 
back up. Their budget, their budget, provides for only $150 billion in 
tax relief, which I am glad to see that they are coming around to the 
concept that tax relief can be an important economic stimulant, as we 
were just hearing the opposite view in congratulating the President for 
signing $70 billion in tax relief, and yet they account for $150 
billion, but say that our $70 billion was reckless and irresponsible. 
They would allow the child tax credit to expire, or the 10 percent 
bracket to expire, or the death tax to expire, or the marriage penalty 
to expire to make their numbers work.
  And so when we get tied up in all of the rhetoric about this issue, 
it is important to remember that the budget debate that we will be 
moving forward with today is about choices. It is about a different set 
of priorities as represented by the two political parties for the 
future of this country. Our budget deals with both sides of the ledger. 
Our budget recognizes that over half of the Federal spending today is 
on the mandatory side of the ledger. It is on automatic pilot.
  That is unsustainable. Both parties know that Social Security needs 
help. Both parties know that Medicare needs help. Both parties know 
that Medicaid needs help or it will sink the entire Federal budget. It 
makes up 55 percent of spending today. Within the decade it will make 
up two-thirds of Federal spending. Their budget does not address 55 
percent of the Federal budget, a $2.17 trillion budget; just ignores 
it. That is not responsible. That is not dealing with the problems that 
we know exist and will only grow in magnitude and scale as time moves 
on.
  These are the challenges that our budget attempts to deal with and 
deal with in a very responsible and balanced way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida is absolutely correct when he 
says that this budget is about choices. And there are clear differences 
between what Democrats believe are the right

[[Page 8457]]

choices and what Republicans believe. But the vote we are going to have 
on this martial law rule is also about choices, and the choice is, 
should Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, be afforded the 
opportunity to know what they are voting on, to be able to see what is 
in the budget that they are going to bring to the floor later today?
  I do not think that that is unreasonable. I mean, even if you 
disagree with me and people on the Democratic side on all of the 
budgetary issues, I mean, do you not think that it is reasonable to 
require that Members should be able to know what is going to be in your 
budget, what changes you are going to make?
  I mean, as I said before, when you vote for your budget, it is an 
automatic increase in the debt ceiling. I mean, what else is going to 
be put in there that we are not going to know about until when it is on 
the floor?
  Mr. Speaker, I think the process is indefensible. We can argue the 
policy later, but the process is indefensible. We need to do much 
better.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this martial law same-day rule, 
and in opposition to the budget resolution.
  Every landmark budget reform enacted by Congress was intended to make 
the process more efficient so we can go about the business of funding 
programs important to the American people, particularly aid and relief 
to those who need our help the most.
  We can all agree that a budget is supposed to be the congressional 
blueprint for funding America's priorities. Regrettably, however, the 
Republicans have abrogated this responsibility on at least two counts. 
First, this resolution comes halfway into the calendar year, and 
halfway into the third quarter of the current fiscal year, way too late 
to responsibly budget for America's priorities.
  Second, this budget comes sandwiched between $70 billion worth of tax 
cuts for the most comfortable among us, and $100 billion in off-budget 
supplemental funds. It is this kind of fiscal irresponsibility that 
drives people to disapprove of the 109th Congress and why a change of 
leadership is needed before our country sinks deeper into red ink and 
before the budget resolution becomes completely irrelevant.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the 
Joint Economic Committee, the gentlemen from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was listening a few minutes ago when I heard an 
exchange about taxes and the President's signature being placed on the 
tax cut extension bill today. I just wanted to share very quickly with 
the Members the thought that has been placed behind this over the last 
number of years.
  If you believe, as I do, that tax policy can be useful in stimulating 
economic growth, then one might look for opportunities to show that 
that really worked. As a matter of fact it really worked. It really 
worked in 1962, when John Kennedy was President and he recommended that 
we cut taxes, and in 1962 and 1963, the Congress did cut taxes, and it 
worked. The economy grew.
  Ronald Reagan suggested that we do the same thing, because the 
economy was not growing very well. And we did cut taxes, and the 
economy grew. And in 2003, when we were having very slow economic 
growth, following a shallow recession in 2001, President Bush suggested 
that we cut taxes, and we did, and the economy has been growing great, 
robustly ever since.
  As a matter of fact, since 2003, we have had great economic growth, 
culminating last quarter with a 4.7 percent increase in GDP. Now, if we 
are going to cut taxes, then we have to cut taxes on people who pay 
taxes. Otherwise, by definition it will not work.
  This chart to my left is a chart that expresses figures that have 
been compiled by the IRS. And it shows, as Mr. Putnam had pointed out, 
that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, wage earners, pay 35 percent of 
the taxes, 34.2 percent to be more exact. And it shows that the top 
half of the taxpayers in terms of their income levels pay 96.5 percent 
of the taxes.
  Therefore, as we look at these figures, and the top 5 percent pay 
over 50 percent of the taxes, the top 10 percent pay 65 percent of the 
taxes, and as I said a minute ago, the top 50 percent of the wage 
earners in this country pay 96.5 percent of the taxes.
  So I ask you, if John Kennedy believed that cutting taxes would make 
the economy grow, and he was right, and Ronald Reagan thought cutting 
taxes would work, and turned out he was right, and President Bush 
thought cutting taxes would work, and it turned out the economy grew as 
a result of his policies, then where are we going to cut the taxes?
  Obviously the bottom half of the wage earners in this country paying 
3.5 percent of the taxes, it will not do a lot of good to the economy 
if we reduce that even further. We have to cut it in the area of wage 
earners who pay taxes. And so it is very clear to me that today's 
signing of the tax cut extension bill is a well thought out, good 
economic policy venture, which will continue, as has been shown 
throughout history, to provide for a stimulus for economic growth.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from New Jersey and 
some of the previous speakers that if these Republican policies are so 
wonderful, and if it is so obvious that they work, then why have you 
been struggling for months trying to get a budget together? Why are we 
here debating a martial law rule to bring up a budget that nobody has 
seen yet because you are still trying to work out deals within your own 
party, because you do not have the votes within your own party to pass 
this? This goes back to the point I had made at the very beginning.

                              {time}  1430

  We can argue and argue about the policy, and that is totally 
appropriate. But how do you defend this process? I mean, how do you 
defend this process? And I think that that is a question that is yet to 
be answered.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida 20 seconds.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Well, I thank the gentleman for his generosity.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, in his use of the term 
martial law, the fact that we are here in a democratic process arguing 
about it for an hour and then going to have a vote on it, under which 
chapter and verse of Webster's is that martial law where there is 
debate, discussion, transparency, and a vote?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Well, I would say to the gentleman, I define this as a 
martial law rule because what it is doing is enabling the leadership of 
this House to bring a budget to the floor that nobody has seen. And I 
don't think that is democratic. I don't think that is respectful of the 
deliberative process here in this House. I don't think that that is 
something, if the shoes were on a different foot, the gentleman would 
want to tolerate. And I hope that, given the opportunity to be able to 
take control of this House, that we can demonstrate a different 
standard on some of this stuff.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, just in quick response to my good friend and colleague 
from New Jersey and his income tax chart, that really shouldn't be 
surprising to anyone here in this Chamber, because the whole basis of 
our income tax system is based on progressivity. Meaning, those who can 
afford more, those who are most wealthy, are asked to contribute more, 
and that is the fair and decent thing to do in our society.
  But the one thing that that chart does not show is one of the most 
regressive taxes in the entire country, which is the payroll tax, the 
FICA tax,

[[Page 8458]]

which is cut off at $90,000. And that is something that everyone under 
that 50 percent category is paying taxes on based on every single 
dollar that they earn. Yet they conveniently ignore that fact, and the 
fact that they are robbing those trust funds right now, both Social 
Security and Medicare, which comes from the FICA tax in order to help 
pay for the tax breaks for the most wealthy.
  I agree with my friend from Florida, who I serve on the Budget 
Committee with, that we do have a challenge with entitlement spending. 
We have to lock arms in a bipartisan fashion to get those growing costs 
under control. But his party has forfeited any basis of fiscal 
responsibility related to entitlement spending by passing the largest 
expansion of entitlement funding in over 40 years with the new 
prescription drug plan, something that is not paid for, something that 
in fact has no cost containment measures in; it specifically prohibits 
any price negotiation with the drug companies, and it is blowing a hole 
in the Federal budget. And that is outrageous.
  And what is even more outrageous is something that my ranking member 
on the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, pointed out on page 122, and that 
is the fifth increase in the debt limit ceiling in the last 6 years. 
This has been the largest, the fastest expansion of national debt in 
our Nation's history under this Congress and this current 
administration. And what is even more alarming is we no longer owe this 
debt to ourselves. China is the number one purchaser of our government 
deficits today, and they are soon to be followed by Russia and Saudi 
Arabia. Why? Because of the petro dollars that are flowing to those two 
countries and who are in turn starting to buy more of our debt.
  The amount of debt that is being accumulated is truly staggering, and 
deficits do matter. And this is something I am going to point out 
during general debate, because of who suffers when we run deficits? I 
will tell you who suffers. It is the children and the students of this 
country who are suffering, when we are going to see another $4.5 
billion worth of cuts based on current funding levels for higher 
education programs under this budget, where they are defunding special 
education funding, going from 17.8 percent down to 17 percent when the 
bipartisan goal has been funding it at a 40 percent federal cost share. 
Those are the people who are suffering when we run deficits. We have a 
better alternative with the Democratic substitute, a substitute that 
pays-as-we-go and I hope our colleagues support that.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my friend 
and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and support 
of the budget, and I support the budget for a number of reasons. But I 
do want to say, as I listen to the arguments from the other side, they 
are a little bit all over the place. And yet that is not unusual, 
because if you are in the minority party, you can pick and choose your 
relevancy. And generally the message that we are hearing from that side 
is it cuts too much here, it doesn't spend enough there, I don't like 
this, I don't like that. And yet they don't have a unified plan except 
to vote ``no'' on everything. We won't pick up a vote, you guys know 
that. The only thing they are unified by is a ``no.'' They cannot even 
within their own caucus support a budget that could get a majority. And 
we would like to work with them.
  We just heard they don't like the Medicare prescription drug 
benefits, so they are, I guess, against the Medicare prescription drug 
benefit and want to return to the days when seniors were choosing 
between food on their table and medicine that they needed from their 
doctor.
  We have heard they are supporting a Social Security tax increase. 
Well, I had a lot of Social Security town meetings; I didn't hear 
anybody who wanted to increase taxes on Social Security. I don't know 
if that is an official view or just one Member, but I do know that in 
terms of Social Security, there again it was a big ``no'' vote because 
they did not want to participate.
  Now, what they also don't like is the economic prosperity that we are 
enjoying right now, because their whole view is if somebody is making 
money, then they are bad and they are evil, because they have this 
obsession with the wealthy in our society; unless they are a union, 
business agent, or a Barbra Streisand and some of the big wheels of 
Hollywood who fund their coffers, then it is okay to be rich and 
wealthy.
  The interesting thing, though, is that under Republican Party policy, 
the economy has done so well. And think about this: that the domestic 
gross product grew by 8 percent the first quarter of 2006, and in the 
month of April alone 138,000 new jobs were created. We know, because it 
is an economic fact, that since our tax reductions went into play for 
farmers and small businesses, that 5 million new jobs were created. And 
there is a very important thing in there, business expensing, that 
allows the bicycle shops back home and the clothes store and the pet 
shops to expand and get a tax deduction for doing so. I know the 
Democrat Party doesn't like business, which would include small 
business. I think it is okay to have a healthy distrust of some of the 
big Wall Street guys. Some of those firms, after all, are Democratic. 
So we should kind of distrust some of those. They were big Clinton 
supporters, as I remember some of that crowd. But small businesses need 
this, because they can grow, and we need to give them some tax 
incentives.
  In terms of tax receipts, as I sit in the Appropriations Committee, 
and bill after bill the Democrats want to spend more on and they want 
to take away this mythical tax cut for the rich, and the idea is 
because the rich are paying their taxes that the deficit is down. And 
yet the Treasury Department has reported that the receipts are up $137 
billion, that is 11 percent, in the first 7 months of the year, of the 
fiscal year of 2006 which started October 1. So receipts are up 11 
percent and yet taxes are down.
  Now, why is that? Well, you could put it this way. If a business was 
doing three or four transactions a day and we were getting a tax on 
each transaction, now they are doing eight or nine, ten transactions a 
day, and we are still getting that tax. So we are taxing more because 
there is more activity and there are more transactions in the business 
world. And, again, because of that, the revenues are up $137 billion.
  Now, last year they were up $274 billion, or an increase of 14.6 
percent in fiscal year 2005. That is very significant for folks to 
remember. And, as Mr. Saxton said, President Kennedy, President Reagan, 
and now President Bush have shown the American people spend their money 
better than we do in Washington. And, again, I want to speak as an 
appropriator. I am in these meetings and I am convinced the American 
people can do better with their own money than we can. It stimulates 
the economy, it creates jobs, it is good for all of us. And then, in 
Washington, we do get more revenues.
  Do I want to cut spending? Yes, I do. Do I think we need to reform 
entitlement? Yes, I do. I want to work on a bipartisan basis to do 
that, though, because I think that is the way the American people want 
to see us cooperate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Florida has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I again rise in strong opposition to this 
martial law rule. We have rules and procedures in this House, and today 
by bringing this martial law rule to the floor and by bringing a budget 
bill to the floor, sight unseen, we are breaking those rules. We are 
basically making a mockery of the procedures that are in place to 
ensure that Members of Congress, at a minimum, know what in fact they 
are voting on when some of these bills come to the floor.
  This is not a trivial matter. The budget is a big deal. It sets out 
our priorities. And it is totally appropriate

[[Page 8459]]

for people to be able to debate all different issues openly and on the 
House floor. And I would again, after listening to the gentleman from 
Georgia, I guess my question to him is, again, if things are so 
wonderful, why can't you even get Members of your own party to get 
behind a budget?
  But putting that aside, this vote we are about to have is on process, 
it is on whether or not Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, 
should have the right to read what is in the proposed budget. I don't 
think that that is too much to ask for. I don't think that is 
unreasonable. I think most Americans who are watching this debate are 
scratching their heads saying, why can't you show us what is in this 
bill? What is the big secret? When are we going to have this budget 
available to us? When are we going to know what is in it? When are we 
going to find out what deals have been negotiated behind closed doors? 
I don't think that is unreasonable.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this martial law 
rule, and let us demand that we have a process in place in this House 
and have some integrity.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. He does have a way 
with words and continues to refer to a process whereby, in order to 
waive the rules of the House, you must come to the floor, introduce a 
resolution, it must be given an hour of debate, which we have been 
engaged in very vigorously, and be voted on. I mean, Pinochet and 
Castro would laugh at the notion that that has anything to do with 
martial law. This is a process under our rules that requires a vote. It 
requires debate. It requires transparency.
  The simple fact of the matter is we have to move a budget. This 
Nation needs the spending blueprint, it needs the discipline, it needs 
the restraint that a budget provides. Then the appropriators, as my 
friend from Georgia has discussed, the appropriators take over. And 
they can pass within that box that we have put Federal spending in, in 
the Federal budget, 11 different bills that deal with each component of 
government: defense, veterans, transportation, energy and the 
environment, military quality of life, the whole range of issues that 
then are debated again in committee, in subcommittee, on this floor, in 
the conference with the Senate.
  This is a transparent process, a patently transparent process where 
people are free to watch their Members actively, aggressively, work to 
take language out of bills, to put language in the bills, to shift 
formulas around to benefit high-growth States or to protect low-growth 
States from having those monies shifted around; to put more money into 
veterans and less for the arts, or more into the arts and less for the 
Corps of Engineers, or more for the Corps of Engineers because of 
Katrina; to set aside emergency funds because we know that every year 
there will be a drought or a wildfire or a hurricane or an earthquake. 
All of those huge issues that are embodied in over $2 trillion in 
Federal spending are here today in the form of the Federal budget.
  This bill, this resolution, allows us to move forward with that 
process that began months ago, that began on a bipartisan basis in the 
Budget Committee, that was debated extensively in the Budget Committee, 
that was marked up in the Budget Committee, and will end up on the 
floor of this House today.
  This is an open process, it is a transparent process. Anyone who has 
observed this debate can see that it involves a great deal of 
viewpoints about a great deal of very important issues. And that is the 
position we find ourselves in here today. It is a healthy process 
because it is a fundamental decision about the direction that 
Americans' hard-earned tax dollars will be taken.

                              {time}  1445

  Will those tax dollars find their way into bloated bureaucratic 
programs? Will they find their way into duplicative programs? Will they 
find their way back into a surging economy? Will they find their way 
into investments in the cure for cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease and a 
whole host of other ailments? Will they fund our troops in the theater 
of war?
  That is the decision we are positioned to move forward on here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________