[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8481-8525]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

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

                              {time}  2042


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) establishing the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
2007 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
2008 through 2011, with Mr. Shimkus (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Thursday, April 6, 2006, all time for general debate pursuant to House 
Resolution 766 had expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 817, the amendments printed in part A of 
House Report 109-468 are adopted and the concurrent resolution, as 
amended, is considered read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of the concurrent resolution, as amended, is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 376

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

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

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

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

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

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

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

                    TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

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

                      TITLE VI--SENSE OF CONGRESS

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2011:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,780,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,913,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,011,187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,122,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,212,263,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $38,933,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $8,178,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $20,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $13,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $144,808,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,283,029,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,332,599,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,426,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,526,861,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,649,474,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,325,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,364,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,434,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,524,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,640,119,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $545,332,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $451,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $423,423,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $401,973,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $427,856,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $9,182,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,744,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,275,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,781,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $11,307,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,328,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,577,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,781,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $5,946,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $6,120,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2007 through 2011 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $512,901,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $534,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $484,661,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $505,516,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $504,753,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $505,874,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $514,858,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $512,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $525,781,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $524,894,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,216,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:

[[Page 8482]]

       (A) New budget authority, $33,869,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,717,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,938,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,146,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,083,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,135,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,689,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,483,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,262,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $915,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,688,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,317,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $913,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,190,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $711,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,650,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,833,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,756,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,238,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,687,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,724,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,595,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,313,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,356,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,205,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,564,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,512,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,370,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,011,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,281,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,049,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,997,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,278,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,987,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,062,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,857,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,866,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,390,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,283,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,926,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,833,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,345,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,917,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,661,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,680,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,849,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,273,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,393,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,575,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,597,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $273,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $274,616,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,867,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $291,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $326,949,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $326,511,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $348,509,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $346,802,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,803,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $388,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $413,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $413,417,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $443,331,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $443,022,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $472,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $473,238,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $523,267,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $523,305,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $356,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $362,086,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $371,174,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $374,267,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $381,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $384,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $391,682,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $393,209,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $406,687,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $406,960,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,922,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,922,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,814,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,814,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,694,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,866,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,480,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,627,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,814,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,398,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,249,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,795,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,621,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,908,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,578,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,816,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,903,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,492,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,873,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,318,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,099,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,479,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,213,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $354,138,000,000.

[[Page 8483]]

       (B) Outlays, $354,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $383,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $383,621,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $405,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $405,846,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $427,510,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $427,510,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $449,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $449,248,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,922,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,384,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,539,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,282,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,585,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$69,427,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,727,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$68,399,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$74,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$74,199,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$66,775,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$69,284,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$69,247,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

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

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       In the House, if any measure is enacted that reduces direct 
     spending for fiscal year 2007 and for the period of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2011, and so designates some or all of 
     such savings provisions pursuant to this section, then the 
     chairman of the Committee on Budget shall increase the 
     allocation of new

[[Page 8484]]

     budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) to the 
     Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2007 by an amount 
     not to exceed the reduction in budget authority for that 
     fiscal year achieved by such designated provisions. 
     Adjustments made pursuant to this section may not be--
       (1) greater than the savings achieved by the measure in 
     which such designated provisions are included; or
       (2) in excess of $3,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

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

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 407. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

     SEC. 408. TREATMENT OF ALLOCATIONS IN THE HOUSE.

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

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

       (a) Treatment.--For purposes of the allocations and 
     aggregates in this resolution, the reconciliation directives 
     established by this resolution, and for any other purpose 
     under titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution, 
     amendment thereto, or conference report thereon, or any 
     recommendations submitted pursuant to section 201 that 
     includes the reforms set forth in subsection (b) shall be 
     scored without regard to the obligations resulting from the 
     enactment of Public Law 109-208. Such estimate shall assume 
     the liquidating of the National Flood Insurance Fund's 
     remaining contractual obligations resulting from claims made 
     as a result of floods that occurred in 2005.
       (b) Legislation.--The legislation referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall--
       (1) establish more actuarially sound rates on policies 
     issued by the National Flood Insurance Program; and
       (2) end flood insurance subsidies on pre-FIRM structures 
     not used as primary residences.

     SEC. 410. ADJUSTMENTS FOR TAX LEGISLATION.

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

                    TITLE V--EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND

     SEC. 501. NONDEFENSE RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Nondefense Reserve Funds.--
       (1) Discretionary reserve fund.--In the House and except as 
     provided by subsection (b), if a bill or joint resolution is 
     reported, or an amendment is offered thereto (or considered 
     as adopted) or a conference report is filed thereon, that 
     provides new discretionary budget authority (and outlays 
     flowing therefrom), and such provision is designated as an 
     emergency pursuant to this section, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall make adjustments to the 
     allocations and aggregates set forth in this resolution up to 
     the amount of such provisions if the requirements set forth 
     in section 504 are met, but the sum of all adjustments

[[Page 8485]]

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

     SEC. 502. EMERGENCY CRITERIA.

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

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

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

     SEC. 504. COMMITTEE NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

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

     SEC. 505. UP-TO-DATE TABULATIONS.

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

                      TITLE VI--SENSE OF CONGRESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. __. UNOBLIGATED FUNDING OFFSET.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No further amendment to the concurrent 
resolution is in order except the amendments printed in part B of the 
report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
  After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there shall be a final period of general debate which shall 
not exceed 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Watt

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

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

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

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2011:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,877,299,000,000.00.

[[Page 8486]]

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

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2007 through 2011 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $506,347,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $530,252,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $484,661,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $504,174,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $504,753,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $505,506,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $514,858,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $512,438,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $525,781,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $524,790,000,000.00.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,516,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $35,543,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,206,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $35,046,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,178,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $35,080,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,869,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $34,991,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,293,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $34,735,000,000.00.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,438,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $25,369,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,646,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $26,526,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,693,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $27,612,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,910,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $28,753,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,189,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $29,974,000,000.00.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,693,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,098,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,088,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,038,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,717,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,306,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,590,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,268,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,494,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $1,111,000,000.00.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,674,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $33,707,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,833,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $31,608,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,238,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $31,236,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,687,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $30,702,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,595,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $30,304,000,000.00.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,029,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $28,804,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,705,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $27,086,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,012,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $26,330,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,870,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $25,060,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,511,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $24,781,000,000.00.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,018,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $9,277,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,678,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $9,414,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,778,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $9,458,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,562,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $10,357,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,366,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $6,890,000,000.00.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,258,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $76,187,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,283,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $79,140,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,878,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $78,976,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,926,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $78,515,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,477,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $78,546,000,000.00.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,942,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $31,792,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,917,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $26,500,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,981,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $23,201,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,988,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $19,656,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,218,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $15,602,000,000.00.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $116,924,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $98,336,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,140,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $109,332,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,989,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $98,848,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,393,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $97,923,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,343,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $97,597,000,000.00.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,193,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $276,397,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $294,867,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $295,323,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $315,193,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $313,315,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $331,949,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $331,605,000,000.00.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $353,509,000,000.00.
       (B) Outlays, $352,084,000,000.00.

[[Page 8487]]

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

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

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

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

     SEC. 202. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT TO CONGRESS.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 817, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will control 
20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, as the Chair of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, I am honored to offer the Congressional Black Caucus 2007 
fiscal year budget alternative, and I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, a number of budgets are going to be offered tonight, 
and I think we are going to see a lot of smoke and mirrors and 
trickery.

[[Page 8488]]



                              {time}  2045

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

[[Page 8489]]

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

                              {time}  2100

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

[[Page 8490]]

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


                  announcement by the acting chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). Visitors in the gallery should 
remain quiet.
  The gentleman from Louisiana may proceed.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, that reality is that recovery is a long-
term effort. Recovery in New Orleans will not be achieved in a single 
fiscal year, and it should not be accomplished with emergency 
appropriations.
  There are a number of pieces of the recovery that we know will take 
time

[[Page 8491]]

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

[[Page 8492]]

Caucus budget for what it does for my district back home.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  We keep hearing from the gentlemen on the other side that they only 
want to raise taxes on those making over $200,000. Well, the numbers 
just don't add up. In order to raise the amount of taxes they are 
talking about, which is, again, larger than the budgets for 1 year for 
just about all the countries in the Western Hemisphere, they would have 
to let all the tax cuts expire, including the child tax credit, et 
cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and they would still have to find another 
$63 billion in tax increases for everybody else as well. So that is 
what the numbers are.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is 
a better statement for our country's values. Educators are asking for a 
fully funded No Child Left Behind because America's children are being 
left behind; seniors deserve accessible health care, but Medicare part 
D is leaving everyone confused; and veterans are only asking to receive 
the health care that recruiters promised them and that they deserve. 
But, you know, Tupac observed a long time ago that there's money for 
war, but we can't feed the poor.
  Sadly, a study done by the Pentagon estimated that Halliburton has 
received over 52 percent of the $25 billion that it has paid to 
contractors. The study also shows that Halliburton presented 
questionable bills for nearly $2 billion, lost prefabricated bases 
worth over $75 million, and yet Halliburton still gets new contracts.
  If this Congress wants to truly balance the budget and satisfy the 
needs of working Americans, it should vote to pass the Congressional 
Black Caucus budget.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  Again, I just want to repeat that this amendment is such a huge tax 
increase that they would have to increase the child tax credit; the 10 
percent bracket; the marriage penalty relief would go away, that tax 
cut; the education tax relief would disappear under their proposal; the 
pension reforms would disappear under their proposal; the AMT relief 
would disappear under their proposal; and they would even increase the 
death tax. Yes, even taxation with no respiration takes place in this 
amendment. It is a huge tax increase. And they cut defense while doing 
all those things. The numbers are there.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, a minute gives me time to make 
one essential point: mark the time as 9:15 tonight, the first time 
anyone has mentioned that 3 hours ago the President of the United 
States signed a $70 billion increase to the deficit that was enacted by 
this body 1 week ago, and it returns to your fundamental point about 
candor.
  This document levels with the American people and the choices it 
makes, the CBC document. The document in opposition it us tonight and 
the RSC document do not level with the American people, because how do 
you defend a document on the grounds of fiscal austerity and add $70 
billion to the deficit? It is the wrong set of choices, and it masks a 
retreat from all kinds of commitments, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, if this budget levels with 
the American people, then level with the American people and tell them 
what taxes you are going to raise. Tell them who you are going to raise 
it on, tell them how much you are going to raise it.
  Mr. WATT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Sir, I am only taking a minute and a 
half. You can respond at that time, because I have several other 
questions.
  Tell them who you are going to raise it on, what rates they are going 
to be and what effect those are going to have on the economy.
  Again, level with the American people on whether or not the spending 
that you have added to this thing increases the deficit or not, and 
level with the American people about whether or not you have accounted 
for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are still going on, and level 
with the American people about whether or not you have included any 
reform of the entitlement programs that will soon eat up two-thirds of 
our entire Federal revenues and eventually eat up 100 percent of our 
Federal revenues; and level with the American people that that tax cut 
that the President just signed today, that increased time of those tax 
rates, has increased the economy in the United States and resulted in 
more revenue to the Federal Government and thereby reduced the deficit.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlemen from 
Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked what is 
going to happen to the deficit. The red line is the Republican deficit 
year by year; the blue line is the CBC deficit year by year.
  We end up with a $2.3 billion surplus, while you are still $163 
billion in the ditch.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, can you tell us how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 9\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlemen from Florida has 5\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget and in opposition to the Republican 
budget.
  The Republican budget falls short on every account, especially when 
it comes to our defense priorities. The CBC budget reallocates $9.4 
billion from an unworkable missile defense program and puts it into 
real security priorities like making sure that our troops have enough 
body armor, like ensuring that our veterans have enough access to 
benefits, and like securing our ports.
  This substitute takes a first step at combating the enormous problems 
of waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon. GAO has concluded that one-
third of the recommendations made to DOD on waste, fraud and abuse in 
the last 5 years has saved $40.8 billion by implementing them. Imagine 
how much would be saved and put into education, into health care, into 
job creation, into creating a liveable world for our communities here 
in America and abroad, if, in fact, the rest of these recommendations 
are implemented.
  This substitute would require the Defense Department to work on 
eliminating waste, fraud and abuse immediately. Our national security 
priorities are taken very seriously in this budget. Let us support the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this is very simple. If you think that we should 
eliminate the child tax credit and raise those taxes on child credit, 
support this amendment. If you believe that we should eliminate the 10 
percent bracket, support this amendment. If you believe that the 
marriage penalty should be increased, that the tax on marriage should 
be increased, vote for this amendment.
  If you do not believe in the education tax relief, vote for this 
amendment. If you do not want the pension reforms that we have that 
have taken place, vote for this amendment. If you support not relieving 
the AMT, support this amendment. And if you believe that people should 
pay taxes even after they are dead, support this amendment. If you 
believe also that we

[[Page 8493]]

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

[[Page 8494]]

Pell Grants. It restores the money to provide better health care for 
Americans. And, yes, it provides $10.5 billion of interest back in the 
pockets of Americans.
  Vote for the CBC budget. It balances the budget, but most importantly 
it stands for working Americans.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this side has this 
right to close? I want to make sure that that is correct.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The member of the committee in opposition has 
the right to close.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the 
balance of our time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair repeat what he just said?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has the right to 
close.
  Mr. WATT. Can I make a parliamentary inquiry as to why that is the 
case? It is our amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is manager in 
opposition to the amendment. Under clause 3(c) of rule XVII, the 
manager in opposition has the right to close.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my 
chairman, Mel Watt, for the work that he has done in this area, and 
particularly my colleague Bobby Scott from Virginia for all of his 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to focus on one particular area, and that is the 
provision in the CBC budget that doubles training funds for trade 
adjustment assistance programs to $518 million.
  This program was established in 1962, and it assists workers who have 
lost their jobs due to international trade by providing unemployment 
and job training. We keep hearing from the Republican side that 
unemployment is down and dollars are up, but in my congressional 
district, there are areas where unemployment is significant, and 
specifically due to trade.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask all of you to join us in supporting this CBC 
budget that provides for job training and unemployment assistance for 
those workers who would love to pay taxes if they only had a job.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is fiscally 
responsible and protects the services that millions of hard working 
Americans depend on.
  The CBC alternative balances the budget in five years, and adopts the 
pay-as-you-go budget rules.
  At the same time, our budget increases spending for health care by 
$20 billion, education and job training by $80 billion, and veteran 
benefits by $20 billion.
  That is fiscal responsibility--balancing our checkbook without 
cutting the important services that millions of Americans depend on.
  One provision in the CBC budget that I strongly support is the 
doubling of training funds for the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
program to $518,000,000.
  The program, which was established in 1962, assists workers who have 
lost their jobs due to international trade by providing unemployment 
benefits and job training.
  However, many states exhaust their TAA training funds well before the 
end of the fiscal year.
  In its past three budgets, the Administration has only requested an 
increase for TAA training of only $100,000.
  That is unacceptable and insufficient when measured against the 
number of jobs being lost due to international trade.
  I urge my colleagues to support this TAA provision and the CBC 
budget--fiscally responsible while at the same time fair to millions of 
hard working Americans.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 
of our time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the 
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, most especially Mr. Scott, 
for their unwavering support for the development of the CBC alternative 
budget that encompasses progressive and visionary funding motivated by 
principle and compassion.
  The CBC alternative understands that our Nation's transportation 
system is the backbone of our economy and our way of life, either of 
which we cannot afford to shortchange. The CBC budget increases funding 
for public transportation, Amtrak, the FAA's airport improvement 
program, and other vital infrastructure programs crucial to ensure a 
stable economy.
  The CBC alternative supports greater competitiveness in science and 
technology. As a senior member of the Science Committee, I feel it is 
important to invest in our children's future. Federal entitlements such 
as NASA and the National Science Foundation need funding to inspire 
today's youth so that we can have a future in research.
  I ask, Mr. Chairman, that Members of this body listen to their 
conscience. We are in a position to prevent funding atrocities to 
infiltrate and demise progress. The Nation's budget cannot be based on 
one party's sole agenda. We cannot allow societal factors to divide us 
in irresponsible spending or unconscionable tax breaks to define us.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Scott for their leadership and unwavering 
support for the development of this alternative budget. I also would 
like to thank all the members of the CBC and their staff for their help 
in completing this very important task. I appreciate and applaud their 
efforts on issues important to all of us.
  The CBC alternative budget prioritizes the .importance of social 
justice by advocating for the forgotten poor and more specifically 
addressing the needs of African Americans and other neglected 
minorities. The CBC alternative budget is filled with progressive and 
visionary funding and is motivated by principle and compassion.
  It is a budget that voices the concerns and needs of the poor, the 
children and the elderly that have been so easily set aside by this 
administration.
  The shortsightedness of the Republican budget mirrors that of its 
drafters. The Republican budget borrows from future generations to pay 
for today's unconscionable tax cuts and irresponsible deficit spending. 
It offers a $372 billion deficit in 2006 and $348 billion in 2007, and 
$1.1 trillion worth of deficits over five years.
  The Republican budget proposal ignores the needs of Texans and all 
hard working Americans and places the burden of the offset on their 
shoulders. It reduces taxes for the wealthiest Americans and slams the 
door on economic opportunity for working families. It reduces veterans' 
health care by $6 billion, education by $45.3 billion, public health by 
$18.1 billion, and environmental protection by $25.0 billion. They also 
include $6.8 billion in reconciliation cuts to mandatory programs.
  The CBC alternative understands that our Nation's transportation 
system is the backbone of our economy and a way of life, either of 
which, we cannot afford to shortchange. The CBC budget increases 
funding for public transportation, Amtrak, the FAA's Airport 
Improvement Program, and other vital infrastructure programs crucial to 
ensure a stable economy.
  The CBC alternative supports greater competitiveness in science and 
technology. As a senior Member of the House Science Committee, I feel 
it is important to invest in our children's futures. Federal entities 
such as NASA and the National Science Foundation need funding to 
inspire today's students and produce tomorrow's researchers. The 
science budget funds our scientific and engineering workforce, supports 
teacher enrichment programs, and helps inspire future generations of 
researchers. Our Nation's future depends more and more on the quality 
of our innovative ideas. The fruits of these investments meet vital 
national needs and improve the quality of life for all Americans.
  The CBC alternative budget also provides funding for the minority 
health initiative, health insurance for the uninsured, child nutrition 
programs, job creation programs under the SBA, the extension of 
unemployment insurance benefits and eliminating the disabled veteran's 
tax. It provides $80 billion over the next five years for education and 
job training programs and provides over $20 billion more for health 
care programs than the Republican budget. It also provides $6 billion 
more on community and regional development which encompasses job 
creation programs under SBA, community and regional development 
programs, nutritional programs, Hope VI and Section 8 Housing Programs, 
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, and housing for the disabled and the 
elderly.
  I ask, Mr. Chairman, that Members of this body listen to their 
conscience. We are in a position to prevent funding atrocities to 
infiltrate and demise progress. This Nation's

[[Page 8495]]

budget cannot be based on one party's sole agenda. We cannot allow 
societal factors to divide us and irresponsible spending or 
unconscionable tax cuts to define us.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to 
how many speakers the sponsor of the amendment has lined up still?
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlemen will give us some more time, 
we have a whole list of speakers over here. But we are going to run out 
of time before we run out of speakers, I can assure you.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen 
for his answer. I will always try to accommodate him as much as 
possible to close.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman give us some time?
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can 
work that out.

                              {time}  2130

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

[[Page 8496]]

programs: $80 billion more on education and job training, $20 billion 
more on veterans benefits and services, $20 billion more on health 
care, $6 billion more on community and regional development including 
the gulf coast, and billions more on research, nutrition, and food 
programs. And where do we get it from? On that money that comes from 
people making over $200,000 a year. We think these are higher 
priorities, and we are honest enough to tell you so.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again there is a huge 
difference between our budget and this budget by the CBC, the 
prestigious Members of the Democratic Congress. They increase taxes on 
the American people by almost $1 trillion over 5 years while cutting 
defense spending in a time of war.
  To put it in perspective one more time, let us look at this. Look at 
all the countries south of Mexico, and excluding Florida, all the 
Caribbean, all of Central and South America. Their revenues, their 
expenditures over 1 year are smaller than the tax increases that this 
amendment proposes to impose on the hardworking American people over 
the next 5 years. That is the reality.
  The bottom line is if you believe in massive tax increases large 
enough to fund the expenditures of all the countries in Latin America, 
if you believe in that, you would support this amendment.
  If you believe that the American people are paying enough taxes, that 
we have got to use it more efficiently, and that we should not cut 
defense spending in a time of war, I would then urge my colleagues to 
respectfully oppose this well-intentioned but devastating amendment to 
the American taxpayer and to the American economy.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the FY 07 
Republican Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 376, and in support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus Budget Substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican Budget sets a record--not for balancing 
the budget, lowering the deficit, or reducing our reliance on foreign 
debt--but for exceeding the callousness evident in President Bush's 
Budget for America. This ``compromise'' is devoid of direction, balance 
and compassion.
  It slashes K-12 programs, job training, Community Development and 
Social Services Block grants. It cuts veterans health care, the 
homeland security function; mandatory student loan spending and 
programs that help feed low-income elderly, mothers and children.
  The sad truth is that all of these cuts are the sacrificial lamb for 
tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. While many 
Americans are struggling under mounting debt and our country faces 
record deficits, this Budget funds another shameless $228 billion in 
tax cuts over 5 years.
  The CBC Alternative Budget offers a real budget for all Americans. It 
would balance the budget, restore pay-as-you-go principles and restore 
funding to critical programs; not by creating deficits, but by 
rescinding the tax cuts for those making over $200,000, eliminating 
corporate tax incentives and closing corporate loopholes--all while 
eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.
  I urge my colleagues to support the CBC Alternative Budget, which 
represents a return to fiscal discipline and responsibility and focuses 
our spending priorities on ALL Americans.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the American people, and the Congressional Black Caucus' Alternative 
U.S. Budget (CBC Budget).
  Mr. Chairman, budgets are moral documents. They reflect in a very 
real sense, our deep beliefs, our priorities, and define us as a 
community and as a Nation. So it is with deep regret that, as people of 
conscience, we must rise against this attack on seniors, children, 
families, workers, and small business--against the Majority's budget 
which levies an enormous cost on the backs of the majority of 
Americans, in order to benefit the wealthiest few among us.
  Make no mistake about it--the majority's budget is a reckless and 
unfair attack on most Americans. It exacerbates our national debt in an 
age when we have already squandered a $5.6 trillion budget surplus and 
added $3 trillion in debt. It freezes important domestic programs--
reducing veterans' health care by $6 billion, education by $45.3 
billion, public health by $18.1 billion, and environmental protection 
by $25.0 billion--while also adding $6.8 billion in reconciliation cuts 
to mandatory programs. It is outrageous, Mr. Chairman, and it's simply 
un-American.
  The CBC budget, which my office helped to draft, restores fiscal 
responsibility, balancing the budget in 5 years and creating a surplus 
of $2.3 billion in FY 2011. It reduces the deficit by $313 billion and 
saves $10.5 billion in interest payments compared to the Majority's 
budget. And it adopts PAYGO rules, so that Congress balances our 
checkbook just like most Americans do.
  The CBC Budget adds $32 billion in Education, Training, Employment 
and Social Services, $1 billion in Natural Resources and Environment; 
and $5.4 billion in Health programs. It increases security and critical 
investments for our homeland, for our troops, for rail and port 
security grants, cargo and air cargo screening equipment, first 
responders, federal air marshals, and the U.S. Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
  It funds juvenile justice and local law enforcement programs, while 
restoring cuts in veterans' health care, enhances benefits to our 
veterans in survivor benefits, medical and prosthetic research, long-
term care, and mental health care. It provides $80 billion more for 
education and job training programs than the Republic budget over 5 
years, including funding for No Child Left Behind and school 
construction. It funds the minority health initiative, child nutrition 
programs, job creation programs, community and regional development, 
Gulf Coast reconstruction, scientific research, transportation, 
Medicare, and a variety of greatly-needed housing initiatives.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a historic opportunity before us, to help 
millions of Americans, and to turn back the clock on fiscal policies, 
the effect of which this Nation will endure for decades. I urge my 
colleagues to join in conscience, and adopt this CBC Budget.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 155]

                               AYES--131

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

                               NOES--294

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)

[[Page 8497]]


     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

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

                              {time}  2201

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


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

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

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

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

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

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

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2007 through 2011 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $510,580,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $534,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $481,271,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $502,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $481,126,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,152,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $481,099,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $484,908,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $481,134,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $486,641,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,456,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,853,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,443,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,817,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,804,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,206,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,096,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,901,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,672,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,116,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,398,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$395,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$509,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,693,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,230,000,000.

[[Page 8498]]

       (B) Outlays, $31,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,649,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,419,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,340,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,284,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,629,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,859,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,006,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,581,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,739,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,506,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,534,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,767,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,853,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,028,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,504,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,493,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,298,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,885,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,371,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,054,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,686,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,586,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,178,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,963,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,875,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,963,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,974,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,965,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,423,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,967,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,466,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,706,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,415,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,421,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,978,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,973,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,155,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,986,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,929,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,698,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $279,170,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,387,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $291,222,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $288,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $299,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $312,928,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $311,802,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $359,207,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $364,668,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $376,393,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $376,441,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,226,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $394,815,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $413,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $413,906,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $437,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $437,686,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $346,496,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $355,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $355,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $361,544,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $365,727,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $369,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $376,340,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $378,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $390,469,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $391,965,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,817,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,697,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,869,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,869,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,483,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,806,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,887,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,254,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,271,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,312,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,289,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,307,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,721,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,941,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,785,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,404,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,382,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,880,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,905,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,142,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,940,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $351,718,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $351,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $377,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $377,930,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $395,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $411,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $411,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $421,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $421,915,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,260,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,770,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$66,349,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,799,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,760,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$69,085,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$82,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$82,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$67,105,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,765,000,000.

[[Page 8499]]

       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$70,567,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$70,367,000,000.

                  TITLE II--RECONCILIATION SUBMISSIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions to Slow the Growth in Mandatory Spending 
     and to Achieve Deficit Reduction.--(1) Not later than April 
     28, 2006, the House committees named in paragraph (2) shall 
     submit their recommendations to the House Committee on the 
     Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $2,083,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2007 and $29,116,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
       (B) Committee on armed services.--The House Committee on 
     Armed Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $52,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2007 and $120,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
       (B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
     level of direct spending for that committee by $1,010,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 2007 and $7,470,000,000 in outlays 
     for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
       (C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $1,125,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2007 and $91,697,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
       (D) Committee on government reform.--The House Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $140,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2007 and $1,670,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
       (E) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on 
     Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $0 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2007 and $6,793,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2011.
       (F) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $32,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2007 and $230,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
       (G) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $27,457,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and $221,189,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
       (H) Special rule.--The chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may take into account legislation enacted after the 
     adoption of this resolution that is determined to reduce the 
     deficit and may make applicable adjustments in reconciliation 
     instructions, allocations, and budget aggregates and may also 
     make adjustments in reconciliation instructions to protect 
     earned benefit programs.
       (b) Submission Providing for Changes in Revenue.--The House 
     Committee on Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation 
     bill not later than April 28, 2006, that consists of changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues 
     by not more than $18,391,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and by 
     not more than $346,271,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2007 through 2011.
       (c) Revision of Allocations.--(1) Upon the submission to 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House of a recommendation 
     that has complied with its reconciliation instructions solely 
     by virtue of section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, the chairman of that committee may file with the 
     House appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) 
     of such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report 
     recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a 
     committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions 
     solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the House 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of 
     such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
     aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

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

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

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUND

     SEC. 301. RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES.

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

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

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

     SEC. 402. TURN OFF THE GEPHARDT RULE.

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

     SEC. 403. EMERGENCY SPENDING.

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

[[Page 8500]]



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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 407. DIRECT SPENDING SAFEGUARD.

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

     SEC. 408. BUDGET PROTECTION MANDATORY ACCOUNT.

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

     SEC. 409. BUDGET DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS.

       (a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection 
     Discretionary Account'';. The Account shall be divided into 
     entries corresponding to the allocation to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the committee's suballocations, under 
     section 302(a) and 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
       (2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it 
     under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be 
     made.
       (b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall--
       (A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection 
     Discretionary Account by the amounts specified in paragraph 
     (2).
       (B) reduce the applicable 302(a) and (b) allocations by the 
     amount specified in paragraph (2).
       (2) Each amount specified in subparagraph (A) shall be the 
     net reduction in discretionary budget authority provided by 
     each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint 
     resolution.
       (c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in 
     paragraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall, upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill, 
     reduce the level of total revenues set forth in the 
     applicable concurrent resolution on the

[[Page 8501]]

     budget for the fiscal year or for the total of that first 
     fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years in an amount equal 
     to the net reduction in discretionary budget authority 
     provided by each amendment that was adopted by the House to 
     the bill or joint resolution. Such adjustment shall be in 
     addition to the adjustments described in subsection (b).
       (2)(A) The provision specified in paragraph (1) is as 
     follows: ``The amount of discretionary budget authority 
     reduced by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in 
     revenues.''
       (B) All points of order are waived against an amendment 
     including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the 
     amendment is otherwise in order.
       (d) As used in this rule, the term ``appropriation bill'' 
     means any general or special appropriation bill, and any bill 
     or joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency, or 
     continuing appropriations through the end of fiscal year 2007 
     or any subsequent fiscal year, as the case may be.
       (e) During the consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all 
     Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and 
     decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint 
     resolution.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 817, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to acknowledge 
our dear friend and colleague Chairman Nussle for his great work. It 
has been one of my great honors and privileges to serve on his Budget 
Committee. I have thought that Chairman Nussle has had the hardest job 
in this body, and he has always chaired the Budget Committee with 
fairness and principle and diligence, and, I might add, success. Again, 
it has been an honor and a privilege to serve with him as he introduces 
his last budget. All I can say is Congress's loss is certainly Iowa's 
gain.
  Mr. Chairman, over 10 years ago, visionary men and women of the 
Republican Party came forth with a very bold budget plan called the 
Contract with America budget. The Contract with America captured the 
imagination of the American people, and it gave the Republicans control 
of the people's House for the first time in decades.
  More than just numbers, Mr. Chairman, the budget was about bedrock 
values. It called for true compassion by removing the yoke of 
dependency fashioned by the welfare state and replacing it with an 
opportunity society. It spoke of restoring personal freedom by ending 
centralized bureaucratic micromanagement of the Federal Government. It 
called for reforms, it called for accountability, and finally, Mr. 
Chairman, it actually balanced the budget without tax increases on 
hard-working American families.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Contract with America budget was 
never enacted. Washington ignored the budget's ominous warning that if 
it failed to pass, within 10 years the national debt would grow to over 
$7.5 trillion from excess spending. That has proven true.
  Today, members of the Republican Study Committee introduce the 
Contract with America Renewed Budget, a budget that is dedicated to 
achieving the goals of the original, chiefly balancing the budget in 5 
years without raising taxes. This is the only budget proposed in 
Congress that would do so.
  Mr. Chairman, not enough Americans realize it, but you can actually 
balance the budget without cutting 1 penny of Federal spending. That is 
right, without cutting 1 single penny. Even our budget will still grow 
government, but we slow its rate of growth, as we must. For the last 10 
years, the Federal budget has grown beyond the ability of the family 
budget to pay for it. Washington has spent twice the rate of inflation 
and 50 percent faster than the family budget, and yet Democrats want to 
spend even more and tax more.
  Every time Congress grows a Federal program, it takes money away from 
a family program, like a down payment on a home, college tuition for a 
child, or money to launch a small business. American families have to 
prioritize their spending every year. They have to balance their budget 
every year. They should expect no less from their Federal Government.
  Now, to achieve a balanced budget without increasing taxes, our 
budget demands accountability, performance, and priorities. We propose 
the elimination of over 150 Federal programs. After almost 20 years 
after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we should still not be funding Radio 
Free Europe. The citrus canker program is not of equal priority to 
Kevlar vests for our brave troops, and we simply do not need other 
bridges to nowhere.
  Our budget prevents the massive, the massive planned Democrat tax 
increase that threatens the 5 million new jobs that have been created 
since Republicans in this body enacted tax relief and progrowth job 
policies in 2003. Our budget proposes to reform out-of-control 
entitlement spending and then saving, actually saving, Medicare as we 
know it for our children.
  The budget proposes a number of reforms, like a constitutional line 
item veto, a sunset commission, and earmark reform, all geared towards 
saving the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that soon Democrats 
will stand up and call this something akin to a tough and heartless 
budget. But, Mr. Chairman, the tough and heartless budget is theirs. 
Their budget ignores out-of-control spending and will lead the next 
generation to desperate economic times.
  According to the General Accountability Office, the Congressional 
Budget Office, and anybody else who has looked at the problem, without 
spending reforms we will soon be faced with the choice of having a 
Federal Government consisting of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid 
and Social Security, or actually doubling taxes on the next generation. 
That is the Democrats' budget plan for America.
  But if we will simply embrace the principles of a balanced budget and 
limited accountable government, our future is bright. We can ensure 
unlimited freedom and unlimited opportunity for this generation and the 
next. We should enact the Contract with America Renewed Budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I ask 
unanimous consent to yield half the time to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and that he be allowed to control that time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, it is my role and responsibility as the 
chairman of the Budget Committee to draft and defend the majority 
budget. I have done so. And that is the base resolution that we are 
considering tonight, to which the Republican Study Committee has 
provided an opportunity to look into the future and see what is 
possible. I oppose it, respectfully. And while there is enough of it 
that is worthy of discussion and worthy of support, it is my job, as I 
say, to defend and to pass the majority budget, and we will do so later 
on.
  But let me just touch on some things that I think are important as 
you consider not only the underlying bill, but also what the Republican 
Study Committee has done. First of all, the members of the Republican 
Study Committee clearly have learned the lessons of the 1990s and the 
effort that we made to balance the budget, and there were three of 
them.
  And let me suggest that those three lessons that we learned, that I 
certainly learned as a member of the Budget Committee, as a Member of 
Congress looking at the challenges that we faced, the first lesson was 
that we needed to grow the economy. That was clear. And we did so. The 
economy grew by leaps and bounds, and it brought revenue into the 
Treasury like never before. We cut the capital gains tax, and it 
created opportunities, it created jobs, and it created new businesses. 
As a result, it created new revenue to the Treasury.

[[Page 8502]]

  Second, the lesson was if you control spending, if you slow things 
down, even to a freeze level, that that can help you gain the traction 
to get back to fiscal responsibility.
  But the most important lesson, I believe, of the 1990s exercise of 
going through the Contract with America budget, as my friend from Texas 
suggested, and so many other budgets during those years that were 
successful, it was that we reformed government; that we were constantly 
weeding the garden looking for opportunities to make changes, looking 
for opportunities to deliver the product of government, the services of 
government in a more effective and efficient way.
  I realize that there will be a lot of vitriol, of people coming 
forward saying you must hate this group or you must hate this person or 
you don't care about this. I would never cast that aspersion on anybody 
in this body. I say that very seriously. There is nobody who could get 
elected to this body by being that unfeeling and uncaring about the 
people that they serve and the people that elect them. It is just not 
possible.
  So to say those kinds of things and to measure it based on the size 
of the wallet that the Federal Government is willing to throw at any 
problem is just, I believe, a ridiculous proposition. We can disagree 
on the method to solve problems, on the ways that we will meet 
challenges, but to come to the floor and suggest that just because you 
want to reform a program that has operated the same way for 20 years is 
because somehow you don't care, that is just simply not what either the 
RSC is trying to suggest in the budget they are proposing or that we 
are suggesting in the underlying budget.
  We believe it is time, and that the time should always be present to 
reform government and to look for ways to use tax dollars wisely and to 
deliver a better product or service to the people that we are trying to 
help. That is what the RSC budget does.
  Now, it does so at a time that we have other challenges. Obviously, 
we have many unexpected expenses that came up as a result of a war, as 
a result of 9/11, as a result of homeland security, as a result of 
immigration challenges, and as a result of Katrina, the hurricane. We 
have so many challenges that our budgets have had to face, and I 
believe we have balanced them as well as possible.
  So while the RSC budget may go too far for a majority of people in 
the House of Representatives tonight, it does push the envelope forward 
and say we should always lean forward when it comes to reforming 
government.

                              {time}  2215

  We should always be willing to lean forward and to support taxpayers 
and the job that they do, all taxpayers. And that is what the RSC 
budget does. I oppose it, respectfully, because I believe we need to 
support a majority budget to put the kind of fence, the fiscal fence, 
around the job we need to do here tonight and the rest of the year. But 
it is a good work product, worthy of our respect, if for no other 
reason because it points us in the constant direction of reform that 
this institution and our Federal Government must get serious about if 
we will meet the challenges that our kids and grandkids are going to 
need to deal with in the future.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, Mr. 
Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to speak at this point in 
time in the debate. But somebody, sometime ought to talk about facts.
  The gentleman mentions the Contract with America. The first plank of 
the Contract with America was fiscal responsibility. Now, you weren't 
in charge when the Contract With America came into your purview as the 
majority in 1995. Bill Clinton was President of the United States. I 
have served here, my 26th year; 18 of those have been with Republican 
Presidents. Eight have been with a Democratic President. Every one of 
those 18 years we had a deficit of over $100 billion.
  Now, there is only one person in America who can stop spending, the 
President of the United States. Reagan didn't stop spending. Bush 
didn't stop spending, and this President has spent, and you have spent, 
twice as much as we spent under Bill Clinton. The Heritage Foundation 
will tell you that, not we Democrats. We will tell you that too, but 
the Heritage Foundation will tell you that, I tell my friend from 
Texas.
  You have voted for budgets which have provided the largest deficits 
in our history. In the last 64 months, your budgets and your policies 
have resulted in an additional $3 trillion of deficit spending. Three 
trillion. You are in charge of the House, you are in charge of the 
Senate, and you have the Presidency.
  Now you say, oh, we had 9/11 and then we had the war. You didn't have 
that during the Reagan years, and you had a deficit every year. You 
didn't have that in Bush I. You had the Gulf War I, but guess what, 
that President Bush had the rest of the world substantially pay for 
that effort.
  $3 trillion in additional debt. And in this budget, you are going to 
add an additional 650 billion-plus to the national debt. Those 
deficits, by the way, so you understand, and these are facts, you are 
welcome to look at your little books, get out your staff and say, oh, 
no, Hoyer is lying. The public maybe is watching.
  During Republican Presidents those 18 years, $4.3 trillion of deficit 
spending net. You know what you had under Bill Clinton? $62.5 billion 
of surplus. The only President in your lifetime, I say to all of you, 
who had a net surplus during the course of his terms.
  So I hear the gentleman from Texas get up and talk about the Contract 
With America. It was blarney.
  You said you were going to be fiscally responsible. The finances of 
this Nation over the last 6 years have been the worst since my service 
here, and perhaps in the history, I think in the history of America. 
You talk a good game, but you are not playing a good game. You are not 
playing for real, and you are trying to fool the American public. The 
problem you have is they are not being fooled.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I find it a little surreal to be lectured by a Democrat on the 
subject of spending since for the last 10 years every time the 
Republicans have introduced a budget, they have introduced a budget 
that spends more. If the gentleman is really concerned about spending, 
he should support the budget that spends the least, which is this 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman who is of the class of 1994 who voted for the original 
Contract With America, a former chairman of the Republican Study 
Committee and one of the great conservative leaders in the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I take the strong statement we just heard 
as an endorsement of the RSC budget. He talked about the budget you are 
proposing will increase the deficit. In fact, he wasn't talking about 
the RSC budget. Indeed it will produce $392 billion in net deficit 
reduction.
  I rise in strong support of the Contract with America Renewed budget 
and compliment the gentleman from Texas for his hard work on this 
budget. This budget is a reasoned and responsible budget based on the 
Contract With America budget that I proudly voted for in 1995 and that 
the chairman of the House Budget Committee who sits here tonight also 
voted for, along with 108 other Republicans and two Democrats. And I 
certainly hope that tonight they will once again vote for this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, when the Republicans were entrusted with the majority 
in 1994, we made a number of promises to the American people, but none 
of them was more important than our promise and nor more critical than 
our promise to the American people to shrink the size and the scope of 
the Federal Government, to have it tax less, spend less and interfere 
in our lives less; and, Mr. Chairman, it is time to keep that promise.
  As the accompanying chart shows, in the time period from 1995 to 
2005, Federal spending has increased at three

[[Page 8503]]

times the pace of the average family income.
  Mr. Chairman, that simply is not tolerable. This chart shows it. In 
that time period the average family income has gone up by 8.2 percent. 
Total Federal outlays have gone up by 25.6 percent. Growing the Federal 
Government at three times the pace of the family income simply is not 
tolerable, cannot be defended, and will not work in the long run.
  The total amount of Federal spending is hard for the average American 
to comprehend. It is $2.2 trillion. In $1 bills it would stack halfway 
to the Moon. It weighs 10 times as much as the Sears Tower, and it 
would blanket the State of New Jersey.
  Mr. Chairman, growth in spending has grown dramatically just in the 
last few years. From 2002 to 2005, the inflation rate was 2 percent. 
But we grew spending in 2002 by 7.9 percent, in 2003 by 7.4 percent, in 
2004, by 6.1 percent and in 2005 by 8.2 percent. Each year, three to 
four times the rate of inflation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for fiscal sanity. It is time to end the 
overspending.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Contract with America Renewed 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, there is a credit card problem here on 
the House floor. You know what it would take to balance the budget 
while preserving these tax cuts? Let's take a look at your budget. To 
balance the budget by 2016, only 10 years away, while making the tax 
cuts permanent, you would have to cut Social Security benefits by 45 
percent, you would have to cut defense spending by 66 percent, and you 
would have to cut Medicare by 56 percent. Every other program except 
Social Security, Medicare, Defense and Homeland Security you would have 
to cut by 32 percent. Now unless you are prepared to do that, you ought 
to take a look at the real facts.
  The President promised that 5.5 million jobs would be created by 
2003. Those tax cuts that we passed, that you passed in 2003. Instead, 
less than half of those jobs ever materialized.
  If the workforce had only grown with the rate of population since 
2001, there would be 3 million more people between the ages of 20 and 
65 in the workforce than there is today.
  Last year, middle-income wages actually grew less than the rate of 
inflation, reducing their buying power and their ability to grow the 
economy. That is why the American people are not fooled by your press 
conferences, by your budgets, by your shenanigans about we want to tax 
and spend. They don't believe you anymore.
  Real wages have not grown since the passage of these tax cuts and are 
now at the level seen all the way back in November of 2001, before the 
tax cuts. In fact, one could make an argument that the economy would 
have grown the same if you would have increased taxes.
  It makes no sense what has happened since 2001. President Bush and 
the Republican leadership have instituted round after round of reckless 
tax cuts for the rich, and all they have to show for it is one of the 
weakest so-called economic recoveries in the Nation's history. That is 
fact, and I give you those facts, and I hope you chew on them and think 
about them before you introduce your next budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem with this substitute amendment is that like 
all fiscally irresponsible Republican budgets it will give large tax 
cuts for millionaires, while drastically cutting vital domestic 
programs used by average Americans. It will further grow our national 
deficit which stands at over $8 trillion, more than $28,000 per 
American.
  The truth is that average working Americans are not only getting the 
tiniest share of the tax cuts; they are also not seeing any signs of an 
economic recovery. Unlike my Republican colleagues, let me state some 
facts to support my claim.
  Fact: The President promised that 5.5 million jobs would be created 
by his 2003 tax cuts, instead less than half those jobs ever 
materialized.
  Fact: If the workforce had only grown with the rate of population 
since 2001, there would be 3 million more people between the ages of 20 
and 65 in the workforce than there is today.
  Fact: Last year, middle income wages actually grew less than the rate 
of inflation, reducing their buying power and their ability to grow the 
economy.
  Fact: Real wages have not been growing since the passage of these tax 
cuts and are now at the levels seen all the way back in November 2001.
  I could state more facts all day and night, but I am limited by time, 
so let me just state what is abundantly clear: That President Bush and 
this Republican Congress have instituted round-after-round of reckless 
tax cuts for the rich and all they have to show for it is one of the 
weakest so-called economic recoveries in our nation's history and a 
bloated budget deficit.
  For shame!
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a coauthor of the 
Family Budget Protection Act, one of the great fiscal conservatives of 
Congress, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, you know, we can talk about a lot of 
things in a budget debate; but there are only a couple of things we 
know for sure. One is that we are on an unsustainable fiscal path and 
we have $46 trillion in unfunded liabilities. And by 2040, we will 
spend more on Social Security, Medicare, and interest than we have in 
Federal revenue, which will leave no money for defense, no money for 
education, no money for ag, no money for Department of Labor, no money 
for anything unless we have crushing tax increases.
  Some say that this budget requires hard choices. I would argue it 
doesn't require any hard choices at all. It simply requires tough 
management. It is easy to spend other people's money, especially when 
it is other people's money. It is hard to manage money and achieve 
results.
  This budget does the responsible thing by engaging in tough 
management and putting us on a path of sustainable fiscal future and 
not passing a debt along to our children that they simply will cannot 
afford.
  This budget achieves better government at a lower cost, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Texas for his work on our RSC budget. He has done an outstanding job. 
And you know, this really is a time when we can renew the Contract With 
America and those goals that we focused on and the principles that were 
laid forth in that period of time, and this is a budget that helps move 
us again toward those goals and towards those principles.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it so interesting that we are hearing people 
say, well, you can make an argument for this, you can make an argument 
for that. You can try to disprove this, you can try to disprove that. 
And you can make arguments all day long, but it doesn't make it true. 
It just does not make it true. And I think we have to put our focus on 
a few simple things that are fiscally responsible.
  The budget we have before us that we are debating at this point in 
time is one that focuses on eliminating wasteful and unnecessary 
programs and capping growth in mandatory spending. Reducing the size of 
government and consolidating redundant agencies, this is a place that 
deserves our focus, it deserves our attention. It deserves our fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

                              {time}  2230

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the problems 
that we have is not explaining to the American people the amount of 
pain that this Republican budget casts on Americans. So let me just 
tell you the truth this evening.
  When the Democrats were in, when we passed the 1997 budget 
resolution, we developed a $5.6 trillion surplus. I think that is easy 
enough to understand. But right now, today, we have seen an arrow sink 
us down into an $8.8

[[Page 8504]]

trillion deficit and sliding on the slippery slope of this huge deficit 
that breaks the backs of working Americans. In fact, right now, today, 
when they vote, they will create a $3.2 trillion, if you will, deficit 
that will break the backs of working Americans. What that does is, of 
course, is to reenforce the fact that the tax cut that you are giving 
gives only to the richest of America, the 1 percent, but, in fact, even 
though Americans understand about mutual sacrifice of which they would 
rather have investment in education and health care and homeland 
security, your tax cut is going to cost $3 trillion, which is going to 
add to the trillions of dollars of deficit that we already have.
  When we talk about priorities, what that means is that we are cutting 
$6 billion from homeland security, the very debate that we are having 
today, $6 billion we are cutting over a 5-year period in homeland 
security. What does that mean? It means we have no funding for border 
security. It means we have no funding to ensure that the homeland is 
safe with intelligence resources and collaboration. It also means that 
our military has no armored jackets. It means that our veterans 
hospitals are cut for $6 billion. But, most importantly, it cuts the 
children of America because it is the largest cut in education in 23 
years. That is what this trillion-dollar deficit budget makes. That is 
what the Republican budget does. It cuts priorities, and that is what 
the Democrats are saying.
  Our priorities are different. We want to invest in America. We do not 
want to build the deficit. We do not want to build $3 trillion in tax 
cuts that do not go to the average working American. We want that 
single mother, we want that family of 4, we want that family of 10, we 
want that young person looking for an opportunity to have the 
investment of capital to ensure that America is great.
  Vote for the Democratic substitute. That is what makes America great, 
and that is what we would like to do for America.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to add my voice of opposition to the 
Republican Budget Resolution.
  The budget of the United States is more than a financial document and 
accounting device. Rather it is the numerical expression of the 
obligations free people voluntarily assume to help others, to serve the 
common good, and to form a more perfect union. But it is more than 
that. A budget is a reflection of our national values and a scorecard 
by which we can judge whether we are keeping faith with what we profess 
to believe. The budget resolution brought to the floor today by the 
Republican leadership does not reflect the best of American values. 
This budget breaks faith with what we know to be right.
  Let me count the ways:
  This budget undermines the federal programs that bolster the economy 
and welfare of our citizens.
  The President's budget cuts $6.3 billion in Social Security benefits 
over ten years by eliminating the survivor benefits safety net for 
women and children. This benefit can make the difference between 
subsistence and destitution, and it is heart breaking that Congress 
could even consider pocketing funds rightly earned and needed by or 
constituents and their families.
  The President's budget slashes Medicare by $36 billion over five 
years and $105 billion over 10 years and includes gross Medicaid cuts, 
including both legislative and regulatory cuts, of $17 billion over 
five years and $42 billion over 10 years, on top of the deep Medicaid 
cuts that Congress enacted in 2005.
  The Republican 2007 budget resolution cuts spending on education by 
29% and freezes Head Start funding at this year's level, guaranteeing 
that 19,000 children will have to be cut from Head Start next year. 
Even the President's own No Child Left Behind program is funded at 
$15.4 billion below the authorized level.
  Cuts are also in store for environmental protection projects (by 4%), 
community block grants ($736 million), and community development 
programs ($4.3 billion below the amount needed to maintain current 
services).
  Even the budget for Homeland Security is 24.9% lower than the amount 
enacted in FY2006.
  What I have just described is a systematic asphyxiation of funding 
for vital elements that make up the fabric of our society--education, 
healthcare, social security, housing, and homeland security.
  All of us agree on the American future we want for our children and 
generations yet unborn. An America that is highly educated, confident, 
capable, globally competitive, strong, and sage. Whether we achieve 
this goal depends upon what we do here today and now. This budget will 
not make America smarter, stronger, safer, more competitive, or proud. 
We can do much better. We must do better if we are to be true to the 
best of ourselves and to be consistent with our fundamental values.
  I urge all members of the House to reject this budget resolution. I 
further urge my colleagues to support the Democratic Substitute Budget 
(the Spratt Resolution) and to support the CBC amendment to the Budget 
resolution.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, our constituents did not send us to Congress to create 
debt and pass it on to our children and our grandchildren. Yet it is 
estimated by the end of fiscal year 2006 that the Federal budget 
deficit alone will be $337 billion. Now, there are many reasons 
affecting this number, but the bottom line is spending is out of 
control.
  Later tonight we will be voting on House passage of the fiscal year 
2007 Federal budget, and I believe the time is now to make drastic 
reform. And the Republican Study Committee alternative budget is 
definitely a step in the right direction. This budget allows us to 
renew our purpose of fiscal restraint, pay down the national debt, and 
balance the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to spend on everything, because if 
we do, we will not be able to spend on anything. So I am rising in 
support of the amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Texas because 
it moves us in the right direction. It moves us in the direction of 
spending within our means and truly being accountable for our children 
and our grandchildren.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if you kicked the Republican budget in the 
heart, you would break your toe.
  These guys tonight are going to vote to cut $162 billion out of 
programs for the poor and the sick and the aged in our country in order 
to accommodate a $228 billion tax break for the wealthy.
  Now, it would not be so bad if you did not follow the details. They 
are going to cut $18 billion out of public health programs for people 
across our country. They are going to cut the Centers for Disease 
Control. They are going to cut the research at the National Institutes 
of Health, which is looking for the cures for Alzheimer's, for 
Parkinson's, for juvenile diabetes. They are going to cut those 
programs. They are going to cut $6 billion in veterans health care. 
They are going to cut money for homeland security all to accommodate a 
$228 billion tax break almost exclusively for the wealthy in our 
country.
  If you kicked the Republican budget in the heart, you would break 
your toe.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1 
minute to a gentlewoman who knows that spending will increase every 
year under this budget, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, there are two clearly defined philosophies at 
work in Washington. On one side are conservatives, such as my RSC 
colleagues and I, who want to cut government spending and rein in the 
Federal deficit. On the other side are liberals, who believe that more 
government spending is the answer to all our problems, and these 
liberals will raise your taxes to pay for it.
  I am pleased to be a part of this group of conservatives who today 
are proving that Republicans are indeed the party of fiscal discipline, 
reform, and accountability. Our budget proposal provides a general 
framework on how we can hold the line on spending, balance our budget 
within 5 years, pay down our national debt, and maintain tax relief for 
American families all at the same time.
  Like every family across America, we need to make tough budget 
decisions and cut back on wasteful spending. That is not easy, but it 
is the right

[[Page 8505]]

thing to do. After all, if your family was far into debt and was 
spending out of control, you would have to cut wasteful or unnecessary 
purchases.
  With this budget we have a unique opportunity to streamline our 
government, reform ineffective and outdated Federal programs, cut 
spending, and provide greater accountability for the American people. 
Let us get to work.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas. I want to thank him for all his 
work in conjunction with the Republican Study Committee in advancing 
additional fiscal restraint in the budgetary process.
  While the underlying budget does a commendable job of balancing our 
revenues with spending, the RSC does the same job. It just does it 
faster. Mr. Chairman, without question, both the underlying budget and 
this substitute budget make many tough choices. The budgetary process 
is not easy, but we must never forget it is not any easier for the 
taxpayer, who in every paycheck forks over too much of his or her 
paycheck to fund this budget.
  This RSC alternative aims to balance the budget by 2011 by 
eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse and by pairing back unnecessary, 
duplicative bureaucracy by eliminating 150 Federal programs. It also 
protects Social Security and promotes a progrowth tax policy.
  So I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I also want to thank Mr. Hensarling for his leadership on 
budget reform. It is a pleasure to be a coauthor of the Family Budget 
Protection Act with him.
  Mr. Chairman, budgets are about values. Budgets are about priorities, 
governing philosophies. What this Republican Study Committee budget 
does, what this Contract with America budget, renewed, does is express 
our values that the nucleus of the American economy and the American 
society is the individual. It is the families. It is not the 
government.
  What this budget recognizes is that it is entirely possible not to 
cut the deficit in half in 5 years. It is entirely pragmatic and 
possible to eliminate the deficit in 5 years. What we are simply 
proposing to do is what Congress tried to do and did in 1995. It is not 
a ridiculous proposition that we can restrain the growth in government 
to eliminate the deficit in 5 years. We can keep taxes low, and we can 
restrain the growth of government to do this and reform the 
entitlements that are in desperate need of reform.
  I compliment the gentleman on this budget. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
this, the RSC budget, simply because I care. I care about my 
constituents, the family budget. I care about American taxpayers 
everywhere. I care about the fact that they send their money to an 
overly bloated Federal Government. I care about growing our economy. I 
care also about the fact that we are growing deficits instead.
  Over the last several hours now, we have heard Members from both 
sides of the aisle agree on one thing, and that is that we need to 
reduce Federal spending, lower our deficits, balance the budget. This 
budget plan will do that.
  At the end of the day when all the rhetorical smoke clears, we are 
left with the fact that deficits will burden our children. My kids, 
your kids, our grandkids, American taxpayers today will all be 
burdened. So we can no longer simply afford to push this issue off into 
the future. We need to address it now.
  I have the honor to serve on the Budget Committee and on the RSC as 
well, and I am not going to stand here and say that this is a perfect 
budget. But I will say it is a good budget, a budget that will do what 
it says it will do, rein in Federal spending, get us to a balanced 
budget. And anyone who wishes to reduce deficits should support this, 
the RSC budget.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
and for his work on this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this budget because it is the most 
conservative, fiscally responsible budget that we have. It is not quite 
as conservative or fiscally responsible as I would like. I would like 
to put a balanced budget out here every year, and I would like to take 
the pain every year, and we would slow this government down. We should 
be able to do that in this Congress. This is as close as we can get and 
pull together the maximum amount of votes. It sends a message to the 
American people that we have people here that live by this budget the 
same way that you live by your family budget.
  And I am going to stand with this Study Committee budget for a couple 
of other reasons. One is it allows some drilling in ANWR that can allow 
for some resources so we can do something to grow the size of the 
energy pie; and it repeals the Davis-Bacon wage scale, which is an 
outrageous Federal requirement on the wages that we have, so that we 
can let supply and demand set the marketplace.
  Those are all good standards that have been put out here by the Study 
Committee budget, and I applaud them for the work that they have done. 
And I look forward to the time when we see a balanced budget come to 
the floor of this Congress from the Budget Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the esteemed 
majority deputy whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would first like to recognize the leadership of Chairman Nussle on 
the underlying budget and the terrific job that he has done in 
compiling a budget that really reflects the will of the majority of 
this House in making those tough choices. I want to commend him on 
that.
  But I rise today in support of this budget substitute because I 
believe it really reflects the awesome responsibility that we have 
here, the responsibility to care for our children, to lead this country 
and to be concerned about what our future holds. This budget proposal 
will save $358 billion from autopilot spending and provide $392 billion 
in net deficit reduction over the next 5 years. It will balance the 
Federal budget by 2011.
  Mr. Chairman, Thomas Jefferson said in 1821: ``The multiplication of 
public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and 
entailment of a public debt are indications soliciting the employment 
of the pruning knife.'' These words offer great insight today. It is 
time for us to spend more time spending less and to focus on finding 
ways to achieve savings and accomplish reform for the American people.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, since I know he has capability of being 
twice as profound, I will yield him half the time. At this time I yield 
30 seconds to the father of earmark reform, the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake).

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to commend the gentleman from Texas for putting this budget forward and 
for working so hard on it.
  It is simple to support this budget. This budget balances the budget 
within 5 years without tax increases. That is what we ought to support. 
Anything less is not doing justice for the generations to come who are 
going to be saddled with this debt unless we take bold action like this 
alternative budget. With that, I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).

[[Page 8506]]


  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I tried to keep track on my 
paper here of how many times the opposition to this budget proposal 
used the word ``cut,'' and I ran off the edge of the page. It is 30-
something or 40-something times they used the word ``cut.''
  The truth is, this budget that is before you increases spending every 
single year. Let me repeat that. This budget increases spending every 
single year. Increasing is not a cut. When you go from three to four, 
that is not a cut. It does not increase spending as much as the current 
rate of increase, which is unsustainable over time, which is why this 
is such a responsible budget.
  It also does not increase taxes and does not depress the economy in 
the way an increase of taxes would do, but it does balance this budget 
in 5 years in the only way we know we can do it; without smoke and 
mirrors, without any games, by simply spending within our means.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
chairman of the Republican Study Committee, one of the great 
conservative leaders in our Nation, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, with record deficits and national debt, the 
time has come to level with the American people. We are not living 
within our means. Therefore, House conservatives, under the capable 
leadership of Jeb Hensarling of Texas, have put our own budget 
alternative together. We call it the Contract with America Renewed.
  The Contract with America Renewed is a balanced budget based on the 
budget passed by the House of Representatives in 1995 as part of the 
Contract with America. That budget passed this House by all but one 
Republican vote, and this budget deserves the same level of support 
tonight.
  House conservatives believe that this Republican Congress should 
return to our roots of fiscal discipline and reform. The Contract with 
America Renewed would balance the Federal budget by cutting wasteful 
government spending and ending outdated bureaucracies. It would protect 
the tax cuts that have made our economy thrive, would strengthen Social 
Security and provide for our veterans and national defense. And the 
Contract with America Renewed would keep our promise to future 
generations by reforming entitlements that threaten to bankrupt our 
national government.
  The American people know that unbridled government spending threatens 
our future and our freedom, and they long for leaders who tell it like 
it is and are honest about the choices we face.
  In the original Contract with America were these words: ``America 
stands at a crossroads. Down one path lies more debt and the continued 
degradation of the Federal Government and the people it is intended to 
serve. Down the other path lies the restoration of the American 
dream.'' Those first Republicans in the majority in 40 years said, ``We 
choose the second of these roads.''
  I urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and reform. Support 
the Republican Study Committee budget, and say yes again to the 
Contract with America Renewed.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, this budget already cuts, the base bill on 
the floor, education by $45 billion over the next 5 years; wipes out 42 
programs; eliminates the Perkins plan for vocational education. Public 
health, the cuts come to $18 billion. That is the NIH, Center for 
Disease Control, Graduate Medical Education For Children's Hospitals, 
rural health care programs, on and on and on, cut $18 billion. 
Veterans, who should have a greater claim to our sympathy and support 
now than at any time, you see the sacrifices they are making, 18,000 
grievously wounded, veterans health care will be funded at $6 billion 
below current services if this budget passes. To go deeper, to cut more 
is just unconscionable. I simply cannot imagine it.
  In truth, what you have got here are $162 billion cumulative cuts in 
programs on which people depend over 5 years. You have already gone 
beyond the reasons of limit. Going even further would be truly 
unconscionable.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, back in 1995 as a brand new member of the Budget 
Committee, we did go through the exercise of balancing the budget and 
putting a plan together that actually accomplished that. We thought it 
was going to take, I think at the time, 7 years. We got it done in 5 
years as a result of a number of advantages and opportunities that were 
happening at the time.
  Certainly the budget in 1995 was not written during a recession, it 
was not written during a war, it was not written during an attack on 
our homeland, it was not written during one of the greatest natural 
disasters that our country has ever witnessed in Hurricane Katrina. 
Certainly the challenges we face today are different than 1995, and the 
opportunities that we have today are certainly different than they were 
in 1995.
  But the one thing I like about this budget, even though I am going to 
oppose the amendment, is that what my friend from Texas, Mr. 
Hensarling, Mr. Pence from Indiana and so many of the very responsible 
members of the Republican Study Committee who have put together a 
detailed plan, is that they are blazing the trail. They are showing us 
how.
  We may not get there today, as my friend from Iowa said, and I know 
for sure he can write a budget that can balance by tonight, or I am 
pretty sure. I am sure there are a lot of Members who could do that. 
But we are not writing the perfect budget tonight. That is not 
possible. We are writing a majority budget. We are writing a budget 
that can get 218 votes.
  So if this budget does not get 218 votes because there are Members 
who believe that it goes too far too fast, let us not forget the 
principles, though, that it lays out, that we need to consider as we 
write any budget, and that is, number one, we must continue to grow the 
economy. That is lesson number one of the 1990s and the first historic 
balanced budget in a generation.
  Number two, we have got to control spending. What the underlying 
budget does is it basically freezes domestic spending while we fight 
this global war on terror and while we have men and women in the field.
  Third, during the nineties, particularly with welfare reform, that we 
had to drag President Clinton kicking and screaming to sign after he 
vetoed it twice, is that we must reform government programs and 
entitlements, constantly looking for better ways to deliver government 
products and services in the best way possible to the taxpayers of 
America.
  This is what this budget attempts to do. The underlying budget will 
accomplish that. We ask for its support.
  I respectfully ask that Members do not support the RSC budget, but 
that we take that lesson as a way to point us toward better fiscal 
responsibility in the future and always be willing to blaze that trail 
toward more discipline, more responsibility and more reform.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Republican Study Committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  On March 8, I joined with my colleagues from the Republican Study 
Committee to renew our commitment to the principles of the Contract 
With America. We must control government spending.
  While I may not agree with every line of this substitute amendment, I 
do support its overall goal of balancing the budget in five years and 
saving taxpayers nearly $360 billion.
  The attack of Sept. 11, the War on Terror and national emergencies 
like Katrina are largely to blame for our deficit . . . but not 
completely. Wasteful government spending also adds to the national 
debt, and we need to address it.
  Our Nation's growing deficit amounts to a generational transfer of 
wealth. Today's youth

[[Page 8507]]

will pay for the decisions we make today. For years, we have increased 
government spending, and now, we must work together to help rein it in 
and cut the deficit.
  Here are some frightening statistics:
  Since 2000, the amount the government spends on average per American 
household has grown 15.1 percent--the highest level since World War II.
  In recent years, the federal budget growth has far outpaced the 
growth in the average American family budget.
  This year's deficit may well exceed $400 billion.
  Americans are saying enough is enough. The RSC budget will balance 
the budget in 5 years and eliminate more than 150 federal programs that 
are no longer making the grade.
  Congress has some tough decisions to make during the 2007 budget 
process. This is no different than those Americans who establish their 
own annual budgets. Over the next five years, Americans will generously 
provide the federal government with an average increase of 5.3 percent 
in federal tax revenue. Congress must learn to live within that.
  Think about it. When our constituents sit down to figure out their 
family budgets, they don't start by figuring out how much they want to 
spend. They start by figuring out how much they have to spend and then 
they work back from there.
  We should do no less.
  In the end, we must ask ourselves, what legacy do we want to leave 
our children? Will it be a massive government and crushing debt? Or the 
legacy of hope, prosperity and a lean and responsible government?
  Mr. Chairman, budgeting is about making tough choices. Congress must 
return to the path of fiscal responsibility. We must balance the budget 
and rein in spending, and the RSC budget alternative is the best place 
to start.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


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

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

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

  (For text of the amendment, see prior proceedings of the House of 
today.)
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 817, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and a Member opposed each will control 
20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we offer a budget substitute which offers a difference, 
because, you see, our budget will return the budget to balance by the 
year 2012. In the interim, it will run smaller deficits and rack up 
less debt.
  Our resolution will hold non-defense discretionary spending to the 
level of current services over the next 5 years, showing that we can 
exercise discipline and control without making devastating cuts in the 
essential services. The Republican budget, the base bill, never reaches 
balance, and, in my opinion, presents no plan or prospect of wiping out 
the debt or reducing the deficit.
  I just outlined a few minutes ago some of the draconian cuts that are 
made over time. They may not seem that to start with, but they are 
relentless over a 5-year period of time. Education, for example, will 
be cut $45 billion; the environment will be cut substantially; and so 
will health, public health. NIH, Center for Disease Control, Graduate 
Medical Education for Children's Hospitals, on and on and on, rural 
health care programs that people depend upon.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen), to discuss the health implications of the base bill and the 
difference between our substitute and the base bill when it comes to 
public health.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget we are voting on tonight does 
nothing to address the plight of the 46 million Americans who do not 
have health insurance. It does not improve our health care 
infrastructure. It does not ensure that physicians receive adequate 
Medicare reimbursement. It does not continue the level of Federal 
investment in medical research that has led to great advances in new 
treatments and cures for disease. Instead, this budget increases the 
deficit and adds to our Nation's exploding national debt.
  The Democratic budget, on the other hand, rejects the Republicans' 
disastrous cuts to health care and other domestic priorities.
  The Republican budget does not address the flawed sustainable growth 
rate formula for physician payments. Under the Republican budget, 
physicians will see a 4.6 percent cut to their Medicare payments in 
2006, when their costs are going up continuously. The Democratic budget 
creates a reserve fund to increase Medicare payments to physicians, 
just like an amendment to the Senate budget resolution that passed 
unanimously.
  The Republican budget echoes the President's insufficient level of 
funding for public health programs, shortchanging critical medical 
research, treatment, prevention and training programs. Programs facing 
cuts include 18 of 19 institutes at the National Institutes of Health, 
critical prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control, 
Graduate Medical Education for Children's Hospitals and scores of other 
health programs that the President cut or eliminated.
  The Democratic budget rejects the funding cuts to public health and 
ensures that these important programs maintain their purchasing power 
by providing $18 billion more than the Republican budget over 5 years.
  I urge you to vote for the Democratic substitute and respect, 
respect, the claims that have been made to us by people with cancer, by 
people with ALS, just today in our offices saying if those research 
funds are not increased, their lives and the lives of those like them 
will be endangered.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 
20 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), an esteemed member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, again, what we see in this budget 
debate is it comes down to a debate about values, it comes down, 
frankly, to a debate about spending, it comes down to a debate about 
taxes.
  Now, again, what we have heard all evening is that somehow the tax 
relief passed by Republicans has led to great deficits. The only 
problem is, that doesn't seem to jive with the facts.
  I hold in my hand here the latest Treasury report on revenues. Since 
we have actually passed tax relief, we have more tax revenues. More tax 
revenues. When we allow the American people, the American families and 
small businesses to keep more of what they earn, they go out and they 
create jobs. And a lot of these jobs happen to be in my district. But, 
Mr. Chairman, if we enact this Democrat alternative, you are going to 
have a massive tax increase and you are going to start taking the jobs 
away.
  Since we passed tax relief, Hugh Dublin in my congressional district, 
his business used to have three employees. Since we passed tax relief, 
he added two new employees, a guy named Dan and a guy named David.

                              {time}  2300

  Yet Democrats want to raise taxes on Hugh Dublin and his small 
business. They want to take away these guys' paychecks, and they are 
going to end up replacing them with welfare checks. And that is what 
they call compassion. That is what the Democratic tax increase is all 
about.

[[Page 8508]]

  Let me tell you about Eddie Alexander of SSS Electric in my district 
back in Texas. Since we have had tax relief, he has had to hire two new 
people himself, a gentlemen by the name of Jared and a gentleman by the 
name of John Feagins. They were both unemployed, looking for employment 
in Henderson County, Texas.
  Well, due to tax relief, they were able to expand their business. Yet 
the Democrats in their substitute budget want to increase taxes on 
Eddie Alexander and SSS Electric. They want to take away the paychecks 
of Jared and John and replace them with welfare checks. That is not 
compassion, Mr. Chairman. We need to reject this Democratic 
alternative.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I stand in firm opposition to this budget 
resolution. It is offensive. It is immoral. It does not reflect the 
true priorities of the American people.
  Speaking of priorities, just this week the Health Subcommittee of 
Energy and Commerce held a hearing on Children's Hospital's graduate 
medical education. This President's budget proposes cutting this 
successful program from $297 way down to $99 million. This program 
enables our Nation's independent children's hospitals to train the next 
generation of pediatricians, pediatric specialists, pediatric 
researchers who treat the sickest of our children.
  I asked the administration's representative why the President wants 
to cut funding for children's hospitals, and she responded that this 
administration will be focusing those funds toward higher priorities.
  I must ask, what is a higher priority than sick children? What is a 
higher priority than investments into life-saving medical research at 
the NIH, cancer patients waiting for the next clinical trial which will 
save their life? What is a higher priority than health care for our 
Nation's veterans coming home today from Iraq with such severe 
injuries? Judging by yesterday's tax vote, it would seem to be a 
further higher priority for this Republican Congress to have the 
wealthiest in our country have a tax cut.
  That is what adopting this budget comes down to. I urge my colleagues 
to reject this budget resolution, the underlying resolution, and prove 
that you are committed to protecting funding for our Nation's hard-
working families. Vote for the Democratic substitute and not for the 
special interests.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to analyze this budget in several 
different ways. First of all, I want to compliment the Member from 
South Carolina for bringing the substitute to the floor. That is an 
important first step, because without competing ideas and competing 
budgets, we cannot really have a good debate here.
  But what is this substitute we are dealing with right here? Number 
one, if you take a look at this substitute, it has enormous tax 
increases in it, and that is okay. It just defines the difference 
between the two parties and the two philosophies that we have.
  Why does it have what I just said? Well, this budget claims to want 
to extend the extension of the child tax credit, extend the marriage 
penalty relief, 10 percent individual tax bracket, alternative minimum 
tax rate, estate tax relief, research and development tax credit, 
extension for the deduction of State and local sales taxes, marriage 
penalty, all of the kinds of things that we passed in the 2003 tax cuts 
that we all think are good ideas.
  But the question, Mr. Chairman, is do they pay for it? No, they do 
not. They claim in their budget they have $150 billion set aside for 
this. Well, if you add up the costs, if you add up what it would take 
to continue this tax relief, that is $922 billion.
  So they put in $150 billion in the budget for this tax policy, when 
it costs $922 billion. Where do they make up the difference? How do 
they come up with this $772 billion difference?
  Well, that is the little asterisk that they have on their budget. 
That is the little footnote that they have on their budget. That is the 
tax gap. What they propose to do is simply this: If we just give the 
IRS some more money, if we hire more IRS agents, audit more Americans, 
and crack down harder on enforcement of the Tax Code, we will get this 
$772 billion.
  So just trust us, the budget adds up. We know we are only setting 
aside $150 billion for the $922 billion of tax cuts we would like to 
pay for in this budget. So to make up the difference, we are just going 
to send the IRS after more people, and that is how we make up the 
additional $772 billion.
  Now, the other question you want to ask is, well, are they being more 
frugal with the taxpayer dollars? Are they spending less money? Well, 
no this budget does not do this either. This budget spends more money 
than the majority budget, than the proposed budget. This budget spends 
$139 billion more.
  Well, where do they spend that money? We have heard a lot of talk 
here on the floor about the need to support our troops. We need to 
support our soldiers. We need to invest in science and basic research. 
We need more mathematicians, more scientists to compete in the global 
economy and globalization.
  Those are not extra funding in this budget. What about our veterans? 
Our veterans are returning from our wars, from Iraq and Afghanistan, 
coming back from other tours of duty. We need to work on our veterans. 
They do not propose any additional veterans spending over the base 
budget in here. They have $139 billion of more spending in other areas.
  So they are not proposing more money for veterans, for science, for 
defense, which we believe are the top priorities. They are basically 
sticking with our numbers.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what you have here is the same old same old: 
more spending, higher taxes, and a budget that just does not add up.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the base budget that we are passing here today 
is a good budget. I prefer to do less on spending.
  I was here speaking on the Contract with America renewed budget, the 
Study Committee budget, just a moment ago. But this budget honors our 
commitment to our troops, honors our commitment to our veterans, makes 
sure that we do think about the global economy and invest in basic 
research and science, and, more importantly, this budget budgets for 
that tax policy so our constituents, the American economy and the 
American taxpayer does not get stuck with higher taxes.
  Gasoline is $3 a gallon. The cost of living is high in America 
because health insurance premiums are going up double digits a year. 
The last thing the American taxpayer needs is a tax increase. Yet if 
this budget were to pass, something tells me that these IRS agents, as 
smart as they are, as aggressive as they are, as good at doing audits 
as they may be, these IRS agents are not going to go out and get 
another $772 billion to make up and fill this hole to prevent those big 
tax increases from hitting the American people, from hitting the 
American economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentlemen before yielding to Mr. 
Hoyer. What we have provided here is that there will be $150 billion of 
tax cuts before the PAYGO rule applies.
  Otherwise, we just would take the PAYGO rule, which worked so well 
for us in the 1990s, which on three occasions, the gentleman heard him, 
Alan Greenspan said we should reinstate, double edge, applicable to tax 
cuts as well as to entitlement increases.
  And what we are saying is, applying the PAYGO rule, go through the 
Code, as we did in 1986, $2\1/2\ trillion, surely the deductions and 
credits and exemptions and preferences there that can help you offset 
the taxes that will come up for renewable in 2010. That is what we are 
proposing.
  You have got $228 billion in this budget resolution alone calls for 
tax

[[Page 8509]]

cuts of that amount. It does not have a dime of them covered. And that 
is why, one of the reasons, that the deficit next year will be $545 
billion on budget, before applying Social Security surplus. And 5 years 
from now it will be $428 billion. That is assuming no fix of the AMT 
and no additional costs after 2007 for Iraq.
  That is why they do not get anywhere. It is a tread-water budget. So 
what we have proposed simply is that there would be additional tax 
cuts, of course, up to $150 billion without having to apply the PAYGO 
rule. But after that they would have to be offset so we can get about 
the business of working off these enormous deficits, which everybody 
knows are not sustainable into the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that Democrats have 
not spent any money over the last 6 years. None of our budgets have 
passed. The appropriations bills would not have passed but for 
Republican votes, and the Republican President signed the budgets. That 
is what this crowd has offered. They have done it all. What has that 
meant? Three trillion dollars of additional deficit spending. That is 
what it has meant. This budget continues that practice.
  Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming majority of Americans now believe that 
our great Nation is headed in the wrong direction. Not difficult to 
understand why they think that.
  The Republican Party's incompetence over the past 5\1/2\ years is 
undeniable, from the miscalculations in Iraq to the inept response to 
Hurricane Katrina, to failure to secure our ports and borders, to the 
historic turnaround in our fiscal health from the $5.6 trillion surplus 
that they inherited, which they have turned into a $4 trillion deficit, 
a $9.6 trillion turnaround in 64 months; 5.4 million more Americans 
live in poverty, 6 million more are uninsured. Real median household 
income has dropped nearly $1,700. Thus, today it is stunning that our 
Republican colleagues have brought a budget resolution to this floor 
that so badly betrays our values and fails to meet our Nation's 
priorities.
  This shamefully short-sighted budget resolution cuts crucial 
investment in our Nation and our people. The difference, I tell my 
friend from Wisconsin, is we want to pay for what we buy. You are 
buying a lot. You are buying more than we bought when we were in 
charge. You are not paying. You are borrowing from the Japanese, the 
Chinese, the Saudis. You borrowed more money from foreigners over the 
last 5 years than were borrowed in the 210 years before that.
  Over the next 5 years, it slashes education by $45 billion; veterans 
health care, to which the gentleman referred, by $6 billion; public 
health by $18 billion; and environmental protection by $25 billion.
  Even worse, this budget resolution is a continuation of the most 
reckless fiscal policies in the history of our Nation, policies that 
have squandered, as I said, a $5.6 trillion budget surplus. Who said 
that? George Bush, March 2001, said that is what we had.
  They added more than $3 trillion to the national debt and weakened 
our ability, weakened our ability to respond to national and 
international crises.
  Listen, my friends, to the warning of the nonpartisan Comptroller 
General David Walker, not a Democrat, appointed by your side, who 
stated in February, ``Continuing on the unsustainable fiscal path will 
gradually erode if not suddenly damage our economy, our standard of 
living, and ultimately our national security.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is what Mr. Walker says their budgets are doing to 
America; yet that is precisely what this Republican budget continues to 
do. It not only fails to rein in the record Republican deficits of the 
last 5 years, it makes them worse. Hear me. This budget makes the 
deficits worse. It not only fails to arrest our exploding national 
debt, it calls for a debt limit increase of 653 billion additional 
dollars.
  Last year during our debate on the budget resolution, the chairman of 
the Budget Committee confidently proclaimed, and I quote, ``We will be 
able to give, I believe, our kids and grandkids the opportunities of a 
debt-free world if we begin with a small step again this year.''
  That is the chairman who brings to this floor a $653 billion 
additional increase in our national debt. The chairman's assertion then 
has been eviscerated by the facts now. Vote for this responsible Spratt 
alternative and reject this fiscally reckless proposal on top of the 
last five fiscally reckless proposals.
  The reality is, this budget resolution--and the Republican party's 
policies--have instigated a dangerous spiral of deficits and debt that 
constitute nothing less than fiscal child abuse, because they will 
immorally force our children and grandchildren to pay our bills.
  In sharp contrast, the Democratic alternative is reasonable and 
responsible.
  It would balance the budget by 2012; reinstate the pay-as-you-go 
budget rules that were instrumental in creating four consecutive budget 
surpluses in the 1990s; and invest in our Nation and our people.
  Our Democratic alternative provides matching resources for defense, 
and more resources for education, veterans' health care and other 
health priorities, and the environment.
  I urge my colleagues: vote for fiscal sanity.
  Vote for the budget that puts America back on the right track.
  Vote for the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Nussle.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, you know it is interesting that the 
distinguished minority whip indicated that all of the spending has been 
Republican spending in the last 6 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a chance to go and check the gentlemen's Website, 
and, interestingly enough, he takes credit for spending. He voted for 
spending. He got projects for Maryland. Is not this interesting? Well, 
I think you may need to change your press release, I would say to the 
gentlemen. Maybe these are Republican projects that we provided the 
fine people of Maryland that you take credit for on your Website.
  No, I think what is really going on here is that there is a lot of 
finger pointing.

                              {time}  2315

  There is a lot of interesting partisanship with regard to spending 
tonight, because the gentleman comes to the floor and says it is all 
our spending and it is all our fault, and yet the gentleman is the same 
gentleman on the Appropriations Committee who rolled out most of these 
bills, who takes credit for most of the projects, who voted for final 
passage in the conference reports on most of those bills as they move 
through the process. And so to blame us for spending I think is a 
little bit ridiculous.
  Let me take the second one. He blames us for Katrina. I think that 
was a hurricane; I don't think it was a partisan issue. And instead of 
doing something about it in your budget, we actually put a reserve fund 
to plan for hurricanes, to plan for emergencies, to plan for natural 
disasters, the first time we have ever done this as a Congress. Not 
when the gentleman was in control in the majority. We have done this. 
We learned our lessons from Katrina. We are going to plan for natural 
disasters. We believe it is high time that we do that. So the gentleman 
comes to the floor and blames us. No, he blamed the President for 
Katrina, and then does nothing about it in his budget.
  One final point. For the gentleman to say on the floor tonight that 
we cut too much on the one hand and that we provide too much tax relief 
on the other, there is only one plan that solves both and that is the 
Spratt Democrat substitute, and that is a massive tax increase on 
America. It is a secret, no one wants to talk about it; it is in the 
plan that they have rolled out. But the only way you deal with your 
huge increases of spending and your huge reductions in the tax relief 
policy that has been put out there to grow our economy is to increase 
taxes. That is the only way.

[[Page 8510]]

  So I would say to the gentleman that he has certainly laid out a fine 
argument, but his own Web site demonstrates that I think he has a lot 
of credit that he can take for the challenges that this budget and this 
deficit and this fiscal situation have caused.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Maryland 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rose to express my appreciation on behalf of the 
people of Maryland for allowing us to invest in some very important 
projects. I will continue to take credit for those. But your budgets 
are the only ones that have passed, and the appropriations bills are 
the ones you have offered on the floor.
  But let me say to the gentleman, I have been here long enough so that 
in 1993 I heard all the arguments from all your leadership that 
adopting our budget proposal would send the country to rack and ruin, 
would explode the deficit, explode unemployment, and create a deep 
recession. Dick Armey, your leader, said that, the Speaker said that, 
the chairman, Mr. Kasich, of your Budget Committee said that.
  You are 180 degrees wrong, dead flat wrong. Exactly the opposite 
happened. Under a proposal that we made that you said was a massive tax 
increase, you never talk about of course the $250-plus billion spending 
cut, but we had the best economy in the history of America.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Texas, let me say that there are certain promises that we are bound to 
keep in government, and I think one of the most important are promises 
we have made to our veterans, because they were purchased for a dear 
price and usually therefore services are sorely needed, particularly 
veterans health care.
  I yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas to talk about the 
difference between our budget substitute and the base bill when it 
comes to this vitally important thing called veterans health services.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, if the House 
Republican leadership were to be accused in a court of law of being 
fiscally responsible, there would not be enough evidence to convict it. 
In fact, the evidence shows that this leader's free lunch philosophy 
has taken America in just 5 years from the largest surpluses in 
American history to the largest deficits in American history. We are 
now facing $1 billion-a-day deficits. Who is financing them? Communist 
China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela; and this budget 
continues the status quo.
  This budget isn't just fiscally irresponsible; it turns its back on 
the American value of fairness. How? Just a few days ago, based on 
these budget numbers, the Republicans in this House voted for a $2 
million dividend tax cut for poor Mr. Lee Raymond, the just-retired CEO 
of ExxonMobil who just got a $400 million retirement package. I guess 
that wasn't enough; he got $2 million more in dividend tax cuts from 
the same people who in this budget are saying to veterans making 
$28,000 a year, you make too much money to deserve VA health care in 
our hospital system even if you did serve our country in combat.
  Worse yet, this budget resolution that I hope we will defeat would 
cut $8.6 billion during a time of war out of present services to our 
veterans health care. I don't think that reflects the American values. 
To service men and women, it says that we are going to, at least 
according to the present budget, cut $735 million out of defense health 
care services. That service is not just to military retirees; that is 
health care services to the men and women fighting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan today. That appropriation bill will be on the floor of the 
House this week because of this budget resolution. Those aren't 
America's values.
  The choice is clear. If you think America is on the right track, if 
you like $1 billion-a-day deficits financed by the Communist Chinese, 
Russia, and Iran, vote for the Republican leadership budget. If you 
think Lee Raymond really needs a $2 million dividend tax cut this week 
while saying ``no'' to men and women who served our country in uniform 
and those who continue to serve our country in uniform, then vote for 
the Republican budget. But if you think veterans deserve better and our 
country deserves better, vote for the Spratt substitute, lower 
deficits, true fiscal responsibility, and an $8.6 billion increase, 
compared to the Republican budget for VA health care over the next 5 
years.
  If the Spratt budget were accused of being fiscally responsible, 
there would be enough evidence to convict it. It also passes the 
American values test of fairness, fairness for veterans, fairness to 
our service men and women, fairness to future generations of our 
children and grandchildren.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess as I listened to this, I think it makes it very 
clear the difference in philosophy of the two parties that have put 
forth these budgets. Because, on the one hand you have got the 
Republican budget that takes the money that is available, sets a 
spending limit, does like every American family has to do, you sit down 
and you decide how much you are going to be able to spend on the 
priorities that you set out. And it does just that, it gets a handle on 
the spending, which is what the American people want. And then it tries 
to reform some of these areas of the government that need to be 
reformed. And, thirdly, it says that, look, there are some things we 
can do like establish a rainy day fund, we can set aside money for 
emergencies we know we are going to have, and it does those three 
things.
  And yet you look on the other side and you see the Democratic 
alternative. There is no ounce of reform, none whatsoever. There is no 
real effort to set aside money for true emergencies.
  I guess the most drastic difference between the budget that I support 
and the Republicans have offered and the budget that Mr. Spratt has 
talked about is just that age-old philosophy of you just spend a little 
more money, you make a little more people happy, but how do you pay for 
it? Where do you get the money? And you all proudly talk about how you 
are going to spend more money, but you are not so proud about where the 
money is coming from because it is like magic money. You don't say we 
are going to raise taxes. You just do the things you do that 
automatically increase taxes on the middle class, the folks that you 
are saying you are going to help by spending more money, and that is 
just an endless cycle.
  When I was a kid, I used to watch TV and there was a thing called 
Bullwinkle and he was a moose, and he had a friend that was named Rocky 
and he was a squirrel. And Bullwinkle would always say to Rocky, ``Hey, 
watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat.'' And old Rocky the squirrel 
said, ``No way. You are not going to be able to pull a rabbit out of 
the hat.'' And sure enough Bullwinkle would reach into that hat for 
that elusive rabbit, and he would always pull out something other than 
a rabbit. One time he pulled out a lion.
  And I submit to you all that our Democratic colleagues once again are 
reaching in that hat just like Bullwinkle did; and instead of pulling 
out the magic money, they are going to pull out a tax increase. It is 
just the way it goes.
  So let me just say to everyone, I think we all know we need money to 
provide services, but right now it seems to me we need something more. 
We need discipline to rein in spending. We need courage to make the 
right decisions even when they are hard. And we need a commitment to 
make sure that every task of government is accomplished more 
efficiently and more effectively than it ever has been before, because 
if life is going to change in America, life has got to change here in 
Washington.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

[[Page 8511]]


  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me these 2 minutes. And I would like to respond to the 
gentleman from Texas who talked about veterans health care.
  Let me just run through some of the numbers, because actually we are 
significantly increasing veterans health care spending in this budget. 
The 2006 appropriated number was $33.6 billion for veterans health 
care. In this budget under the chairman's mark, it was $36.1 billion. 
Under an amendment that was supported on a bipartisan basis and 
supported by the chairman, we increase that by nearly $800 million this 
year and for the next 4 years, bringing the total veterans health care 
number to $36.9 billion, which is a 9.8 percent increase.
  We all know this is a 1-year budget. We have to continue to support 
our Nation's veterans, and we will do so. This year's budget allocates 
10 percent of the health care dollars for mental health. We know how 
important that is with veterans returning from Iraq. Over the last 
several years we have doubled the health care numbers of veterans who 
are receiving top quality veterans health care from $2.5 million to $5 
million. Over that 5-year period of time, the veterans health care 
dollars in the budget have gone from $21 billion to $33.6 billion last 
year, and under this budget, again, as I said before, $36.9 billion.
  We have done other things, too, for veterans over the last 5 years, 
which have been very significant. We have more than doubled the GI 
education benefit. We have increased the death benefit for those who 
have given the ultimate sacrifice to $100,000. We have increased the VA 
home loan guarantee by 67 percent. We have expanded national 
cemeteries. Under the defense bills for the last couple of years, we 
have increased survivor benefits phased in over the next several years 
to the 55 percent promised level. And we have finally helped resolve 
the concurrent receipts disability payments for our Nation's veterans. 
We have made significant progress for our Nation's veterans. This 
budget continues that.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend and colleague 
Mr. Spratt for giving me this time, but also for the leadership he has 
shown on the Budget Committee of which I am a member and for helping us 
present an alternative, an alternative for a different direction for 
our Nation, but also, I think, passes the tests of fairness and decency 
and reflects the values and the priorities that we have as Americans 
coming together.
  Mr. Chairman, people are entitled to their own opinions, they are 
entitled to their own ideology, they are entitled to their own spin, 
but they are not entitled to their own facts. As President Reagan was 
fond of saying, facts can be a stubborn thing.
  The fact of the matter is they have presided over the largest and 
quickest expansion of our national debt in our Nation's history. Their 
budget moves forward without pay-as-you-go rules in place, something 
that we have embraced with our own budget, which led to 4 years of 
budget surpluses in the 1990s, which actually helped us start paying 
down the national debt, rather than increasing our dependence on China 
to be financing these deficits of today.
  People are wondering, well, what is the big deal about borrow and 
spend, borrow and spend, a philosophy they seem to have embraced. The 
problem is that the borrow-and-spend philosophy asks those who can 
contribute the least to sacrifice the most, and nothing is more 
apparent than the difference in our philosophy in regards to our 
support for the investment in the future of our country, in education, 
and what they are doing to education programs under their budget 
resolution.
  Their budget calls for another $4.6 billion of education funding cuts 
from current funding levels. This follows on the heels of a $12 billion 
raid on student aid in the budget reconciliation that they passed 
earlier this year.
  Their budget resolution, which tracks the President's number, calls 
for the elimination of 42 education programs such as Safe and Drug Free 
Schools, Education Technology, Even Start Family Literacy program.
  Their budget calls for underfunding No Child Left Behind by an 
additional $15 billion, leaving that unfunded Federal mandate for 
States and local school districts to wrestle with, which increases the 
property tax burden in States like Wisconsin, we are finding.
  Their budget also reduces funding for special education from 17.7 
percent cost share at the Federal level down to 17 percent cost share, 
even though we have had a bipartisan attempt in this Congress to reach 
a 40 percent Federal cost share in special education. Again, another 
unfunded Federal mandate falling on the laps of local school districts.
  Our substitute saves these programs. In fact, it also calls for the 
reduction of the student interest rate burden that our students are 
facing when they go on to postsecondary education, making it easier to 
afford higher education.
  Our budget is fully paid for with pay-as-you-go rules. It recognizes 
the key investment that we have to make in the future of our country, 
to make sure that higher education is not just a dream for some, but an 
opportunity for all, because right now under current education policy, 
close to one-half of low-income students in this country who are 
qualified and want to go on to school don't because they cannot afford 
it. That is a recipe for economic disaster.
  Our budget addresses that, and I encourage our colleagues to support 
the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, it seems that the debate is supposed to 
offer choices, and today the Republican Party of which I am a proud 
member offered a choice.
  We stood with the President of the United States as we extended the 
tax relief to prevent the largest tax increase in history on the 
American people, and yet tonight we cannot seem to draw a clear 
distinction, and not for lack of trying on our side.
  The reality is, with this budget that is before us for debate, is 
there are two fundamental premises which I think are not only flawed, 
but which will a aggrieve the American taxpayer when they find out what 
they are.
  The first is the concept of PAYGO. We have heard a lot of talk about 
that. PAYGO means that unless Washington stops spending your money, you 
continue to pay high taxes. I assure you that that will not be a 
benefit to you because you will get the short end of the stick.
  If the PAYGO provisions are not sufficient, we also see in the budget 
before us is the concept of the magic asterisk or the tax gap, whereby 
we will then be dependent upon the receipts of tax deadbeats to 
continue to spend money. We addressed the tax gap issue in the House 
Budget Committee by adopting an amendment I put forward with a couple 
of votes from the minority party which said that any tax gap or 
delinquent tax money that was recovered would be used for deficit 
reduction or debt elimination. What we see in the budget before us is 
that the money that is recovered from delinquent taxes under this will 
then instead be spent on new programs by the government.
  The reality, in my mind, remains quite simply this. If PAYGO does not 
prove successful, if the Washington politicians somehow continue to 
spend your money, which is their forte, you will receive no tax relief, 
and if that is not sufficient for you to feel disgruntled, the reality 
then becomes that you can have your tax relief held hostage by tax 
deadbeats, because the reality is, under this budget, you get no tax 
relief unless a tax deadbeat decides to pay, and that is wrong for the 
American public. That is simply unfair, and it is unfair not to give a 
clear choice, with the laudatory talk about tax and spend of the 1990s 
is insufficient for true debate.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) for a unanimous consent request.

[[Page 8512]]


  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
the Spratt substitute.
  Once again, the Republicans in the House have proved that there is 
little compassion in their brand of conservatism. If anything, with 
this budget they are declaring themselves to be fiscally irresponsible; 
soft on national security, veteran neglecting, anti-tax cuts for the 
middle class, pro-drug company, against real reform in rural health 
care as well as making quality education affordable.
  I don't know what brand of conservatism you would call that, but it 
certainly isn't compassionate. If anything it's irrational; irrational 
conservatism. Because what the GOP proposes to do is wrong for America.
  Here's a look:


                         fiscal responsibility

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


                   makes america safer here at home?

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


                  adequately funds veterans' programs?

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


                 targets tax cuts to the middle class?

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


         addresses problems with the prescription drug benefit?

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


    Provides Funding for Key Discretionary Health Care Initiatives?

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


                     Makes College More Affordable?

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


                    Expands Educational Opportunity?

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


     Provides Funding for Key Environmental Protection Initiatives?

  No. The GOP budget is similar to the Bush budget, which slashes Clean 
Water funds by 22 percent, cuts Safe Drinking Water funds, and 
underfunds land and water conservation programs.
  Democrats would provides $2.9 billion more in 2007 and $25 billion 
more over the next 5 years for environmental protection programs than 
the GOP budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me just point out to the gentleman that amongst those who support 
the idea of closing the tax gap, using it in the budget, is the 
President himself. In his 2006 budget, he requested $446 million in 
extra funding for tax enforcement. The Senate side has bought into the 
idea. They have provided in the 2007 budget resolution $500 million, 
unanimously approved in the Senate for the same purpose. So it is not 
just a pipe dream by any means. It is something we should be about.
  What we are simply proposing in PAYGO is what Mr. Greenspan asked on 
three occasions before our committee strongly recommended, that we 
reinstate the rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to close to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding and acknowledge his tremendous leadership of putting forth 
the Spratt Democratic budget, which reflects the values of our country 
and is in balance.
  Mr. Chairman, our most important responsibility as elected officials 
is to provide for the common defense. Keeping the American people safe 
is our first responsibility. That personal safety and America's 
national security are seriously jeopardized by the Republican budget. A 
vote for the Spratt Democratic alternative is a vote for a safer and 
more secure America.
  Close to home in our neighborhoods, the Republican budget slashes 
funding for our first responders, including the COPS program and the 
SAFER Act, initiatives which put cops on the beat and equip our 
firefighters. The Spratt Democratic budget restores all of these cuts.
  The Republican budget cuts homeland security funding by over $450 
million in fiscal year 2007 and $6 billion over 5 years. I repeat, when 
it comes to our homeland security, the Republican budget cuts over $450 
million for fiscal year 2007 alone and $6 billion over 5 years. The 
Democratic budget provides $1 billion more for port security and 
overall $6.5 billion more to keep our country safe.
  The Republican budget continues to hide the cost of the Iraq war from 
the American public and cuts the Army National Guard strength by more 
than 17,000 troops despite the tremendous strain that the war has 
placed on them and now the additional charge that the President has 
made of them on immigration. The Democratic budget fully funds our Army 
National Guard.
  The Republican budget betrays our veterans by cutting $6 billion over 
the next 5 years from current services and tripling TRICARE health 
fees. Mr. Spratt's budget, the Democratic budget, keeps our commitment 
to veterans.
  Republicans are abandoning our veterans and failing to invest in 
America's safety in order to give huge tax cuts to the wealthy that 
leave Americans awash in red ink.
  Today the President signed a tax bill. Tonight, in this budget, we 
have to deal with the consequences of those tax cuts, largely for the 
wealthiest people in America. Under the President's bill and passed by 
this Republican Congress, Americans making $20,000 a year will receive 
$2 a year in tax cuts; $20,000, $2. Americans making $40,000 a year 
will receive $16, barely enough for a couple to go to the movies. Those 
making $50,000 a year will receive a $46 tax cut, barely enough to fill 
up your gas tank these days, thanks to Mr. Cheney's energy policy. But 
if you make more than $1 million a year, $1 million a year, you get 
1,000 times what somebody making $50,000 a year gets. You make $42,000 
in tax cuts. Fifty thousand dollars a year, you can barely fill up your 
tank; $1 million a year, you can buy a luxury car because the American 
taxpayers are giving you $42,000.
  In effect, American taxpayers are going into debt to China in order 
to give a tax cut to America's wealthiest

[[Page 8513]]

people. When Republicans spend the Federal budget into the red, the 
U.S. Treasury borrows money from foreign countries. Since President 
Bush took office, the amount of foreign-owned debt has increased by 
over $1 trillion. In fact, it is more than all of the foreign-owned 
debt of the 42 previous Presidents combined, a horrible record.
  The Japanese now own about $670 billion and the Chinese own $260 
billion of our foreign debt. Our national debt is a national security 
issue. Countries that own our debt will not only be making our toys, 
our clothes and our computers, pretty soon they will be making our 
foreign policy. They have far too much leverage over us.
  While the Republican budget is never balanced and has deficits as far 
as the eye can see, the Democratic budget, the Spratt substitute, 
reaches balance by 2012 and follows the strict pay-as-you-go rules, no 
deficit spending.
  Instead of investing in our veterans, instead of securing our ports, 
the Republican policy of tax cuts for the wealthy have meant that the 
interest payments to foreign countries are the fastest-growing item in 
this budget.
  Democrats take seriously our first responsibility to provide for the 
common defense. Our Democratic budget reflects that commitment. Mr. 
Spratt is not only the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, he is 
a very senior member of the Armed Services Committee, and his 
commitment to tough and smart national security for our country where 
we project America's power to protect our people and protect our 
interests throughout the world is a strong commitment, and his, Mr. 
Spratt's, patriotism and his commitment to our national security, they 
are reflected in this budget that he has proposed. He has helped create 
a Democratic budget that makes us all proud, and he does it in a 
fiscally sound way.
  I urge our colleagues to support the Spratt substitute and to reject 
the unpatriotic, irresponsible and, as the religious community says, 
immoral budget that the Republicans are proposing tonight.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on unpatriotic, irresponsible, immoral, wow, those are 
big words. First, a couple of facts. Veterans spending, defense 
spending, homeland security spending, they are increased in the budget. 
They are not cut. They are not savagely cut. Increased.
  Let us talk about the differences between the Spratt Democrat 
substitute and the majority budget that is on the floor here today.
  Number one, we believe it is important that we reform government. 
Just because we take our taxpayer dollars and spend them on government 
programs does not mean we cannot always look at reforming government. 
That is why this budget proposes reconciliation, going and looking and 
trying to find savings on the 60 percent of the Federal budget that is 
entitlement. They do not even touch that part of the budget. We are 
saying let us do it every year. That is important reform, number one.
  Number two, we are trying to bring some common sense to the emergency 
spending process. Far too long in Congress, Congress has been able to 
declare virtually anything an emergency. Not anymore. We are saying if 
we are going to do emergency spending, it has to fit a tight definition 
of what truly is an emergency, an act of terrorism, a natural disaster, 
an act of war, things like that.

                              {time}  2345

  And more importantly, Mr. Chairman, we are going to budget for those 
emergencies because we always know that there is going to be that 
hurricane, that tornado, or that flood. That is smart and prudent 
budgeting. That is what we do. The Democrat substitute doesn't do any 
of that.
  But where is the real difference? The real difference is this: we 
believe that the money that is made in America is the individual's 
money. We believe that the fruit of the labor of people who are working 
hard and paying taxes is theirs. It is their money. That is different 
from the premise on the other side of the aisle.
  Let me explain it. One of the great things we accomplished in the 
2003 tax cuts were that we saw that the vast majority of income tax 
ratepayers, the top ratepayers, were small businesses; yet we were 
taxing them at 40 percent when we were taxing IBM, Microsoft, and Exxon 
at 35 percent. So we lowered that tax rate on small businesses, on 
entrepreneurs, on family businesses and on farmers so they are at least 
not paying more taxes than the largest corporations in America.
  What did the Democrats decide to do? Raise those taxes. Let's make 
sure we raise taxes on family farmers, raise taxes on small businesses 
so that that small business in America, the job-creating engine of 
America, pays higher taxes than Exxon and Microsoft and IBM. That is 
wrong. I think that is immoral. I think that is irresponsible. Yet that 
is what they are proposing to do.
  You know what they are saying to the rest of America? You know what 
they are saying to the families that are getting a per-child tax 
credit, people who are married and who aren't paying a marriage penalty 
any more, people who are trying to save to send their kids to school, 
people who are saving for their IRAs or their pensions or their 
401(k)s? You know what they are saying? They are saying to those 
people, if you don't want a massive tax increase, if you don't want a 
huge tax increase, we have to make sure we go after deadbeat tax 
cheats. And if we can collect more money from tax cheats, then we won't 
raise your taxes.
  But if the government can't collect money from tax cheats, if the IRS 
can't do a good enough job and go get an extra $772 billion, then we 
are going to raise your taxes. That is what their budget proposal is. 
And on top of that, they propose even more spending.
  Reject tax increases, reject high spending, and, Mr. Chairman, let us 
hold the line on domestic spending. Let's fund our veterans, let's 
protect our troops, let's support the war on terror, and let's not 
raise taxes. Defeat the Spratt substitute and support the majority 
budget.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Democratic Substitute Budget for fiscal year 2007. As a member of the 
Blue Dog Coalition I have fought for a balanced budget that represents 
our Nation's ideals. I believe that this Democratic amendment is the 
appropriate path for us to reach that goal.
  This amendment promises to provide the fiscal discipline that is 
lacking in the Majority's proposed budget, which will allow us to 
achieve balance in less than 10 years. By 2012 our Nation's fiscal 
health will be restored, while providing for $150 billion in future 
middle-class tax cuts and matching or exceeding the Majority's proposed 
spending for national defense and domestic programs.
  The current budget threatens the programs that our people depend on--
Medicare, veterans' benefits, pension programs, and human services are 
in jeopardy yet again. The Spratt Substitute protects these crucial 
programs and the millions of Americans who have earned access to them.
  This Democratic proposal matches the Republic budget dollar-for-
dollar on National Defense and Homeland Security, while increasing 
funds for our troops and their families, preventing terrorists from 
accessing weapons of mass destruction, and fully adopting the 
recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress's irresponsible spending must be stopped 
and the Democratic proposal will do just that. With pay-as-you-go 
rules, unwavering support for national security, and moral allocations 
of money to those who need it most, this Democratic proposal is a rock-
solid budget with American values and I ask for your support.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget 
resolution. The Republican budget resolution is no plan to bring the 
budget back to balance. The Republican budget includes a deficit for 
2006 of $372 billion, and a deficit for 2007 of $348 billion. These 
deficits mean that, under Republican policies, the five largest 
deficits in history will have occurred in five consecutive years. Over 
the next five years (2007-2011), the budget resolution calls for 
deficits totaling $1.1 trillion.
  Since this Administration took office, it has requested and the 
Congress has provided four increases in the statutory debt ceiling 
totaling $3 trillion. Under this budget, by 2011 the statutory debt 
will increase by another $2.3 trillion,

[[Page 8514]]

for a total increase of $5.3 trillion. It will leave the statutory debt 
at a record level of $11.3 trillion. The President's reckless economic 
policies have doubled our nation's debt. Further, I am concerned by the 
amount of the debt that has been accumulated by foreign bank, 
individuals and governments. In 1980, 17 percent of the federal debt 
held by the public was in foreign hands. By 2006, 45 percent of the 
debt held by the public was owned overseas. Unfortunately, this trend 
seems to be increasing rapidly. During the past year, approximately 90 
percent of the debt we have accumulated has been purchased by foreign 
banks, individuals and governments.
  I support the Representative John Spratt's alternative budget, which 
would reach balance in 2012. The Spratt budget also has smaller 
deficits than the Republican budget, and accumulates less debt. By 
contrast, the Republican budget never returns to balance, and even 
refuses to show how big its deficits will be after 2011. The Spratt 
budget backs the two-sided Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) budget enforcement 
rules that require that the cost of any new mandatory spending or 
revenue legislation be fully offset. During the 1990s, two-sided PAYGO 
rules played a critical role in turning record deficits to record 
surpluses. The Spratt budget also requires a separate vote to increase 
the debt limit, and prohibits using fast-track reconciliation 
procedures to make the deficit worse.
  The Republican budget cuts appropriations for domestic services by 
$9.4 billion relative to current services, and by $3.2 billion below 
the level passed by Republicans in the Senate. Meanwhile, the budget 
continues Medicare subsidies close to $60 billion for managed care 
providers of Medicare even though they are supposed to save Medicare 
money, not cost more. The resolution also includes $228 billion over 
five years for additional tax cuts, part of a $3 trillion ten-year 
Republican tax cut agenda.
  The Republican resolution cuts appropriated funding for education and 
related programs below current services, providing the same inadequate 
level as provided by the President. For 2007, that Republican level 
cuts funding for the Department of Education by $2.2 billion below last 
year's comparable level, and eliminates 42 education programs.
  The Spratt budget provides $4.6 billion more than the Republican 
budget for education appropriations, and over five years provides $45.3 
billion more than the Republican resolution. The Spratt budget rejects 
the deep cuts proposed by the Republican budget, and preserves programs 
such as vocational education, Perkins loans, Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
state grants, and the GEAR-UP college readiness program. The Spratt 
budget also makes a down payment on college affordability by cutting 
student loan interest rates.
  After a temporary one year gain, the Republican budget after five 
years cuts funding for veterans' health care by $6.0 billion below 
current services. The Spratt budget includes $6.0 billion more than the 
Republican budget over five years for veterans' health care. The Spratt 
budget also rejects the increase on health care fees on military 
retirees who are enrolled in Tricare. The Republican budget asks 
additional sacrifices from those who have served and sacrificed for our 
country; the Spratt budget rejects the misguided Republican policies 
and keeps our commitment to our veterans.
  The Republican budget cuts funding for health by $18.1 billion below 
current services over five years, the same insufficient level provided 
by the President. The Republican level means cuts to priorities such as 
the Centers for Disease Control, 18 of 19 institutes at the National 
Institutes of Health, and rural health activities.
  The Spratt budget provides $18 billion more over five years to fund 
health priorities cut by the Republican budget, including medical 
research at NIH and graduate medical education for children's 
hospitals. The Spratt budget also takes steps to address the problems 
with the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, 
including extending the May 15 signup period through the end of year 
and protecting seniors from any enrollment penalties. The Spratt budget 
also takes steps to help the uninsured, and creates a reserve fund to 
increase Medicare payments to physicians, which are currently scheduled 
to be cut.
  For the environment and natural resources, this Republican budget 
imposes a $25.0 billion cut relative to current services over the next 
five years and imposes a $2.9 billion cut for next year alone. This is 
the same level as the President's budget, which cuts funding for the 
Environmental Protection Agency (including the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund), the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Park 
Service.
  Mr. Chairman, the House Republican budget resolution actually makes 
the deficit worse, offers no plan to bring the budget back to balance, 
and adds to the growing burden of the national debt. Meanwhile, the 
Republican budget makes harmful cuts to critical services for the 
American people--including education, veterans' services, health, and 
environmental protection. I ask my colleagues to oppose this budget and 
support the Spratt alternative budget.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be 
present today because of a family medical emergency. I am in strong 
opposition to the Republican's budget plan and in support of the 
Democratic alternative. This budget bill represents how out of touch 
the Republican Majority is with the needs of the American public.
  The budget is a moral document and this budget highlights the 
priorities of the Republican leadership--cutting more taxes for the 
wealthy while making harmful cuts to critical programs for working 
families--including health, education, veterans' services and 
environmental protection. Most concerning about this budget is that it 
continues the Republican record of huge deficits and irresponsible debt 
accumulation. This budget plan writes a check that Congress cannot cash 
without increasing the debt limit to $9.618 trillion--hidden on page 
121 of the report accompanying the budget resolution is a provision 
that will automatically increase the debt limit by $653 billion.
  In contrast, the Democratic budget alternative would balance the 
federal budget by 2012 and immediately stop the Majority's record of 
increasing the national debt, again and again. Among other things, the 
Democratic alternative would reinstate the effective pay-as-you-go 
(PAYGO) budget rules to eliminate deficit spending and give the 
American people a budget that is fair and responsible. The Democratic 
alternative would provide $4.6 billion more for education; would 
provide $18 billion more for health programs over 5 years, which 
includes medical research at the National Institute of Health and the 
Centers for Disease Control and would protect seniors from Medicare 
prescription drug enrollment penalties; would provide $8.6 billion more 
for our veterans in healthcare over five years and rejects increases in 
fees for military retirees enrolled in Tricare; and finally would 
provide $2.9 billion more for environmental protection and conservation 
programs.
  The Republican budget resolution does not reflect the priorities of 
the American people. As Members of Congress, we cannot abandon our 
obligations to our children, to our parents and future generations by 
cutting vital programs and increasing the debt limit to finance tax 
cuts bigger than we can afford and hiding the true cost of the ongoing 
war in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill and 
support the Democratic budget alternative.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Spratt 
budget substitute and in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 376, the 
Republican budget.
  Our son, daughters, and neighbors are bravely fighting wars abroad. 
Unfortunately, when they return home, they will find a country that has 
lost its way. We pay lip service to shared sacrifice, but while they 
risk their lives for us, Republicans in Congress are providing tax cuts 
for the richest 1 percent of Americans, slashing programs for working-
class families and turning their backs on the middle class. The budget 
before us today continues these misguided policies. It does not 
represent the priorities of the American people, nor does it respect 
the values our soldiers are fighting to protect.
  For too long, Republicans have racked up charges on the national 
credit card, while passing the bill on to future generations. Now is 
our chance to set this country on the proper course to ensure America's 
economic success and protect our grandchildren from having to pay for 
today's irresponsible decisions.
  There is a better way. Despite the horrible fiscal outlook facing our 
Nation due to Republican policies, the Spratt substitute still manages 
to balance the budget in 6 years, cut taxes for the middle class, and 
provide realistic funding for education, health care, and veterans 
programs, all of which are shortchanged by the Republicans.
  The Spratt substitute has a better bottom line than the Republican 
budget every year. Fiscal responsibility today will lead to lower 
deficits, smaller interest payments, and less national debt in the 
future. Most significantly, after the budget is balanced, we can 
finally begin to pay off the trillions of dollars in debt that have 
accumulated since President Bush took office.
  Unfortunately, the budget proposed by House Republicans does nothing 
to improve the quality of life in America. It would add more than $350 
billion to the national debt next year alone. Under Republican 
stewardship, the five years between fiscal year 2003

[[Page 8515]]

and 2007 will provide us with the five largest deficits in American 
history. This is not a legacy worth continuing. We cannot afford to 
borrow additional money to continue paying for failed economic 
policies.
  Not only does the Spratt substitute match the President's request for 
defense spending, but it also includes additional needed funds for 
homeland security programs, including port security. As a member of the 
Homeland Security Committee, I am concerned that the Republican budget 
closely mirrors the President's, which proposes to eliminate several 
programs important to the safety of all Americans. Programs on the 
chopping block include the COPS Interoperability Grant Program, the 
SAFER Program for firefighting equipment, the Metropolitan Medical 
Response System, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and 
Justice Assistance Grants. In 2005, these programs provided more than 
$13 million in grants to help Rhode Island's first responders keep my 
constituents safe. Since September 11, we have asked our police and 
firefighters to do so much more, but this budget fails to provide the 
resources they so badly need.
  In addition, the budget would freeze or cut all non-homeland security 
discretionary spending. If the Republicans have their way, 5 years from 
now, education and health programs will receive even less than they do 
today. Cuts to social programs would place a larger burden on the 
working class at a time when they can least afford it.
  Even with all of these cuts, the Republicans still have no plan to 
balance the budget. Instead, they want to give away the savings to the 
wealthy by making permanent tax cuts on investment income. As a recent 
New York Times article indicated, ``Americans with annual comes of $1 
million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped 
43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003.'' At the 
same time, those earning less than $50,000 saved an average of only $10 
on the same capital gains and dividend tax cuts. The wealthiest 
Americans are doing fine on their own, and we should not be borrowing 
money to give them more special favors.
  Deficit spending has stymied job growth and is plaguing our economy. 
No Rhode Islander would write a check without sufficient funds to cover 
it. Neither should the government. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the Spratt budget substitute and opposing the underlying 
Republican plan.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

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


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 156]

                                AYES--94

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

                               NOES--331

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

[[Page 8516]]



                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Shimkus
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

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

                              {time}  0016

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


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

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 157]

                               AYES--184

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

                               NOES--241

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

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

                              {time}  0024

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 817, it is now in 
order to consider a period of final debate on the concurrent 
resolution.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, we reserve to close.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say something first on a personal note. For 6 
years now, Jim Nussle and I have sat side by side on the Budget 
Committee and collaborated and worked together in the spirit of 
cooperation and comity. We have had our vigorous disagreements from 
time to time; but there was always, always, the civility and friendship 
born of mutual respect between the two of us. We never had the pleasure 
of converging and collaborating on a budget itself, and I am sorry for 
that, Jim; but we always had I think the same goals in mind, the good 
of the country.
  We are going to miss you here. I am going to be the first to come to 
the well and salute you for your service to the House and to the 
country and for the work you have done in particular on the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, with all the jargon and all the numbers and all the 
rhetoric, it is hard to find your way around this budget maze, so let 
me start with just the basics, so basic that let's do something 
revolutionary, read the resolution before you.

[[Page 8517]]

  Read this resolution and you will see that right here, page 1, the 
public debt of the United States will be $11.3 trillion in the year 
2011, 5 years from now. At the end of 2001, 5 years ago, the day 
President Bush took office, the public debt was $5.7 trillion. That 
means that between 2002 and 2011, under the policies of this 
administration and this budget resolution, the public debt of the 
United States is going to double. In a 10-year period of time, we are 
going to double the debt from $5.7 trillion to $11.3 trillion. It is 
right here in your own resolution.
  Keep on reading and you will see that the on-budget deficit for next 
year, the year 2007, is $545 billion. Now, on-budget, that means before 
you offset that against the surplus in Social Security. But there is a 
reason it is listed as an on-budget surplus or an on-budget deficit in 
this resolution. The law requires it, just as the law requires that 
Social Security be taken off budget.
  Off budget, when it is treated that way, the deficit is $545 billion 
in the year 2007. In the year 2011, the on-budget deficit will be $428 
billion. But that doesn't include anything for fixing the AMT. We all 
know that has to be done. It will have a significant effect on revenues 
when it is. Nor does it include anything after 2007 for the war in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. So when you make adjustments for those two factors, 
you are really back up to $550 billion.
  For 5 years we will tread water, go nowhere. It is right here, the 
numbers in this resolution, the first two pages of this resolution. 
That is why I say this budget resolution presents no plan and no 
prospect of ever balancing the budget.
  Indeed, our calculations show, from the staff of the Budget 
Committee, our calculations shows that this budget will actually make 
the deficit $400 billion worse over 5 years than if we just stood still 
and had a current services budget.

                              {time}  0030

  We actually lose ground if we pass this budget tonight, and we 
certainly do not move into a future that any of us thinks is fiscally 
sound.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to show you one other chart which we used 
several times today so that you all will be aware of something when you 
vote on this budget. Buried in this budget on page 121 is a provision 
that is written in legalese, but it says that the joint resolution, if 
enacted to raise the debt, the debt will be increased, the debt ceiling 
of the United States will be increased by $653 billion.
  Tonight if you vote for this budget resolution, you are, in effect, 
according to this language on page 121 of the budget resolution, voting 
to raise the debt ceiling of the United States by $653 billion.
  Now, let me put that in context. Let me put it on the back of an 
envelope for you. This simple chart right here shows you the increases 
in the debt ceiling of the United States, the legal limit to which the 
United States Government can borrow that have been passed by this 
Congress over the last 5 years.
  June 2002, those of you on the Budget Committee will recall that the 
Bush administration came to us selling their budget. They told us, 
look, pass this budget with $1.7 to $1.8 trillion in tax cuts, and we 
still will not be back until 2008 to ask for an increase in the debt 
ceiling. That is how much spare capacity we have got.
  They missed it by a mile. A year later they were back, hat in hand, 
and they said, we need an increase in the debt ceiling of $450 billion. 
That was 1 year.
  The next year they came back with a phenomenal increase. May 24, 
2004, the increase was $984 billion. That lasted 15 months. Following 
the 15-month period there was another increase, $800 billion. Just 2 
months ago, in March, there was a $781 billion increase. And now 
tonight, if you vote for this resolution, you can add $653 to that. 
Those will be the 5 increases over 5 years in the debt ceiling of the 
United States in order to accommodate the budgets that this Congress 
has passed during that period of time, all together $3.7 trillion in 5 
years.
  On the back of an envelope that is as dire as I can present it to 
you. In this budget, as I said, look at the numbers on the first page, 
$545 billion in 2007, $428 billion in 2011, does not take us anywhere. 
It does not present a plan or a solution or anything. At best it treads 
water.
  Now, let me show you one other thing that is a problematic feature of 
this budget. The cuts in this budget are not, at least do not seem to 
be, Draconian, at least not at the outset, but they are relentless. And 
they take a toll over time, and they come down on one small segment of 
the budget, something we call nondefense discretionary spending. 
Nondefense discretionary spending.
  Now, it is odd that this would be the object of all of the deficit 
reduction effort, because, number one, this is not the source of the 
problem. This is not where spending has been growing by any means. And, 
number two, it is less than 15 percent of the budget. You will never 
get a $400 or $500 billion deficit resolved out of an account or series 
that do not come to more than $380 billion all together.
  But that is what you have chosen to do in this resolution. That is 
why for another reason it will not work over time, but it will hurt. It 
will hurt people who depend on programs that are essential, such as 
transitional Medicaid assistance, such as education. This budget takes 
a $45 billion hit on education.
  What you see is that over time, as you freeze, this is what our 
Republican colleagues call this budget on its effects on discretionary 
spending, a freeze, if you simply hold it in place and do not allow it 
to increase, actually cut it a bit below inflation over a 5-year period 
of time, the total effect of spending is $162 billion. That is coming 
out of NIH, that is coming out of CDC, that is coming out of education, 
that is coming out of veterans health care. The list goes on and on and 
on.
  And there are some things in there that are real anomalies. I was out 
here on the floor for much of the debate on the immigration reform 
bill. You remember that, I am sure. And often the question came up 
about stiffer sanctions and tougher rules. Obviously the issue was 
raised, how do you enforce them? And frequently the answer was, we go 
to State and local government; we are going to use them in addition to 
the immigration service and the Customs Service and the Border Patrol. 
We want to enlist, engage our sheriffs and our deputy sheriffs and our 
city policemen to get involved in immigration enforcement, too. Well, 
guess what is cut out in this budget? State criminal assistance 
programs, $400 million.
  This is not the budget that will take us to the future that we all 
want. The best thing that we can do tonight is to take this budget, 
take this budget, reject it, send the budgeteers back to the drawing 
board, and come up with something different.
  That is not going to happen. I know it will not happen. So we will 
just kick the can down the road one more time. But I warn you, you know 
as well as I, this problem will only get tougher with time, only get 
harder to resolve with time. But sooner or later the day of reckoning 
is coming. In the meantime, what we have got with this budget is more 
deficits, more debt and more denial.
  Vote against this budget resolution.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, first let me say thank you to my friend Mr. 
Spratt. I liked the first part of his speech a little bit better than 
the last part, but I do thank him for his friendship, for his 
professionalism. There is nobody in the House of Representatives that 
knows more about the budget than he does, and he has been a worthy 
partner and friend in this effort. I want to thank him for that.
  Also I want to thank my committee members and the staff that worked 
so hard to put together this product. When it comes right down to it, 
as Mr. Spratt said, this is, I suppose, a document with numbers on it. 
There is no such thing as a perfect budget, only the budget that gets 
218 votes.
  If I wrote the budget for the budget that I personally wanted, it 
might look a little differently. We have seen substitute opportunities 
tonight that did not quite get the votes. We need to

[[Page 8518]]

pass a budget that gets the votes. That may not be perfect to fit 
everybody's idea of exactly what the priorities are, but what we in a 
democracy can agree is the right direction.
  So to close on our side, I would like to recognize and yield the 
balance of our time to our friend and the Speaker of the House, Denny 
Hastert.
  Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. Chairman, as he moves his last budget before the House of 
Representatives, I want to thank him for his years of service, his 
steadfastness, and, Jim, we wish you well in all your future endeavors. 
Thank you very much. God bless you.
  Friends, the hour is late, and we have heard a lot of arguments, and 
we voted on a lot of budgets today. But three things I just want to 
talk about very briefly. First of all, I have heard some arguments on 
the other side of the aisle saying, well, you know, if you earn $40,000 
a year, you would not get a very big tax cut.
  Well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year, a family of two children, 
you do not pay any taxes. So you probably, if you do not pay any taxes, 
you are not going to get a very big tax cut.
  Now, if you earn, as somebody said, $1 million a year, you are going 
to pay about, when all of the taxes are paid, about $400,000 of taxes. 
And maybe you will get a $40,000 tax cut, maybe. Well, look at the 
math.
  But I am saying, you know, those are relative things. Now you have to 
look at it.
  We also heard that, you know, we have a lot of numbers. But I will 
tell you, one of the numbers that are important this year because of 
the fiscal discipline that this House has had, and our tax policy that 
this conference has had, and this Congress has had, is that just in our 
revenues this year alone, we have almost $140 billion more in revenue 
than we projected even in January, and we are only 5 months into the 
year.
  So, you know, if you can grow the economy, if you can make things 
work, if you create jobs for people, and incidentally those taxes that 
some folks talked about that were so terrible, is putting small 
business and letting them take their money and create new jobs. As a 
result, we have had almost 2 million new jobs in the last year. We have 
had 5 million new jobs since 2003. We have created an economy that is 
moving, and probably the most vibrant and healthy economy that we have 
had in years.
  Unemployment is down. Gross national product is up. Consumer 
confidence is up. More people own their own homes in this country than 
ever before in the history of this country, and more minority folks own 
their own homes than ever before in the history of this country, so 
something is happening that is right.
  But the last thing I want to remind you of is being able to pass a 
budget is being able to govern. And it is time that we quit talking, 
that we quit, you know, throwing numbers around here. I have been to 
auctions before. I have seen a lot of numbers move across the ring. But 
I will tell you, we are not going to the highest bidder. We are going 
to make sure that we do what is right, what the American taxpayers 
expect us to do. That is to be fiscally responsible, to pass a budget 
so that we govern and get the work of this House done.
  Mr. Chairman, I have talked long enough. Let's vote.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, for several years now, the budgets brought 
before this Congress have not adequately represented the interests of 
the American people. Rather than approach budgeting in a bipartisan 
fashion, Republicans have consistently chosen to gild the lily, 
electing to enact large tax cuts while simultaneously failing to reign 
in government spending. These actions by today's leaders have passed a 
tremendous financial burden on to future generations of Americans.
  The Republicans' Fiscal Year 2007 budget is no better. It makes the 
deficit worse, offers no plan to bring the budget back to balance, and 
adds to the growing weight of the national debt. The budget also makes 
harmful cuts to critical services for working families--including 
education, veterans' services, and health care.
  In contrast, the Democratic budget plan proposed by Mr. Spratt of 
South Carolina would reach balance in 2012, has smaller deficits, 
accumulates less debt, and repeals the House rule providing for 
automatic debt ceiling increases. It also would reject the Republican 
budget's cuts to domestic priorities and reinstate pay-as-you-go rules 
that helped spur the budget surpluses of the 1990s.
  I come from Missouri--the ``Show-Me State.'' If the leaders in 
Congress and at the White House want to be fiscally responsible, they 
ought to show Missourians and the rest of the American people they mean 
business by rejecting the failed budget policies of the past and by 
immediately convening a bipartisan budget summit. President George H.W. 
Bush did this during a similarly challenging time and America is better 
for it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Majority's 
budget.
  We need to acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong 
with the budgetary policies the Republican Leadership has pursued for 
the last 5 years. It is time for a little honesty about where these 
policies are taking this country. Since 2001, the Federal Government 
has posted record budget deficits year after year.
  During the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans worked together with the 
Clinton Administration to cut the red ink and balance the budget. For 
the first time in many years, we balanced the budget in 1998. We kept 
it balanced in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Indeed, we ran budget surpluses 
during those years and, for the first time in a generation, actually 
began to pay down the national debt.
  Since the Bush Administration took office in 2001, we've swung from 
balanced budgets to massive annual budget deficits. In 2002--the year 
after the Congress adopted the Administration's tax policies--the 
Federal Government posted a $128 billion deficit. In 2003, the deficit 
rose to $378 billion. In 2004, the deficit soared to an all-time high 
of $412 billion. In 2005, the deficit was $318 billion.
  As bad as these deficits are, they do not tell the whole story, since 
these figures do not include the money the Federal Government borrows 
from Social Security and Medicare trust funds each year. In 2005 alone, 
the Federal Government borrowed nearly $175 billion from the trust 
funds, and we're on course to borrow even more this year.
  We cannot continue on the course we're on. It is wrong for this 
Congress and this President to--keep borrowing half a trillion dollars 
each and every year and then pass this debt along to our children. It 
is wrong for Congress and the President to keep borrowing more and more 
from foreigners to fund tax cuts for the very wealthy. China alone owns 
more than $818 billion of our debt.
  The Majority's budget simply digs the deficit hole deeper. The 
Republican budget proposes a $348 billion deficit for 2007. If you add 
in the borrowing from Social Security and Medicare--money that, by law, 
must be repaid--the total deficit for 2007 soars to $543 billion. The 
hard truth is that under the Majority's budget, the Federal budget 
never comes into balance. The tide of red ink rises forever. This 
policy is unsustainable and morally indefensible.
  Tucked away in this budget is a provision to raise the government's 
borrowing limit another $653 billion. This would be on top of the $3 
trillion in debt limit increases already approved since President Bush 
took office. At the very least, there should be a straight up-or-down 
vote on a debt limit of this magnitude, but evidently the plan is to 
try to sneak this through.
  The Majority's budget also contains irresponsible cuts in critical 
domestic programs. In this regard, the Majority has mirrored the Bush 
Administration's budget, which included deep cuts in education, 
critical medical research, environmental protection, veterans' health 
care, to name only a few areas. There has been an attempt tonight to 
place a fig leaf over some of these cuts with a vague half promise of 
perhaps adding an additional $7.1 billion for domestic programs later. 
All this fig leaf does is acknowledge that the funding shortfall exists 
in the Republican budget without taking any action to actually address 
it.
  I will vote for the Democratic budget substitute offered by 
Representative Spratt. The Spratt budget pays down the deficits over 
the next 5 years and achieves balance in 2012. We restore fiscal 
discipline by bringing back the pay-as-you-go budgeting rules and we 
force a degree of accountability by requiring the House to take a 
separate up-or-down vote on measures to increase the national debt 
limit. In addition, the Democratic budget alternative provides $150 
billion for future tax cuts, and requires that any further tax cuts 
meet the pay-as-you-go rules. Lastly, our budget alternative rejects 
yet another round of spending cuts to key domestic programs that have 
been cut repeatedly in recent years.
  The choice before the House could not be more clear. We can vote to 
continue the failed

[[Page 8519]]

economic policies of the last 5 years--policies that have resulted in 
massive annual deficits. Or we can say $3 trillion of debt and 
borrowing over 5 years is enough and vote for the Spratt budget 
alternative that pays down these deficits and balances the budget.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for Representative 
Spratt's budget.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, it appears the third time's the charm for 
the Republican leadership. Unfortunately, the same is not true for 
working Americans who will be worse off under yet another morally 
reprehensible Republican budget. This budget insults students, attacks 
veterans, and bankrupts future generations.
  A budget is a statement about priorities. For the party of Tom Delay 
and Jack Abramoff, that means rewarding corporate contributors at the 
expense of ordinary Americans. Republicans protected billions of 
dollars in giveaways to an oil industry awash in profits. But despite 
President Bush's State of the Union rhetoric, this budget underfunded 
investments in alternative energy that are necessary to prevent global 
warming.
  What else do the Republicans believe is less important than 
additional billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy? Education, 
health care, and the financial well being of our children and 
grandchildren.
  Despite record enrollment from pre-K to college, Republicans support 
large cuts to education. This budget cuts Department of Education 
funding by $2.2 billion--and provides $15.4 billion less than 
Republicans promised when they passed No Child Left Behind. Even though 
college costs have risen 40 percent since 2001, the Republican budget 
again freezes the maximum Pell Grant and denies more than 460,000 
students low-cost higher education loans.
  Though 46 million Americans lack health insurance, the Republican 
budget does nothing to improve access to quality care--and actually 
includes policies that would increase the numbers of people without 
health insurance and who are underinsured. Rather than embrace 
necessary fixes to the Medicare prescription drug program, Republicans 
instead chose to continue billions of dollars in overpayments to 
managed care plans. And despite regularly thumping their chests while 
claiming to support the troops, Republicans propose $6.0 billion in 
cuts to veterans' health care over five years. Many Americans volunteer 
to serve their country, but the Republican Party rarely serves them.
  When George Bush was elected President, a satirical newspaper joked 
that `our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity' was finally 
over. In the years since, Americans have learned the Republican record 
of warmongering and fiscal mismanagement is no laughing matter. Prior 
to this year, Republicans had already turned a 10-year, $5.6 trillion 
surplus and turned it into a $3.2 trillion deficit. Though this budget 
cowardly rails to include tens of billions in supplemental requests 
related to a misguided Iraq War, it nonetheless adds another $2.3 
trillion to the rational debt over the next five years.
  This budget makes clear what no amount of spin and lies can hide. 
Republicans care more about wealthy corporations and campaign 
contributors than they do about America's families, our environment, 
land our future.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this cruel and heartless bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution represents 
more of the same misplaced priorities and, misguided policies that over 
the last 5 years have brought only deficits, debt, and danger. It does 
not deserve adoption, and I can not vote for it.
  Even before last year's hurricanes, the Federal budget was on a 
dangerous course marked by tidal waves of red ink and towering piles of 
debt. Since 2001, the budget surplus that President Clinton and a 
Republican Congress bequeathed President Bush has been erased and our 
country is now in debt to the tune of $8 trillion, or $25,000 for every 
American man, woman and child.
  There were several causes, but the size and scope of the Bush tax 
cuts must bear a large part of the blame.
  Several parts of those tax cuts--for example, eliminating the 
marriage penalty, fixing the 10 percent bracket and extending child 
care tax credits--were good. They gave a reasonable boost for the 
economy and increased the fairness of the tax laws. But having 
campaigned on giving back most of the budget surplus in tax cuts, 
President Bush insisted on much more, and Congress went along. Many of 
us warned against reducing the surplus so recklessly, and urged the 
administration and Congress to remember the need to be ready for future 
emergencies.
  But our pleas for restraint were ignored--and then came the attacks 
of 9/11 and the need for increased spending on homeland security, a 
military response in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq. The budget 
nosedived from surplus into deep deficit.
  Since then, even in the face of national emergency, neither the 
president nor this Republican Congress has seen fit to call on 
Americans for any sacrifice, and instead of temporarily scaling back 
tax cuts, the president and his supporters have insisted on making them 
permanent even as federal spending has skyrocketed.
  So now we are putting the costs of war and everything else the 
government does on the national credit card--and much of the debt is 
owed not just to ourselves (as in the past), but to China, Japan and 
India.
  Of course, this cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has 
to give. And, if the result is a new sense of responsibility, sooner is 
better--because there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our 
budget policies, including both taxes and spending.
  Unfortunately, however, with this budget resolution the Republican 
leadership is doing just the opposite--instead of new thinking they are 
insisting on following the same policies that have produced the 
problem.
  Even though the national debt has reached $8 trillion, under this 
Republican budget we will add another $2.3 trillion to the debt over 
the next 5 years in order to endorse the President's tax policies, 
which squander as much as $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years on 
permanent, top-heavy tax cuts.
  And, even worse, this budget resolution still fails to meet the most 
important challenges that face us--protecting America, caring for our 
veterans, and making the investments needed for our future.
  It shortchanges key homeland security programs--cutting them by $488 
million this year and $6.1 billion over 5 years from the amount needed 
to keep up with inflation--while failing to provide for needed 
increases in our armed forces, including the National Guard, and 
shortchanging the program to dispose of the hundreds of tons of 
unsecured nuclear material around the world, particularly in Russia and 
former Soviet Union countries.
  And even though the VA is already treating more than 144,000 veterans 
from Iraq and Afghanistan, with more to come, the budget resolution 
would cut veterans' health care by $6 billion over 5 years, and 
increase TRICARE health care premiums for more than 3 million military 
retirees and their families.
  In addition, the budget resolution falls short in other areas.
  For example, despite record enrollment growth, it follows the 
President's budget, which proposes the largest cuts in education in 23 
years. It cuts discretionary appropriations for the Education 
Department--meaning an even greater gap between promise and performance 
in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. And it also follows the 
lead of the President's budget in proposing to freeze the maximum Pell 
Grant for college at $4,050--for the fifth year in a row--while setting 
the stage for other cuts in programs to boost college opportunities and 
access.
  And, like the President's budget, this resolution shortchanges NIH 
funding and public health programs, including prevention programs at 
the Centers for Disease Control and rural health activities, while also 
reducing funding for programs to protect and improve our water 
supplies, to protect open space, and to conserve natural resources.
  I voted for the Spratt substitute, which would have led to lower 
deficits over the next 5 years and put us on the path to a balanced 
budget in 6 years while still doing more for homeland security, 
veterans care, education and training, and to protect public health and 
the environment.
  Unfortunately, that alternative was not adopted, and so I am left 
with no choice but to vote against the Republican leadership's budget 
resolution.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the Federal budget should be about meeting 
responsibilities and setting priorities that will help move America 
toward a better future. Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership has 
failed yet again to draft a balanced proposal that meets America's 
needs. Instead their Budget Resolution (H. Con. Res 376) is a testament 
to misguided priorities--underinvesting in education, the environment, 
the economy, and out Nation's veterans, while providing tax cuts to the 
wealthiest Americans and multiplying the Federal deficit to its highest 
levels ever.
  The Republican budget matches the President's cuts in education by 
slashing $2.2 billion from the Department of Education. This is the 
second consecutive year in which the Republican Leadership has cut 
Federal education funding. The Administration's own initiative, No 
Child Left Behind, is now underfunded by a total of $40 billion since 
its passage 5 years ago. While the cost of higher education is almost 
unaffordable for middle-class American

[[Page 8520]]

families, the Republican budget cuts the Perkins Loan program by $66 
million.
  The environment also gets short shrift in the Republican budget. The 
budget resolution cuts the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 
$199 million, including a cut to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 
The National Park Service, perennially underfunded by the 
Administration and Republican majority, is cut by $102 million. The 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which funds 
important programs for the Central Coast like the Bay Watershed 
Education and Training (BWET) Program and the National Marine Sanctuary 
Program, is cut by 6 percent.
  H. Con. Res. 376 provides $228 billion in tax cuts that primarily go 
to the wealthiest of Americans. While tax cuts to the rich are extended 
for 5 years, Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief, which affects 
millions of middle- income taxpayers, is only extended for a year. In 
addition, the budget resolution increases our already huge deficit. 
Over the next 5 years, the budget resolution counts a total of $1.2 
trillion in the Social Security trust funds to partially offset these 
record deficits. This is sham accounting and saddles our children and 
grandchildren with huge debt.
  As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee with oversight 
over the Veterans' Administration, I am deeply concerned about 
Republican cuts to veterans' health care. H. Con. Res 376 proposes 
spending $6.6 billion less on veterans programs over the next 5 years, 
while the U.S. fights a global war on terrorism. We are a nation at 
war, and our men and women in uniform are making extreme sacrifices. 
Yet, the Republican Budget Resolution increases fees for TRICARE, the 
military health care program: Fees for retired officers will triple, 
double for retired senior enlisted personnel and increase by 40 percent 
for junior enlisted retirees.
  The American people deserve better. I will support the Spratt budget 
substitute that fully invests in education, the environment and the 
economy and truly reflects the values of the Central Coast of 
California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Resolution.
  The Budget Resolution is a reflection of our values and a statement 
of our national priorities. As in the previous years under President 
Bush, the 2007 Budget Resolution will force cuts in health care, 
environmental protection, education, housing, and other essential 
programs that enjoy broad public support.
  And, as in previous years, a new round of tax cuts skewed to benefit 
our wealthiest citizens will threaten our long-term economic health and 
pile more debt onto our children. Eighty-seven percent of the benefits 
of the tax cuts the House just passed will go to the 14 percent of 
households with more than $100,000 in annual income. Less than 2 
percent of the benefits will go to the 60 percent of households with 
less than $50,000 in annual income.
  The year before President Bush took office, we enjoyed a record-
breaking $236 billion surplus and projected surpluses that were 
expected to reach $5.6 trillion by 2011. In an unprecedented reversal, 
the policies of President Bush and congressional Republicans have 
brought us the five largest deficits in our history. According to the 
Bush Administration's own numbers, its policy of massive tax cuts and 
deficit borrowing will increase the gross federal debt by a total of 
$4.2 trillion over fiscal years 2001 to 2008. Our nation will have 
accumulated more debt in eight years under President Bush than under 
the first 41 presidents combined.
  The Administration's reckless budget and tax policies are 
unsustainable and damaging to our nation. In 2006, for the first time 
since 1970, the President and Congressional Republicans reduced funding 
for the National Institutes of Health, the nation's largest federal 
supporter of basic research, applied research, and R&D. This year's 
budget reduces the budgets again of 18 of the 19 Institutes.
  Just last September, overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House 
and Senate wrote President Bush to express strong support for working 
aggressively toward the goal of eliminating cancer death and suffering 
by 2015. Incomprehensibly, eight short months later congressional 
Republicans are pushing through a budget that reduces funding for the 
National Cancer Institute (NCI) by $40 million.
  This year, more than 1.4 million Americans will be diagnosed with 
cancer. Due to the investments we have made in research, prevention, 
and early detection, nearly 70% of to day's cancer patients will 
survive more than five years, compared to just 50% in 1976. These gains 
will be reversed if we do not maintain a vigorous federal commitment to 
biomedical research.
  The Republican budget carries with it senseless human costs. Dr. Evan 
Ross, a young medical doctor who has waged a valiant fight against 
cancer, has eloquently expressed below how our misplaced priorities are 
having far-reaching consequences on individual Americans:

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

  I urge my colleagues to consider the millions of Americans who are 
being hurt by the misguided policies of the Bush Administration and 
congressional Republicans. I urge you in the strongest terms to oppose 
this budget resolution and to support the advancement of medical 
research, affordable health care, education, environmental protections, 
and adequate housing for our citizens.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I will not support a budget plan that 
makes the overall budget deficit worse while providing further tax cuts 
for people who need them the least. The Republicans not only borrow the 
cost of their war, they refuse to honestly account for these costs by 
handling appropriations through emergency spending bills instead of the 
regular budget process. Playing politics with the budget short changes 
our future while creating an unsustainable mountain of debt. Refusing 
to provide permanent relief to tens of thousands of Oregonians 
threatened by the Alternative Minimum Tax, only providing a one year 
``fix'' to the AMT, gambles with middle-class families' futures.
  It is time for Congress to face up to the fiscal problems that they 
have created and deal honestly with American taxpayers about the 
budgeting sleight of hand and deficits. This budget doesn't begin to do 
this.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H. Con. 
Res. 376, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Budget Resolution, which will 
result in a deficit of $348 billion in FY 2007. To make matters worse, 
rather than offering a plan to balance our federal budget, this five-
year spending plan would add an additional $2.3 trillion to the 
nation's already burgeoning $8.3 trillion debt over the next five 
years. It is time for Congress to pass a Budget Resolution that takes 
steps to begin paying down our federal debt and return to balanced 
budgets.
  It is time for Congress to reinstate fiscal responsibility. Congress 
should enact budget enforcement mechanisms such as the pay-as-you-go 
(PAYGO) rule for new tax cuts and new mandatory spending, which would 
require the government to live within its means.
  The Budget Resolution as reported by the Budget Committee contains 
harmful cuts to education, veterans and healthcare. I commend our 
colleague from South Carolina for crafting an alternative to this 
budget that will restore these devastating cuts while still balancing 
the federal budget by 2012. The Spratt Substitute will also protect 
America's families by enacting PAYGO rules.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H. Con. Res. 376 and support the 
Spratt Substitute.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the FY 07 
Republican Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 376 and the Rule currently 
under consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican FY07 Budget sets a record--not for 
balancing the budget, not for lowering the deficit, or for reducing our 
reliance on foreign debt--but for exceeding the callousness evident in 
President Bush's FY07 Budget for American families.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is devoid of direction, balance 
and compassion.
  It slashes by $2.2 billion K-12 programs, school improvement funds, 
job training, Community Services Block grants, and the Social Services 
Block grants. This budget cuts veterans health care and the homeland 
security function; eliminates the Hope VI program; fails to adequately 
fund public health programs; slashes environmental and conservation 
funding; cuts programs that help feed low-income elderly, mothers and 
children; cuts housing assistance for the elderly and disabled; and 
cuts or flat-funds 18 of the 19 institutes at the National Institutes 
of Health. On the mandatory spending side, it includes reconciled 
spending cuts for Medicare, Medicaid and the Pension Benefit Guarantee 
Corporation.

[[Page 8521]]

  All of these cuts come at a time when the economy is floundering. 
They come at time when most Americans are trying to make ends meet--to 
take care of themselves, their children and their parents--all while 
being squeezed by flat wages, high gas prices and declining incomes. 
Yes, these cuts deeply hurt the least and most vulnerable of Americans, 
but in fact, they hurt nearly all American families.
  The sad truth is that all of these cuts are the sacrificial lamb for 
funding tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. In fact, 
while the national debt is rising and deficits are mounting, this 
Republican Budget funds another shameless $228 billion in tax over the 
next five years.
  Meanwhile, since President Bush has been in office, 6 million more 
Americans lack health insurance, 1.4 million more children live in 
poverty, 1.2 million more are unemployed and long-term unemployment is 
two times larger at 1.4 million. The impact of these numbers 
intensifies by almost double in minority communities.
  The CBC Alternative Budget offers a real budget for all Americans. It 
would balance the budget, restore pay-as-you-go budget principles, and 
in fact generate a surplus by 2011. It would restore funding to 
critical programs, not by creating deficits, but by rescinding the tax 
cuts for those making over $200,000, eliminating the corporate tax 
incentives for off-shoring jobs, closing corporate loopholes; and 
reducing ballistic missile defense spending--all while getting rid of 
waste, fraud and abuse.
  I urge my colleagues to support the CBC and Spratt Alternative 
Budgets--to vote to return to fiscal discipline and responsibility--to 
vote to focus our spending priorities on all Americans.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I again must rise in 
opposition to the budget before the House. I cannot support another 
budget that not only adds to the deficit, but for the fifth consecutive 
year creates the largest deficit in history.
  The Congressional budget is a reflection of our priorities--and at 
the risk of sounding like a broken record--I must say that this 
Republican budget once again gives priority to massive handouts for 
their fat cat buddies, and forces working families, veterans and 
students to foot the bill. Unfortunately, this seems to have become 
somewhat of a Republican tradition.
  Some of my colleagues will praise this budget for its so-called 
``savings''. What they fail to mention is that all of the spending cuts 
are not going towards reducing the deficit but instead are being used 
to partially offset the $228 billion price tag of a massive new tax 
cut.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no rationale whatsoever to explain how you can 
decrease revenues while increasing spending and still balance the 
budget. Anyone with common sense can tell you that if you want to spend 
more, you must either earn more or save in other areas--otherwise you 
go into debt. Yet in each of the past six years, the Administration has 
increased spending faster than national income.
  As bad as the numbers before us are, the true picture is in fact 
worse, because the budget resolution includes no funding after 2007 for 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for 2007 includes only 
a $50 billion ``placeholder''--less than half of the amount 
appropriated for 2006.
  The war costs are only one of the many budgetary gimmicks used to 
hide the true nature of this budget. Another is the deceptive cut in 
veterans' health care. Republicans like to say that they have greatly 
increased funding for veterans' healthcare. This is true if you are 
speaking of total spending, but the only reason for the Republican 
spending increase is the increase in the number patients. On a per 
capita basis, increases in veterans' health care funding average only 
0.1 percent per year, well below inflation.
  Two days ago, President Bush announced that he will deploy up to 
6,000 National Guard members to ``assist the Border Patrol'' along our 
southern border. It is important to note that in 2004, Congress 
authorized annual increases of 2,000 border patrol agents from 2006 
through 2010. Ironically, for the first two years of this increase, the 
Administration and the Republican Congress have failed to meet this 
target. The President's budget proposal for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 
failed to include enough funding for an additional 2,000 Border Patrol 
agents, and subsequently, Congress failed to appropriate full funding 
for the authorized increase. Under the tight spending constraints 
provided by the Republican budget framework, the House Homeland 
Security Appropriations Subcommittee reported a bill that provides only 
1,200 new border patrol agents--800 agents less than the authorized 
level. In contrast, the Democratic Substitute provides more than enough 
funding to provide for an additional 2,000 Border Patrol agents.
  Education also takes a hit in this budget resolution. The Department 
of Education is cut by $2.2 billion--the second year in a row that 
Republicans will cut federal education funding despite school 
districts' need for promised assistance to meet demanding standards 
under No Child Left Behind, and the increasing cost of higher 
education. In addition to funding cuts, 42 education programs will be 
eliminated under this budget, including the Even Start family literacy 
program, the TRIO Upward Bound program, the Perkins loan program and 
all federal vocational education programs.
  In particular, the Perkins loan program is extremely important to 
colleges and universities throughout the state of Michigan. At the 
University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University, both of which 
are located in my district, 8,658 students received Perkins loans 
during the 2004-2005 school year. At a time when we should be actively 
supporting opportunities for higher education, this proposed cut is a 
cruel slap in the face for our colleges and universities and for their 
students.
  The environment will also suffer if this bill passes. Funding for the 
Environmental Protection Agency will be cut by $304 million from 2006, 
with most of this cut coming from programs that ensure clean drinking 
water and protect public health. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund 
is cut by 22 percent from 2006 which, when added to past years' cuts, 
represents a 49 percent decrease since 2004. Additionally, despite the 
growing backlog of infrastructure construction and maintenance 
projects, funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would be slashed by 
11 percent. These cuts are ill-advised and will greatly undermine our 
Nation's ability to preserve and protect the resources we have been 
blessed with.
  I would also like to mention one specific program that has been 
placed on the chopping block--the Commodity Supplemental Food Program 
(CSFP). This program provides nutritional food packages to over 475,000 
low-income elderly, mothers and children, including 75,000 from my home 
state of Michigan. Under this budget resolution, CSFP would be 
eliminated, and all of these individuals would simply stop receiving 
their food packages. This is unacceptable. CSFP costs approximately 
$110 million per year, which is .03 percent of the projected deficit 
for FY2007. This means that eliminating the CSFP program will barely 
make a dent in the deficit, but 475,000 seniors, women and infants will 
be in danger of going hungry.
  It is for these reasons and many more that I stand here today to 
oppose this budget. The Democratic alternative would balance the budget 
by 2012 while rejecting deep cuts in essential federal programs. I urge 
my colleagues to vote yes on the Democratic substitute and no on the 
Republican budget.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
misguided budget resolution, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting against it.
  The Federal budget is much more than just a government document; it 
is a statement of our Nation's priorities and values. I am tremendously 
proud that in my first term as the Second District of North Carolina's 
Representative in the U.S. House, Congress and the President balanced 
the budget for the first time in a generation. Until just a few years 
ago, the budget remained balanced and the surpluses we produced were 
being used to pay down the national debt and strengthen the solvency of 
Social Security. But this Administration and the Republican 
Congressional Leadership have squandered the budget surpluses on 
wasteful tax policies and are running record budget deficits as far as 
the eye can see.
  This budget offers more of the same failed policies and it flunks the 
test of moral leadership by increasing the burdens on the poor, the 
middle class, families struggling to get into the middle class and 
future generations. This budget contains devastating cuts to essential 
services for our families and will leave the statutory debt at a record 
level of $11.3 trillion. The American people deserve better.
  As the only former State schools chief serving in Congress, public 
education is my priority. Education holds the key to the American Dream 
for middle class families, and the Federal Government has a solemn 
obligation to help all of our people make the most of their God-given 
abilities. This budget eliminates 42 Federal education initiatives, 
cuts funding for education, social services and training by $4.6 
billion below the amount needed to maintain purchasing power at the 
current level and will cut this funding more deeply each subsequent 
year.
  Specifically, this budget completely dismantles: vocational education 
($1.3 billion); Perkins Loans ($730 million); Safe and Drug-Free

[[Page 8522]]

Schools state grants ($347 million); GEAR-UP college readiness for low-
income students ($303 million); education technology ($287 million); 
and Even Start family literacy services ($99 million). The budget cuts 
$15 billion from the amount authorized for the No Child Left Behind 
education reform effort and cuts the Federal contribution for special 
education from the current 17.7 percent to only 17.0 percent for the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) despite years of 
rhetoric from the Republicans claiming to support IDEA. And while the 
costs of college continue to rise, this budget contains none of the 
funds needed to raise Pell Grants beyond the 2003 funding level.
  In addition, this Republican budget resolution cuts funding for 
homeland security, including port security by $6.1 billion over 5 
years, cuts essential services for working families by $9.4 billion, 
cuts veterans' health care by $6.0 billion, slashes funding for health 
by $18.1 billion below current services and fails to protect the 
environment by imposing a cut of $25 billion over the next 5 years.
  In contrast, the Spratt Substitute will balance the budget by 2012. 
It includes tough Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) budget enforcement rules that 
require the cost of any new mandatory spending or revenue legislation 
to be fully offset. Vice President Cheney has claimed ``deficits don't 
matter,'' but the American people know better. The Spratt budget 
provides $4.6 billion more for education in 2007 than the Republican 
budget and adds $45.3 billion over 5 years that our States and 
communities desperately need for quality schools.
  The Spratt Substitute keeps our commitment to veterans by including 
$8.6 billion more than the Republican budget for veterans' health care. 
It provides $6.5 billion more over 5 years for homeland security, 
including port security and rejects the Republican cut to Army National 
Guard troop strength and the cut to Cooperative Threat Reduction that 
protects America from weapons of mass destruction. The Spratt 
alternative budget provides $18 billion more over 5 years to fund 
health priorities cut by the Republican budget, including medical 
research at NIH and CDC, rural health activities, and graduate medical 
education for children's hospitals. Finally, the Spratt Substitute 
rejects the Republican budget cuts for environmental protection and 
requires an honest, separate vote on any proposal to raise the limit on 
the national debt.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe the Federal budget is the public 
expression of our Nation's priorities and values. I urge Congress to 
reject the Republican budget that is wrong for America and support the 
Spratt Substitute that restores funding for essential services for a 
stronger country and a brighter tomorrow for our families.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the deficits 
proposed by this budget. We are at war. This should be a time of 
sacrifice for all Americans; it is not the time for gutting programs 
that help working families to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy among us. 
Sacrifice should be shared, not dumped on some of us.
  Everywhere I go these days, people ask me when Congress will do 
something about the budget deficit--whch will mean profound taxes on 
their children down the road . . . Republicans, Democrats, business 
people, laborers--everybody.
  I keep telling them each budget we pass is worse and worse, growing 
the deficit at an incredible level. People used to say Congress was 
taxing and spending. These days Congress is borrowing and spending . . 
. worse, we're borrowing from our children. This budget grows both the 
deficit and the national debt. The deficits in this budget would, 
according to the report accompanying the resolution, lead to another 
debt limit increase of $653 billion--on top of the $3 trillion in debt 
ceiling increases already approved since President Bush took office.
  And still . . . this resolution makes deep and harmful cuts to 
critical services for working families--including border security, 
education, and veterans' services. Democrats offer a budget today, that 
this House will certainly reject, that does not include the harmful 
cuts to domestic priorities while still reaching balance in 2012. It 
has smaller deficits than the Republican budget, accumulates less debt, 
and returns us back to paying for what we pass.
  If we pass this budget resolution today--and I will vote no--this 
House is following the bad ideas in President Bush's budget, which 
continues the policies of the past 5 years that deeply cut into the 
spending for our homeland security, simply to pay for tax cuts to the 
wealthiest Americans.
  The budget makes long-term damage in our real security . . . at a 
time the President and many in this Congress are saying the needs on 
the border are so severe that we must send the National Guard to 
protect the border. First, let me say how much I oppose deploying the 
Guard to the border . . . but let's talk about how we got to crisis on 
the border: it is entirely about calculated disregard to the security 
forces on the border.
  The House budget shortchanges homeland security programs--cutting 
them by up to $488 million this year and up to $6.1 billion over 5 
years from the amount needed to keep up with inflation. In December, 
when the 9/11 Commission issued its final report card, it gave the Bush 
Administration and this Congress a series of C's, D's, and F's on many 
areas in homeland security--including border security.
  The only thing we have given border security is promises, but no 
money. We know generally how much it would cost for the recommendations 
the 9-11 Commission said was the very least we must do to make a dent 
in illegal immigration:
  $375 million for the detention beds the 9/11 Commission determined we 
need,
  $340 million for the Border Patrol agents the
9/11 Commission determined we need.
  Even with the VA treating more than 144,000 veterans from Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the House budget cuts veterans' health care by $6 billion 
over 5 years, and increases TRICARE health care premiums for more than 
3 million military retirees and their families.
  Despite record enrollment growth from pre-K to college, the House 
budget makes the largest cuts in education in 23 years and provides 
$15.4 billion less in funding than promised by the No Child Left Behind 
Act.
  Even as college costs have risen 40 percent since 2001, this budget 
freezes the maximum Pell Grant for college at $4,050--for the fourth 
year in a row. The budget denies more than 460,000 students low-cost 
loans and eliminates eight higher education programs, including GEAR-
UP, TRIO Upward Bound, and TRIO Talent Search--all of which have made 
all the difference in the lives of South Texas students. These 
insulting cuts come just 2 months after the majority in this body voted 
to raid federal student aid programs by $12 billion.
  The other thing people are saying to me everywhere I go is: when will 
Congress raise the minimum wage? Gas prices are going up, food prices 
are going up . . . the cost of everything is going up EXCEPT for the 
minimum wage.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the budget before us.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican Budget Resolution.
  Today, this Congress has the opportunity to send a clear message of 
hope for a better future to American families by investing in critical 
programs that enhance our children's ability to go to college, protect 
our public health against diseases and epidemics, and protect our 
public safety from gang violence and terrorist attacks.
  Regrettably, the Republican leadership has chosen to squander this 
opportunity in order to make way for additional tax breaks for the 
wealthiest Americans.
  The negative impact of this unnecessary and misguided budget is that 
programs essential to the safety, health and well-being of American 
families are cut and even eliminated.
  Please permit me to cite examples that illustrate my point.
  First, this Republican Budget Resolution sacrifices services vital to 
women and families by eliminating the funding for the National Resource 
Center on Workplace Responses. This Center was included in last year's 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). It provides 
critical support to help employees who are victims of domestic violence 
maintain job security as they empower themselves to end the violence in 
their lives. It also provides employers with valuable information and 
expertise needed to make their workplace safe from abusers who often 
stalk their victims at the workplace.
  Second, this Budget Resolution eliminates the funding for the 
National Institutes of Health's crucial National Children's Study. This 
study is examining the effects of environmental influences on the 
health and development of our nation's children. When completed, this 
national study could answer critical questions that will enable us to 
more effectively protect our children's health and future well-being.
  By eliminating this important program, the Republican budget once 
again chooses giving tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals in 
America at the expense of our children.
  Third, this budget resolution jeopardizes the future of millions of 
America's children by recommending the elimination of 42 education 
programs designed to provide our Nation's disadvantaged and middle-
income children with the opportunities for a better and more fulfilling 
life.

[[Page 8523]]

  Some of the programs the Republican budget proposes to eliminate are 
the Even Start program, which promotes family literacy in low-income 
areas; the School Drop-out Prevention Program, which helps at-risk 
children stay in school; and the Education Technology Block Grant, 
which integrates technology into the classroom to help students and 
teachers succeed in today's 21st Century workforce.
  Once again, in order to pay for the $70 billion tax cut primarily for 
the wealthy, this Republican budget strips away the safety net needed 
to protect the future of our children who must be prepared to compete 
in our ever-growing and highly technical global economy.
  I urge my colleagues to put the future of our children and our 
country first and vote against this misguided Republican Budget 
Resolution.
  Mrs. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this chamber is in the 
final stages of the annual budget process--a process that provides an 
important opportunity to discuss the things we value as a Nation.
  Before we cast our votes, each of us should consider the following:
  1. Does the Republican budget value fiscal discipline and honest 
budgeting? And, did the Republican leadership make the tough choices 
needed to balance the budget and pay down the debt?
  No. The Republican budget continues the majority party's borrow-and-
spend policies. As a result, it not only fails to balance the Federal 
government's checkbook, but will actually run a deficit of $348 billion 
for 2007--further increasing the mounting debt being, passed onto our 
children and grandchildren.
  2. Does the Republican budget value our shared economic future? And, 
did the Republican majority make wise investments in education, 
workforce development and alternative fuels that will favorably 
position us in the highly competitive global marketplace?
  No. The Republican budget cuts education funding by $2.2 billion, 
reduces support for renewable energy and energy-efficiency initiatives, 
and impedes access to health care for women and children.
  3. Does the Republican budget value enhanced security at home and a 
strong defense? And, did the Republican majority provide for the men 
and women who protect us, both while they are on the front lines and 
after they have fulfilled their duties and return home?
  No. The Republican budget cuts funding for veterans' health care by 
$6 billion, and will reduce our ability to maintain current homeland 
security efforts due to a lack of consistent and reliable funding.
  4. Is the Republican budget based on sound, fair tax policies to 
recognize the priorities of everyday Americans?
  No. The Republican budget has one purpose: to provide tax cuts to the 
wealthiest Americans. In fact, this budget provides $228 billion in new 
tax cuts--90 percent of which will go to the wealthiest ten percent of 
taxpayers.
  This budget fails to meet sound fiscal principles, and it sets us on 
an irresponsible path for years to come--with mounting annual deficits, 
and an increasing national debt. In fact, the Republican majority went 
to great lengths to mask the fact that their spending plan does not 
include some of our Nation's largest financial commitments--commitments 
that we must meet.
  Their plan almost completely ignores the cost of ongoing military 
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which according to the 
Congressional Budget Office will be at least $298 over 10 years. Except 
for a one year fix, it does nothing to address the Alternative Minimum 
Tax, which will increase taxes for middle class families by an 
estimated $844 billion over the next ten years.
  Even with these cuts, omissions, and gimmicks, the majority's budget 
will add another $2.3 trillion to our national debt by 2011--or nearly 
$1 million of debt per minute. Under President Bush, and his Republican 
Congress, our Nation has incurred more debt than it did under the 42 
presidents before him.
  But there is a better way.
  As a member of the House Budget Committee, I assisted Ranking Member 
Spratt in the creation of a fiscal year 2007 budget that makes the 
necessary tough, fiscally disciplined choice. This Democratic 
alternative meets the basic budgetary principles of meeting our 
obligations, working within the resources we have, and making smart 
investments that will ensure the Nation's current and future fiscal 
well-being.
  The Democratic budget will put our nation back on the right track by 
closing tax loopholes that provide incentives to companies to ship jobs 
overseas, by cracking down on tax cheats that avoid paying nearly $350 
billion a year in taxes, by rescinding the tax breaks and subsidies for 
the oil and gas industry, and by rolling back Medicare overpayments to 
HMOs. We would then reinvest these savings in the priorities that 
matter to most Americans: national and homeland security, energy 
independence, education, and health care. And, it will do so while 
balancing the Federal Government's budget within 6 years, and begin to 
pay down the debt by 2013.
  Our plan would secure our homeland through investments in our 
military and defense networks. Our plan would ensure that we are 
prepared here at home, while also pursuing smart foreign policies that 
encourage stability in nations throughout the world. And, our plan 
would meet our obligations to the men and women who have fought to 
protect our Nation.
  Second, our plan would help secure our economic future by educating 
our children for the twenty-first century economy, promoting the 
development and innovation of small businesses, upholding environmental 
protections, and advancing the production of alternative sources of 
energy to end our dependence on foreign oil.
  And, third, our plan would expand access to affordable health care 
for all Americans and improve retirement security with particular 
attention to the dramatic and costly needs of the baby boomers who will 
begin to reach retirement in 2007.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have a responsibility to meet our 
obligations and balance the budget. I am also well aware that the 
Federal Government's budgets have consequences. If the majority's 
budget passes, it will hurt State and local budgets by forcing them to 
cover the shortfalls--likely through increased local taxes. If the 
majority's budget passes, small businesses will be on their own as they 
fight to compete in the global marketplace in the face of rising health 
care and energy costs. If the majority's budget passes, senior citizens 
will risk losing the benefits they have been promised.
  Unless we change course, the negative consequences of the Republican 
budget will be felt by every American.
  My colleagues, Americans are seeking to meet their obligations to 
their families, their communities and to the Nation. We must honor 
their commitment and we should not, and I cannot walk away from our 
obligations to them. Vote ``no'' on this irresponsible Republican 
budget, and support the Democratic alternative.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution that we are now 
debating is being sold as a deficit-reduction measure, but that is 
false advertising. This budget resolution does contain spending cuts--
ones that hit lower-income families particularly hard. But those 
spending cuts pale beside the companion tax reconciliation measure that 
the President just signed into law. Together, those budget actions add 
to the deficit; they don't reduce it. Nothing illustrates that more 
clearly than the provision in this budget resolution that would 
increase the federal debt limit for the fifth time under President 
Bush.
  This President and this Congress have squandered the fiscal 
discipline of the 1990s and created a legacy of deficits and debt that 
will erode the standard of living of our children and our 
grandchildren. This is a record-setting Administration, but they are 
the wrong records. We have seen the federal budget deficit set a record 
in dollar terms, we have seen the national debt rise to a record level, 
and we have seen our trade deficit and our indebtedness to the rest of 
the world rise to a record level.
  The President likes to talk about how fast the economy is growing and 
how successful his policies have been in stimulating an economic 
recovery from the 2001 recession. But the American people are saying 
``what economic recovery?'' and, ``when am I going to see any benefits 
from this President's economic policies?'' Mr. Speaker, we should 
listen to the American people and we should adopt economic policies 
that promote the economic well-being of all Americans--not just those 
at the very top of the economic ladder.
  The President's FY 2007 budget and the House budget resolution do not 
do that. Instead they perpetuate economic policies that have produced a 
legacy of deficits and debt that leave us unprepared to deal with the 
budget challenges posed by the retirement of the baby-boom generation 
and that weakens the future standard of living of our children and 
grandchildren.
  Economic policy over the past 5 years has not served the interest of 
the typical American family. The resilience of the American economy has 
allowed it to recover from the 2001 recession, but we are still 
experiencing the labor market effects of the most protracted jobs slump 
in decades. Job creation has lagged far behind what is typical in a 
strong economic recovery, there is still evidence of hidden 
unemployment, and the benefits of productivity growth have been showing 
up in the

[[Page 8524]]

bottom lines of companies rather than in the paychecks of workers. 
Finally, there is a growing gap between the ``haves'' and the ``have-
nots'' in this country as income and earnings disparities have widened.
  Yes, workers have become more productive--they produce more and more 
in each hour that they work. But they haven't been getting rewarded for 
that productivity. Average hourly earnings have not kept up with 
inflation for the past 2 years and they barely kept even the year 
before that. Median family income has failed to keep up with inflation 
every year under President Bush.
  Those who are already well-to-do are doing very well in the Bush 
economy. But the typical American family is struggling to make ends 
meet in the face of high costs for energy, health care, and a college 
education for their children.
  This budget resolution does not address any of these problems. In 
fact, it makes things worse. An analysis by the Democratic staff of the 
Joint Economic Committee shows that budget cuts in programs that 
provide payments for individuals are concentrated among lower-income 
families, while the tax cuts that have already been enacted go 
overwhelmingly to those at the top of the distribution. More than a 
third of the costs of spending cuts for families go to those in the 
bottom 20 percent of the distribution (families that together have only 
3 percent of aggregate income). Meanwhile those at the top get nearly 
three-quarters of the benefits from the tax cuts. This analysis relates 
to the budget resolution originally brought to the floor a month ago, 
but the essential character of the plan has not changed.
  With policies that have turned a $5.6 trillion 10-year budget surplus 
into a deficit over those same 10 years of at least $2.7 trillion, this 
Administration and this Congress have turned the United States into a 
Nation of debtors, relying on the rest of the world to finance our 
budget deficits and the rest of our excessive spending. Last year we 
had a current account deficit of $805 billion. That is the amount of 
money we had to borrow from the rest of the world to finance our trade 
deficit and international payment imbalance.
  Foreign governments are holding large quantities of our public debt, 
putting us at risk of a major international financial crisis if they 
should decide that the benefits of holding dollars are no longer worth 
the risk.
  Mr. Chairman, future prosperity depends on increasing our national 
savings and making wise investments; it depends on being ready for the 
retirement of the baby-boom generation and the pressure we know that 
will put on the budget. But how is the other side preparing us for that 
future--with more deficits and more debt. They want to make the tax 
cuts that have gotten us into this mess permanent, and they have no 
realistic plan for controlling spending or bringing revenues into line 
with the amount we need to spend to defend the country and take care of 
the needs of our citizens. We need a better plan.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, it's time for Congress to start making 
tough choices. Projected growth in mandatory spending threatens to 
crowd out all other spending and choke our economy unless we act now. 
Over the next 75 years, Medicare's unfunded liabilities amount to a 
staggering $30 trillion--more than 5 times as much as Social 
Security's. We're on a fiscal path that we simply cannot sustain, 
presenting our children and grandchildren with a legacy of enormous 
debt or stifling tax increases.
  There are difficult decisions that have to be made, but we must be 
responsible, tighten our belts, and live within our means. I applaud 
the RSC for its work on this budget alternative, and urge its passage.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Republican budget resolution. The Republican's 2007 budget--and the 
signing of tax cuts for millionaires today--reflects priorities that 
are not in line with what our country stands for or the values in which 
most Americans believe. In keeping with an unfortunate tradition, the 
Republicans have once again put tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of 
national security, investing in our economic competitiveness, and 
meeting the needs of seniors, families, and students. This budget puts 
K Street ahead of the needs of Main Street.
  The Republicans claim that this budget will decrease the massive 
Bush-era deficit. However, even with all the cruel cuts they make to 
medical research, health care, and nutrition assistance, their tax cuts 
add another $1.1 trillion to the deficit. Is that responsible?
  The Republicans claim to have our country's best interests in mind. 
Yet, they slash funding for education and job training by $4.6 billion. 
Is that in our best interest?
  The Republicans allege that their fiscal policies spark economic 
growth and prosperity. In reality, income is dropping, poverty has 
increased over the last several years, and 7.1 million Americans remain 
unemployed. Is that growth and prosperity?
  What is responsible is funding vocational education to train our 
future workers, as the Democratic alternative to this budget would do. 
It is in our country's best interest to fund port security and homeland 
security. The Democratic budget recognizes that by providing $6.5 
billion more than Republican budget does for homeland and port 
security. What would spur economic growth is funding initiatives like 
the Community Development Block Grants program, not cutting it by $736 
million as the Republicans do. That money would help revitalize our 
dilapidated neighborhoods.
  As I have said time and time again, budgets reflect what we value and 
what is important to us as a country. I value senior citizens--and that 
is why I cannot support a Republican budget that cuts their housing 
assistance by 26 percent. I believe it is important to prepare for our 
future so I cannot support a plan that cuts 42 education programs. I 
support our troops and refuse to support any budget that would cut 
veterans' health care by $8.6 billion even as new veterans, many 
severely wounded, are returning home every day. But that's what the 
Republican budget does.
  I urge my colleagues to vote with our common American values and 
dreams in mind and support the Democratic and Congressional Black 
Caucus budgets and oppose the Republican budget that sells out the 
needs of the majority of Americans to make room for tax cuts for 
millionaires and K Street interests.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the reckless budget proposed by President Bush and House 
Republicans.
  H. Con. Res. 376 is a $2.7 trillion budget that will add $1.1 
trillion to our debt over the next 5 years. If this becomes the law of 
the land, our budget deficit will hit near record levels in 2006 and 
2007. But that's only part of the story. The budget provides for no 
funding for Iraq and Afghanistan past 2007, although we have heard from 
President Bush that this war will last at least until 2009. Nor does it 
address tax issues facing middle class families--such as the 
alternative minimum tax. In addition, this bill includes a provision to 
raise the debt limit for the fifth year in a row--resulting in a $3.7 
trillion increase since 2001.
  This budget imposes painful cuts on children and families while 
allowing our national deficit to continue to spiral out of control. 
Cuts to health care, education, veterans' services, and the environment 
are all made in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. But because 
even these devastating cuts do not equal the level of tax giveaways 
proposed, this budget forces future generations to pay for the mistakes 
of today.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget does not reflect American values. It cuts 
education--from early education through higher education--when we need 
to reinvest in American global competitiveness. It cuts funding for 
public health and health research--shortchanging potential lifesaving 
research and health care providers struggling to serve current 
populations and to prepare for a possible pandemic. It cuts homeland 
security funding by $6 billion--as our Nation is involved in conflicts 
around the world and American good will is waning. Most outrageously, 
this budget cuts funding for veterans' health care by $8.6 billion over 
5 years. At a time when we're asking more of our service men and women 
and their families, this type of across-the-board disinvestment is 
short-sighted and negligent and should be rejected.
  Congress can and should pass a budget that is fiscally responsible 
and protects the priorities of the American people. Democrats offered 
an alternative plan investing in education, health research and 
veterans' benefits while balancing the budget by 2012. This plan, 
offered by Mr. Spratt, would keep America competitive by making needed 
investments and reduce the burden of staggering Federal debt on future 
generations.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt substitute and reject the 
dangerous owe-as-you-go policies put forward by the Bush Administration 
and the Republican Majority in Congress.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further debate time, under the 
rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Boozman) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) establishing the congressional budget for 
the United States

[[Page 8525]]

Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011, pursuant to House Resolution 
817, he reported the concurrent resolution, as amended pursuant to that 
rule, back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of 
the concurrent resolution will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the 
motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 740.
  The vote on House Resolution 795 will be taken tomorrow.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 210, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 158]

                               YEAS--218

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

                               NAYS--210

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Evans
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Paul
     Stupak

                              {time}  0102

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

                          ____________________