Recognizing the life of Wellington Timothy Mara and his outstanding contributions to the New York Giants Football Club, the National Football League, and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 817 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 817 is the rule that provides for debate on House Concurrent Resolution 376, which is the Federal budget, the bill that establishes the Federal spending priorities for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for the outyears in 2008 through 2011.

As a member of both the Rules Committee and someone who serves on the Budget Committee, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for the House's consideration. This rule makes in order three substitute amendments, three different viewpoints on the direction that Federal spending should take for the coming fiscal year.

Each of those will be debatable for 40 minutes. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution.

I come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, with a resolution that allows us to complete the debate and passage for the House budget resolution for fiscal year 2007. It is a work product over many, many weeks, beginning with Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt in the Budget Committee, along with all of the Members of this House to bring it to fruition here today.

The resolution continues policies that have helped to continue a strong U.S. economy. We have included savings for working Americans with $228 billion in further tax reforms. We account for the tax cut, the tax reforms, that this House passed last week by a vote of 244-185 to extend 2001 and 2003 tax relief and preventing automatic tax increases from taking place.

That bill was signed into law today by the President, again preventing tax increases from coming on the backs of the American people. Those provisions included alternative minimum tax relief, that insidious tax that was proffered under Chairman Rostenkowski's reign at the Ways and Means Committee under Democratic rule, that is now taking into its arms, grasping within its reach millions of middle-class Americans who unknowingly are being swept into a net of higher taxation; House-passed pension bill; and other tax relief.

The continuation of these successful economic policies is generating record revenue levels for the Federal Government without increasing taxes. In other words, a strong and growing economy is bringing additional revenue into the Federal Government as a result of enhanced economic activity brought about by lower tax barriers.

While working to give Americans back some of their hard-earned dollars, we also enact a responsible spending plan that exercises control and restraint. I am proud that once again this House has delivered a budget that practices conscientious spending. Our goal is to stem the ever-expanding outflow of Federal dollars.

We hold nonsecurity discretionary spending to a near freeze and create mandatory savings, mandatory being that portion of the budget which now makes up over 55 percent of Federal spending. It is essentially on automatic pilot, and if it is not brought under control, it will consume two-thirds of Federal spending within the decade.

We bring about mandatory savings of nearly $7 billion over 5 years. Together these policies, the policies of economic stimulation and fiscal restraint, will reduce the deficit by more than half, from the $521 billion projected in 2004 to under $200 billion in 2009.

House Concurrent Resolution 376 has an overall discretionary spending level that is equal to the President's budget at $873 billion.

As is the case with our bifurcated budgeting and appropriations process, the discretion lies with the House Appropriations Committee to determine the final allocation of these funds.

This budget essentially freezes nonsecurity discretionary spending with only a .1 percent increase over last year's level, and as an additional savings method, this budget caps the advance appropriations.

In the area of mandatory spending, we provide a total of $1.5 trillion in entitlement spending. In an effort to control this automatic outflow of Federal dollars, the budget resolution calls for mandatory spending reforms from a number of different committees, allowing regular order to reign, along the authorizing committees, to find the proper waste, fraud, duplication and inefficiencies using their own expertise in the various subject matters. These savings total $6.75 billion over 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this year the Budget Committee included an emergency reserve fund to help Congress plan for unforeseen costs that arise in the future. Every year somewhere in America there is an earthquake or a flood, or a hurricane, or a wildfire, or a drought, or a massive snowstorm that requires Federal spending that was unforeseen.

But the fact that it happens every year means that we ought to be able to foresee that something bad is going to happen. We may not know exactly what it will be, it may not rise to the level of Katrina in scale and scope, and, heaven help us, we hope that it does not, but we know that emergencies will arise.

This budget plans for those emergencies, and we set aside in addition $50 billion toward what we anticipate will be a wartime supplemental request, and again set aside nearly $6.5 billion for other emergencies stemming from natural disasters.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work of this Budget Committee, Chairman Nussle, Ranking Member Spratt, for pushing forward a budget that has fiscal discipline, restraint. It incorporates real reforms on the mandatory side as well as providing for the tools that allow this economy to continue to grow and strengthen.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, obviously this is one of the most important debates of the year as it lays out the blueprint, the outline for Federal priorities. Where we place our priorities is generally where we allocate funding, and the Republican budget divides those priorities between creating incentives for people to continue to grow their businesses, to create an atmosphere of record low unemployment which we enjoy in this country today of 4.8 percent, creating incentives for people to purchase a new piece of equipment, add a new assembly line, add a new store, take on a new employee, fiscal restraint to go along with that economic growth.

Fiscal restraint on the discretionary side where there is a near freeze in discretionary spending, and on the mandatory side which is gobbling up the budget at a record rate, where we for the second year in a row, something that is unprecedented in modern budgeting history, for the second year in a row are looking for savings on that mandatory side of the ledger that so many previous Congresses have been afraid to touch, and bringing about important reforms so that people have confidence in where their hard-earned tax dollars are going.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my friend from Massachusetts has a number of speakers, and I will reserve the balance of my time and look forward to a thorough vetting of this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raised the issue of education funding. I would point out that the facts are a bit counter to her assertion. Take special education, something that has long been a priority of both sides of the aisle. Special education funding goes up for the sixth consecutive year, an increase of $100 million this year, which is an estimated $1,500 per student, reaching almost 7 million students who have special needs.

On Pell Grants, the budget provides $12.7 billion in available Pell Grant aid, for an average grant of nearly $2,500. More than 5.2 million students would be eligible for these grants, an increase of 60,000 students over the previous year.

Title I, those schools that serve the most in need, the resolution provides nearly $13 billion for title I grants to help schools in the high poverty communities move ahead with No Child Left Behind; $1 billion for the Reading First program, and increased funding for charter schools, magnet schools, voluntary public school choice, all substantial funding for these very important programs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Massachusetts has had some very harsh words for some Members of this body. I would query the gentleman from Massachusetts, if he would agree, how much is enough spending for the gentleman from Massachusetts?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this negotiation, this process that yields this budget, recognizes that we have a number of challenges at this point in time, and all points of view recognize that we have to create an environment, a climate for economic growth and strength, and we have to have fiscal restraint.

There is not a blank checkbook, as some, perhaps some from Massachusetts or other parts, might suggest where it is just an ongoing, empty, bottomless pit of spending. You have to be responsible about the taxpayers' money. You have to draw lines around it and prioritize, and we have done that in this budget.

In the minority, you have the luxury of not having to rally behind any one particular proposal. In fact, that is why there are two different substitutes offered that offer at least two very different viewpoints from your own caucus.

We have the obligation, we have the responsibility to actually move a product that changes lives. We have the responsibility to actually pass a budget that implements spending controls on an over $2 trillion Federal budget and put us on a path to cutting the deficit while still securing a climate that allows economic growth and prosperity to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is becoming more and more clear that there is never enough spending, although we will undoubtedly hear from speakers later in the evening who will talk about how they would have fiscal restraint over here, more spending over here, more spending over here and more fiscal restraint over here. They have that luxury being in the minority.

But the bottom line is education funding has gone up year after year after year. Special education funding is at record levels, far higher than it was when the other team was in charge.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), my good friend from the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentlewoman, who has apparently not had an opportunity to review the budget, that there is an additional $3.1 billion reserve fund for domestic priorities; $3.1 billion additional for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. And in addition to that, we budget for emergencies. We draw lines around the restraint that is necessary to keep the deficit on a path to be cut in half in 5 years. We keep the economy growing.

They rail against the $70 billion that were involved in tax reconciliation that prevents taxes from going up today, yet their own budget has $150 billion. Which is it? They talk about not having enough money in our side of the budget, and yet they rail about the deficit.

You can't have it both ways. Well, I guess you can if you are on the floor of the House arguing against a responsible budget plan.

This bill lays out a responsible roadmap towards shrinking the deficit, keeping the economy strong and growing, and being able to look constituents in the eye about the levels of spending. It does not open up a bottomless pit of spending, as some would prefer on the other side of the aisle, where enough is never enough. We recognize that trade- offs have to be made in businesses, in families, and in the Federal Government, and it is important that we look at both sides of the ledger, discretionary and mandatory.

The only thing that my friends on the other side of the aisle could find to clap about in the State of the Union Address was our President and our leadership's noble attempt to rein in mandatory spending, something that both parties' think tanks on each side of the ideological spectrum and administrations of each political party have agreed is in desperate need of help. Yet they can only take glee in the fact that they shut down the first real attempt to reform mandatory spending in a generation.

This budget lays out a framework for reform, restraint, and economic growth, and they are trying to have it not just both ways, but three or four or five different ways.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California and the speaker before him from Tennessee made reference to the Blue Dog budget, and, in fact, there was even reference to how difficult it is to produce a budget. Well, apparently it is so difficult they couldn't do it because there is no Blue Dog substitute.

I tip my hat to the Progressive Caucus. They managed to produce a budget that we will debate on this floor. It is an alternative view of where this Nation ought to be headed. I don't agree

with it, but they made the tough decisions to put it together, embody it in an amendment, and put it to debate on this floor. I tip my hat to Mr. Spratt, the distinguished ranking member of the committee. They have a substitute amendment.

The Blue Dogs are all bark and no bite. No budget substitute was offered. Apparently putting together a budget that met their own internal divisions proved too difficult in the end.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would ask the gentleman where the Blue Dog budget is? Where is the Blue Dog substitute amendment? We are looking for it. We can't find it. There is no Blue Dog substitute amendment. It is back on the porch. It is in the pound. It is in the kennel. I don't know where it is.

There is a progressive substitute. There is a Spratt substitute. There is no Blue Dog substitute.

There is not a Blue Dog substitute.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.

There have been three references to a Blue Dog substitute that is mythical. It is as mythical as the $727 billion tax gap, Wizard of Oz smoke and mirrors that is in one of the other substitutes. It is as mythical as the numbers that they use to pay for their increased spending.

There is no such thing. There is not a substitute amendment.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear we made our point.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Wisconsin with whom we have worked on the budget. The challenges I see with the Democratic substitute are ones that we have pointed out earlier. They depend upon money that doesn't exist to make their numbers work, a tax gap of $727 billion that the IRS can't find.

Well, if the IRS can't find it, does the other side know where it is? If we have been looking for it for all this time, but they know where it is to the point that they have budgeted it, $727 billion to make their numbers work, then they must have some better insight as to where that gap is.

It is smoke and mirrors. The CBO won't even score it. The CBO scores it as a zero revenue raiser. And yet they are depending on it for $727 billion.

They only allocate $150 billion in their substitute for tax relief. And yet we have had opportunities on this House floor for half that amount that they have rejected. We had opportunities to prevent the AMT from impacting millions of middle-class Americans. Rejected. Preventing capital gains rates from going up which have allowed revenues to the government to increase, 11, 12 percent. Dividend taxes, preventing those from going up. They have rejected that. But they put $150 billion in their own substitute, which doesn't even cover the child tax credit, the marriage penalty, the death tax, the whole host of other issues. The numbers don't add up.

Ours is the responsible, comprehensive blueprint. We deal with a freeze, a near freeze on discretionary spending,

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

Ours is the only budget that is comprehensive, responsible, and honest about the challenges that are facing this great land.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make two clarifications. One, to my friend from Massachusetts, I would clarify that the rule he seeks to repeal is commonly known as the Gephardt rule. Secondarily, I would clarify the clarification made by my friend Mr. Spratt that on page 51, lines 13 through 19 of the legislation known as the Spratt amendment, there is tax relief that is provided; the additional revenue loss is offset such as through the recovery of a portion of unpaid revenue, commonly known as the tax gap, which we referred to. So that is a portion of their amendment.

We like to give credit where credit is due, and being big fans of intellectual property rights, since we protect intellectual property, the real creative genius in that belongs to Mr. Gephardt.

To my friend from Massachusetts, we have had a speaker come in since I said to you that I had no further speakers, and I would inquire as to whether you objected to allowing him to speak for 2 minutes.

Very well.

I would yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we waited months for this? The fact is what we have before us is a sham. What the Republicans have come up with is essentially a shell game. Under this so-called grand compromise, moderate Republicans can increase spending on domestic programs, but only if they cut other domestic priorities.

In other words, if you want more money for children's immunizations or more money for No Child Left Behind, you have to cut funding for Medicaid or further cut student aid. This is the classic definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So to the moderates, let me say after all of us, you have got some words, but in reality you have got nothing. Do not be a cheap date. The responsibility is to the people of this country to make sure that their needs are met, not to saving face. Heaven forbid that the richest in this country do not get their capital gains tax cuts so that we can adequately fund health care and veterans benefits and education.

No, those precious tax cuts are protected. So tonight the crowd on Wall Street can have champagne and caviar at Tavern on the Green while the people who work on Main Street are scratching their heads with disbelief and asking why has their government forgotten them?

The misplaced priorities demonstrated in this budget are astounding. Last month we had a debate on the first rule for the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution. My friends on the other side of the aisle laid out their plans and did their best to defend their priorities.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, their plans are misguided, and their priorities are out of step with the American people. This is a major reason why it has taken weeks and weeks for the Republican leadership to try to jam their budget through this House. Under the Republican budget, our Nation's deficits get worse, not better.

Remember, under Republican policies, the 5 largest deficits in the history of the United States of America will have occurred in 5 consecutive years.

Further, this budget provides only $50 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I cannot figure out if they have forgotten about these wars or somehow stumbled onto an exit strategy. The truth is that we know the administration will request hundreds of billions of dollars for these wars in the next few years, but this budget makes no mention of that.

Under the Republican budget, up is down, down is up, and the war we see every day is not really happening. The Republicans once again underfund port security, despite their rhetoric of the Dubai Ports deal. Recently the Republicans followed the Democrats' lead and opposed President Bush's approval of the United Arab Emirates control of American ports.

But when faced with the opportunity to follow through on their rhetoric, they decided to cut port security by over $6 billion over the next 5 years.

Under this budget resolution, the Republicans make $228 billion available for new tax cuts, but in the process cut important education, health, and environmental programs.

Cutting these programs for tax cuts is deplorable. Deceiving the American people about future funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is flat wrong. But the most egregious thing about this budget is the way it disrespects our veterans.

My friend from Florida is fond of saying that facts are a stubborn thing. Indeed they are, and here are just a few facts:

According to the Department of Defense, there are almost 297,000 troops currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2003, the beginning of the war in Iraq, more than 1.2 million troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are troops that are most likely to need the services of the Veterans Affairs health care systems. These are the troops that will need the most help from this Congress. The costs of their treatment are substantial, yet the Republican budget actually cuts the funding that supports the veterans health care systems. The truth is there are two parts of the veterans funding in this budget, mandatory funding that is guaranteed to be there, and discretionary funding that is subject to appropriations. When mandatory funding is subtracted from the overall funding level, the truth is revealed; and the truth is that after fiscal year 2007 the amount of funding for veterans decreases by $4 billion. The administration claims they can live with these decreases because the number of veterans will decrease over the next few years. Well, the truth is that there was a 21 percent increase in the number of Iraq war veterans using the VA health care system in the first 3 months of 2006 alone. As of March 14, 2006, the VA had already treated 144,426 veterans, 33,858 more than the administration projected would use the VA system over the entire year.

The administration projected that it would treat 18,000 veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for post-traumatic stress disorder for fiscal year 2006, but as of March 14, 2006, VA data shows that it is already treating 20,638 veterans for PTSD, an increase of 2,638 before the middle of March.

How then with good conscience can they claim that the number of veterans needing care through the VA health systems will go down in the future? This is either dangerously naive or deliberately misleading. And the claim that the VA could get by with reduced funding would be laughable if it didn't have such serious ramifications.

Just look at what happened last year. The Republican leadership in the House provided $1.5 billion less than what the veterans services organizations recommended for the VA. For months we were told by the Republicans that, don't worry, everything will be fine. But finally in November the leadership finally relented and provided the amount needed to provide care for our veterans because they saw what was going on.

Well, it is deja vu all over again. The Republicans are calling for cuts to the VA system, but we all know we are going to need to provide more funding to meet the demand of the current soldiers who will be the veterans of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have alternatives. We have a plan that is simple. Besides reducing the deficit, reinstating the pay-as-you-go- system, and properly funding education, health care, and homeland security, we give the veterans the services and respect that they deserve. Our budget provides $6 billion more than the Republican budget does for veterans health care.

My Republican friends charge the Democrats believe enough is never enough. Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to America's veterans, I strongly believe that enough is enough only when veterans have timely access to quality health care that they were promised. I believe enough is enough only when our veterans are not forced to wait 6 months for a doctor's appointment. I believe enough is enough only when our veterans and our veterans' families are cared for with the utmost respect and are not shortchanged. We can and we must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 30 seconds so he can respond.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just respond to the gentleman.

When President Bush came to office, we had a debt of $5.6 trillion. By the end of this year, it will be over $9 trillion. By the end of his term, he will have doubled it. So you have done such a wonderful job driving this country into deep debt that we are going to have to pass it on to our children and our grandchildren.

Pay as you go is what we are saying over here. You are the ones who are behaving fiscally irresponsibly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman who is the ranking member on our Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

If the previous question is defeated, I will modify this rule to provide that immediately after the House passes this rule, it will take up legislation to restore fiscal responsibility to the congressional budget process.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will do two very important things. First, it will reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement that was in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act that expired in 2002. The bill will restore the PAYGO provision and extend it through the year 2011.

Mr. Speaker, the budget process may be complicated, but one thing is clear: We should be required to pay for new spending and tax breaks instead of running the highest deficits in the history of our country. The message is simple: If you want more tax breaks for millionaires, then pay for them. Our constituents have to take responsibility for their personal spending and their personal debt. So should we.

In addition, this bill will repeal rule XXVII, the House rule that blocks a direct vote on increasing the Federal debt limit, thereby shielding Members of this House from any responsibility for the massive rise in the debt ceiling. Under this rule, simply passing the budget effectively triggers an automatic increase in the debt ceiling. Members never have to get their hands dirty or explain to their constituents why our national debt continues to skyrocket to numbers that are so massive that they are almost impossible to comprehend. They never have to take a position or provide a reason. They can just pretend that it happened without any way to stop it. And to make this even worse, it only happens in the House. The Senate will still vote for the debt limit increase directly.

This Republican budget resolution calls for yet another increase in the debt limit by $653 billion, bringing our total debt limit to $9.6 trillion. Democrats believe that we should repeal House rule XXVII and require a straight up-or-down vote on raising the Federal debt limit.

I say to my colleagues, take responsibility. Show some backbone. Have some courage and explain to the American people why you are driving this country into debt.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, the so-called Gephardt rule expired, and then it was reinstated by the Republican majority; so it is now the Hastert rule.

No, I would not object.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, every justification of the budget we have heard today presents it as a noble and responsible attempt to respond to the harsh economic realities facing our Nation and our people. But when we examine it objectively, we can't avoid seeing the reality behind the pretense.

The bill is designed to do everything it can to protect the record tax cuts for the richest of Americans. For the majority, that is more important than educating our children or providing health care to the veterans or helping Americans raise themselves out of poverty, or even protecting our country from the consequences of either national disasters or mounting national debt.

The authors and supporters of the legislation will tell us that if we wish to avoid increasing our national deficit, which they have already driven to unprecedented heights, we have no choice but to spend on the programs that Americans rely on the most while they are busily cutting out the revenues that come into the government.

But, once again, they are offering a false choice. For 5 years they have forced the massive tax cuts through the Congress. Last week they made the most recent down payment on the cuts. One was $70 billion. While President Bush signs that bill into law today, Republicans are asking us to pass this bill which adds another $158 billion to those cuts. So in 2 weeks, we have made those massive cuts, and any justification melts away when we realize who is benefiting from it. They are not for the poor, they are not for the working class, they are not for the middle class. They are for the oil companies. They won't spur our economy or help the average person afford their morning drive to work. They are instead the cuts for billionaires and millionaires, pure and simple. They are not going to help the economy, but they will indeed help people who don't need it, and that assistance will come at the expense of everyone else.

But as always the case, despite objections not just from Democrats but much of the American public, reducing or extending these cuts isn't even on the table here. It never is. They are considered too sacred to touch. And just tonight in the Rules Committee, once again, we turned down an opportunity to pay for more by taking away part of their tax cut.

What do we get in exchange for this giveaway? Well, the majority offered us a budget that will cut domestic spending between 1 and 2 percent every year. As a result, the party that tells us to support the troops is cutting veterans health care by $6 billion. And we worry and fear for the over 20,000 young soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been grievously life-altering wounded will not be able to get the care they need when they come back.

Republicans who promised to leave no child behind will be cutting education funding by $45.3 billion, and the budget of the Department of Education by $2.2 billion.

Now, not content to make education less rewarding in the present, they apparently want to make our students worry more about loan payments in the future. The bill eliminates all mandatory spending on student loans, leaving congressional appropriators to somehow find $600 million to meet the students' needs.

The majority wants to cut environmental protection efforts by $25 billion, and take over $1 billion from community development and social service initiatives which we desperately need.

The poorest of the poor won't find any relief at all in this legislation. In fact, they will find the opposite. The budget will underfund housing and child care assistance by $447 million over the next year, and over 5 years the funding for them will fall almost $15 billion short.

What will the results be? Well, consider the fate of the commodity supplemental food program which provides nutritious meals to 420,000 low-income elderly and 50,000 mothers and children at a cost of $111 million a year. The budget eliminates it entirely.

Mr. Speaker, it may make sense that they are forcing the cuts through Congress so they can afford the hand-outs to the rich, but perhaps that really is what today's Republican Party stands for. But apparently they also stand for something new, contrary to their rhetoric: irresponsible government spending. The legislation before us will increase our deficit without a vote by $410 billion over the next 5 years. At the same time, it increases the debt limit by over $650 billion. By 2011, the limit will stand at $9.6 trillion.

When the Clinton administration left office, the debt limit was about $4.5 trillion, and they left us the greatest surplus we have ever had. The majority claims the bill will make us more fiscally secure, but what they really do is sow the seeds of greater insecurity both now and for years to come. When we realize that it isn't necessity driving this bill, but rather a world view that puts the richest Americans ahead of everybody else, we are not left with much else to say but ``shame.''

We don't share these values. Democrats believe instead, as did that great Republican President Theodore Roosevelt and countless other Americans, that investing in the middle class, which is disappearing quickly, and guaranteeing broad prosperity is the surest way to ensure sustained economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and indeed, it does beg the question, how much Federal spending is enough?

I am reminded yet again that people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts, and, Mr. Speaker, maybe we ought to get a few of the facts on the table. Let us just take a look in our rearview mirror over the last 10 years and see how much money the Federal Government has been spending.

International affairs is up 89.1 percent; natural resources and environment, 43.8 percent; commerce and housing credit, 28.4. Since we have been discussing education training and employment, in 10 years that budget has gone from $53 billion to $114 billion. That is an increase of 113 percent. I mean, Mr. Speaker, how much do we need here in Federal spending? Should it be a 130 percent increase in 10 years, 150, 200?

We have to remember, also, Mr. Speaker, where is this money coming from? Although maybe there is literally a printing press down the road, figuratively there is not one. All of this money is coming from some American family, and every time we are increasing some Federal program, we are taking it away from some family program. Right now, again, budgets are about values, and they are about dollars and cents, and ultimately, this debate does come down again to taxes and spending.

The Democrats have said that we are offering all these great tax cuts. I looked very closely in the budget. I am having a little trouble finding that. What I do find is that we are going to prevent a huge automatic tax increase engineered by the other side. It is very fascinating to me in the Federal city how spending is forever; yet tax relief seems to be temporary.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decry any of the tax relief that has occurred under President Bush's watch. So that means they want to take it away. Well, what does that mean? It means, well, the lowest-income taxpayers will see that their taxes are increased 50 percent. It means we lose the 10 percent bracket. We go to the 15 percent bracket, a 50 percent increase on our lowest-income taxpayers.

Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return if they have their way and have their huge automatic tax increases. Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits. Taxes on dividends and capital gains could jump as much as 100 percent.

Again, you start to think, well, wait a second, where is all this money coming from? Well, it is coming from families. It is coming from small business.

So how do families all across America afford to send their children to college? How about their education programs? Already, Mr. Speaker, we are now spending over $22,000 per American household. Last year was the first time since World War II that we have reached that level of spending. All that spending has got to be paid for. It has got be paid for. It has got to be paid for by American families.

Now, again, our friends on the other side of the aisle want to decry all of the tax relief and say that somehow it is the root cause of the deficit, the increase in the national debt. Well, again, they are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts.

I happen to have in my hand the latest report from the Treasury statement on revenues, which I would be happy to share with any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that says, guess what, we have more tax revenue. We have more tax receipts. Last year tax receipts increased roughly 15 percent. This year we are on track to have tax revenues increase about 11 percent.

Guess what? Since we have allowed American families and small business to keep more of what they earn, they have gone out and they have created jobs, and people pay taxes, and all of the sudden we have more tax revenues. It is kind of hard to make the argument that somehow tax relief that created 5 million new jobs has somehow added to the national debt. Clearly we have a large challenge with our national debt.

Mr. Speaker, I would say it is not because the American people are undertaxed. In fact, I am surprised that our friends on the other side of the aisle are not applauding the President for really presiding over one of the largest tax increases in American history. Here it is right here. We are awash in new revenue, but we did it the right way, Mr. Speaker. We grew the economy. We created jobs.

Now, what happens if you start to take the tax relief away? Well, again, since we have had tax relief, 5 million new jobs have been created. We have the highest rate of homeownership in the entire history of the United States of America, and yet, if you start to take away the tax relief, if you have these automatic tax increases, you lose the jobs. That is just wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding to me, and I would just like to go through with him and for the edification of those who may not be that familiar with it, some of the negotiations that have been going on with respect to this.

First of all, there are those of us who were concerned about the President's budget, Mr. Majority Leader, and we called that to your attention early on. It is a little bit unusual to be dealing with this at budget time because we are basically with one of the appropriations. And I agree with you that the gentleman from Ohio has done a wonderful job on this. I don't always vote for his budgets, but he has certainly done a wonderful job dealing with this over the years.

But in this particular circumstance, what came down from the President was not satisfactory to some of us, and so I prepared an amendment to increase the Labor HHS Education allocation by $7.158 billion. We then entered into the negotiations.

I don't remember any time precedence for that in the time that I have been here which has happened at the level of dealing with a specific allocation when we are dealing with the budget. Basically, we were concerned about health accounts. We wanted them increased by $1.1 billion, education accounts by 4.6; LIHEAP by 1.3 was the primary focus here. I tried to bring it to 2006 funding plus 2 percent for inflation.

We had negotiations with you, sir; we had negotiations with the chairman of

the Appropriations Committee and other House leaders as well. And let me just thank you very much for that. That has not always been the case, and we are very appreciative of it.

Eventually, a decision was made by the leadership to transfer over $6 billion which was shifted from defense in foreign operations without raising the cap at all with respect to the 302(a) number and $4.1 billion of that went to Labor, HHS, Education, which is $843 million more than was received in 2006.

Obviously, this is an important budget to many of us because we are concerned about what happens at home. This relates to health research, which is vital to all of us I think, to IDEA, to Centers for Disease Control, after-school care, vocational education and the National Institutes of Health, just to name a few. And so we increased it by that particular amount of money.

In further negotiations with Mr. Lewis and with you, we also established some other areas of concern that would be addressed, that is, community development block grants, the Byrne and COPS grants all would be at the 2006 levels, and the President's competitive initiative would be funded at his requested level. So all this was arranged as a matter of negotiation.

There was actually another billion dollars to homeland security and approximately $500 million to agriculture and $500 million to energy and water as part of this.

This is probably not ideal. And I am sure there are those who would get up and say, well, gee, why didn't you get the whole loaf? Well, I frankly don't know of anyone who has ever gotten this kind of change made in the budget after the budget has been introduced in terms of building to that.

And more importantly, we have an assurance from you, for whom I have a great deal of respect and trust, having worked with you and listening to your word on the Education Committee all these years, that this will be done, that we'll eventually get to the $7.158 billion, that we may get to it before we actually vote on the Labor, HHS, Education bill in the House or perhaps later when it might come out of conference. And that is very important as well. That has been repeated again and again and I think needs to be reiterated here today.

Then that raises the question of if this is an assurance or a sense of Congress, versus real money, which is what it really is when you get right down to it. We have received commitments that that additional $3 billion will not come from mandatory programs that serve the people we are trying to help, like Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, foster programs and others. We want to make sure that any offsets are carefully crafted and our group of about 20 people that has been involved with this has no intentions of supporting reductions which would adversely affect the neediest among us who we are trying to help by this. And I think it is very important that everybody understand that we have had that discussion as well in terms of where we are going as far as the future is concerned. So I would like to thank you for the negotiations.

With that, I do support the budget; and, sure, I would like to have the whole loaf, so to speak, if we could. But I understand why we are not there now, and perhaps there will be other changes actually before we vote on this. I don't know.