Calling on the Government of the United Kingdom immediately to establish a full, independent, public judicial inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Patrick Finucane, as recommended by Judge Peter Cory as part of the Weston Park agreement, in order to move forward on the Northern Ireland Peace Process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentlemen before yielding to Mr. Hoyer. What we have provided here is that there will be $150 billion of tax cuts before the PAYGO rule applies.

Otherwise, we just would take the PAYGO rule, which worked so well for us in the 1990s, which on three occasions, the gentleman heard him, Alan Greenspan said we should reinstate, double edge, applicable to tax cuts as well as to entitlement increases.

And what we are saying is, applying the PAYGO rule, go through the Code, as we did in 1986, $2\1/2\ trillion, surely the deductions and credits and exemptions and preferences there that can help you offset the taxes that will come up for renewable in 2010. That is what we are proposing.

You have got $228 billion in this budget resolution alone calls for tax cuts of that amount. It does not have a dime of them covered. And that is why, one of the reasons, that the deficit next year will be $545 billion on budget, before applying Social Security surplus. And 5 years from now it will be $428 billion. That is assuming no fix of the AMT and no additional costs after 2007 for Iraq.

That is why they do not get anywhere. It is a tread-water budget. So what we have proposed simply is that there would be additional tax cuts, of course, up to $150 billion without having to apply the PAYGO rule. But after that they would have to be offset so we can get about the business of working off these enormous deficits, which everybody knows are not sustainable into the future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Maryland 1 additional minute.

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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me say something first on a personal note. For 6 years now, Jim Nussle and I have sat side by side on the Budget Committee and collaborated and worked together in the spirit of cooperation and comity. We have had our vigorous disagreements from time to time; but there was always, always, the civility and friendship born of mutual respect between the two of us. We never had the pleasure of converging and collaborating on a budget itself, and I am sorry for that, Jim; but we always had I think the same goals in mind, the good of the country.

We are going to miss you here. I am going to be the first to come to the well and salute you for your service to the House and to the country and for the work you have done in particular on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, with all the jargon and all the numbers and all the rhetoric, it is hard to find your way around this budget maze, so let me start with just the basics, so basic that let's do something revolutionary, read the resolution before you.

Read this resolution and you will see that right here, page 1, the public debt of the United States will be $11.3 trillion in the year 2011, 5 years from now. At the end of 2001, 5 years ago, the day President Bush took office, the public debt was $5.7 trillion. That means that between 2002 and 2011, under the policies of this administration and this budget resolution, the public debt of the United States is going to double. In a 10-year period of time, we are going to double the debt from $5.7 trillion to $11.3 trillion. It is right here in your own resolution.

Keep on reading and you will see that the on-budget deficit for next year, the year 2007, is $545 billion. Now, on-budget, that means before you offset that against the surplus in Social Security. But there is a reason it is listed as an on-budget surplus or an on-budget deficit in this resolution. The law requires it, just as the law requires that Social Security be taken off budget.

Off budget, when it is treated that way, the deficit is $545 billion in the year 2007. In the year 2011, the on-budget deficit will be $428 billion. But that doesn't include anything for fixing the AMT. We all know that has to be done. It will have a significant effect on revenues when it is. Nor does it include anything after 2007 for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So when you make adjustments for those two factors, you are really back up to $550 billion.

For 5 years we will tread water, go nowhere. It is right here, the numbers in this resolution, the first two pages of this resolution. That is why I say this budget resolution presents no plan and no prospect of ever balancing the budget.

Indeed, our calculations show, from the staff of the Budget Committee, our calculations shows that this budget will actually make the deficit $400 billion worse over 5 years than if we just stood still and had a current services budget.

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. 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.

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

First of all, Mr. Chairman, it is my role and responsibility as the chairman of the Budget Committee to draft and defend the majority budget. I have done so. And that is the base resolution that we are considering tonight, to which the Republican Study Committee has provided an opportunity to look into the future and see what is possible. I oppose it, respectfully. And while there is enough of it that is worthy of discussion and worthy of support, it is my job, as I say, to defend and to pass the majority budget, and we will do so later on.

But let me just touch on some things that I think are important as you consider not only the underlying bill, but also what the Republican Study Committee has done. First of all, the members of the Republican Study Committee clearly have learned the lessons of the 1990s and the effort that we made to balance the budget, and there were three of them.

And let me suggest that those three lessons that we learned, that I certainly learned as a member of the Budget Committee, as a Member of Congress looking at the challenges that we faced, the first lesson was that we needed to grow the economy. That was clear. And we did so. The economy grew by leaps and bounds, and it brought revenue into the Treasury like never before. We cut the capital gains tax, and it created opportunities, it created jobs, and it created new businesses. As a result, it created new revenue to the Treasury.

Second, the lesson was if you control spending, if you slow things down, even to a freeze level, that that can help you gain the traction to get back to fiscal responsibility.

But the most important lesson, I believe, of the 1990s exercise of going through the Contract with America budget, as my friend from Texas suggested, and so many other budgets during those years that were successful, it was that we reformed government; that we were constantly weeding the garden looking for opportunities to make changes, looking for opportunities to deliver the product of government, the services of government in a more effective and efficient way.

I realize that there will be a lot of vitriol, of people coming forward saying you must hate this group or you must hate this person or you don't care about this. I would never cast that aspersion on anybody in this body. I say that very seriously. There is nobody who could get elected to this body by being that unfeeling and uncaring about the people that they serve and the people that elect them. It is just not possible.

So to say those kinds of things and to measure it based on the size of the wallet that the Federal Government is willing to throw at any problem is just, I believe, a ridiculous proposition. We can disagree on the method to solve problems, on the ways that we will meet challenges, but to come to the floor and suggest that just because you want to reform a program that has operated the same way for 20 years is because somehow you don't care, that is just simply not what either the RSC is trying to suggest in the budget they are proposing or that we are suggesting in the underlying budget.

We believe it is time, and that the time should always be present to reform government and to look for ways to use tax dollars wisely and to deliver a better product or service to the people that we are trying to help. That is what the RSC budget does.

Now, it does so at a time that we have other challenges. Obviously, we have many unexpected expenses that came up as a result of a war, as a result of 9/11, as a result of homeland security, as a result of immigration challenges, and as a result of Katrina, the hurricane. We have so many challenges that our budgets have had to face, and I believe we have balanced them as well as possible.

So while the RSC budget may go too far for a majority of people in the House of Representatives tonight, it does push the envelope forward and say we should always lean forward when it comes to reforming government.

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. 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. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

There is a lot of interesting partisanship with regard to spending tonight, because the gentleman comes to the floor and says it is all our spending and it is all our fault, and yet the gentleman is the same gentleman on the Appropriations Committee who rolled out most of these bills, who takes credit for most of the projects, who voted for final passage in the conference reports on most of those bills as they move through the process. And so to blame us for spending I think is a little bit ridiculous.

Let me take the second one. He blames us for Katrina. I think that was a hurricane; I don't think it was a partisan issue. And instead of doing something about it in your budget, we actually put a reserve fund to plan for hurricanes, to plan for emergencies, to plan for natural disasters, the first time we have ever done this as a Congress. Not when the gentleman was in control in the majority. We have done this. We learned our lessons from Katrina. We are going to plan for natural disasters. We believe it is high time that we do that. So the gentleman comes to the floor and blames us. No, he blamed the President for Katrina, and then does nothing about it in his budget.

One final point. For the gentleman to say on the floor tonight that we cut too much on the one hand and that we provide too much tax relief on the other, there is only one plan that solves both and that is the Spratt Democrat substitute, and that is a massive tax increase on America. It is a secret, no one wants to talk about it; it is in the plan that they have rolled out. But the only way you deal with your huge increases of spending and your huge reductions in the tax relief policy that has been put out there to grow our economy is to increase taxes. That is the only way.

So I would say to the gentleman that he has certainly laid out a fine argument, but his own Web site demonstrates that I think he has a lot of credit that he can take for the challenges that this budget and this deficit and this fiscal situation have caused.

Mr. Chairman, we reserve to close.

Mr. Chairman, first let me say thank you to my friend Mr. Spratt. I liked the first part of his speech a little bit better than the last part, but I do thank him for his friendship, for his professionalism. There is nobody in the House of Representatives that knows more about the budget than he does, and he has been a worthy partner and friend in this effort. I want to thank him for that.

Also I want to thank my committee members and the staff that worked so hard to put together this product. When it comes right down to it, as Mr. Spratt said, this is, I suppose, a document with numbers on it. There is no such thing as a perfect budget, only the budget that gets 218 votes.

If I wrote the budget for the budget that I personally wanted, it might look a little differently. We have seen substitute opportunities tonight that did not quite get the votes. We need to pass a budget that gets the votes. That may not be perfect to fit everybody's idea of exactly what the priorities are, but what we in a democracy can agree is the right direction.

So to close on our side, I would like to recognize and yield the balance of our time to our friend and the Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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. 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. 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. 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, this is very simple. If you think that we should eliminate the child tax credit and raise those taxes on child credit, support this amendment. If you believe that we should eliminate the 10 percent bracket, support this amendment. If you believe that the marriage penalty should be increased, that the tax on marriage should be increased, vote for this amendment.

If you do not believe in the education tax relief, vote for this amendment. If you do not want the pension reforms that we have that have taken place, vote for this amendment. If you support not relieving the AMT, support this amendment. And if you believe that people should pay taxes even after they are dead, support this amendment. If you believe also that we should cut defense, support this amendment.

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

Mr. 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. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, this side has this right to close? I want to make sure that that is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how many speakers the sponsor of the amendment has lined up still?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for his answer. I will always try to accommodate him as much as possible to close.

Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can work that out.

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?

At this time, we will reserve and thank you.

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.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

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. 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

Mr. Chairman, that reality is that recovery is a long- term effort. Recovery in New Orleans will not be achieved in a single fiscal year, and it should not be accomplished with emergency appropriations.

There are a number of pieces of the recovery that we know will take time to achieve, for example, enhancing the levees and flood protection systems along the gulf coast, and restoring homes and businesses. The Army Corps of Engineers has told the Congress repeatedly that this project will take from 5 to 7 years to complete; and yet

not only does the Republican budget provide no funding for this project, it actually cuts overall funding for the Corps of Engineers at a time of extreme need. By contrast, the CBC provides significant additional funding to enhance our hurricane and flood protection systems back home.

The Republican budget starves housing programs at a time when along the gulf coast we are facing the gravest housing crisis in our Nation's long history. The CBC budget recognizes the need for a long-term commitment to solving our housing crisis confronting thousands of Americans across Mississippi and Louisiana and provides significant resources for this critically needed project in our area.

Mr. Chairman, the budget of the United States government should reflect the values and the priorities of the American people. After all, as our nation's first Republican President described it, the government of our great country is supposed to be a ``government of the people, by the people, for the people.'' The Republican budget before us today, however, ignores the needs of the vast majority of the American people in order to preserve tax benefits that overwhelmingly benefit very few, very wealthy Americans. In other words, the priority of the Republican budget seems to reflect a devotion to taking care of those with the most, while overlooking those with the greatest need.

The preparation of the federal budget by Congress is similar to a family's preparation of its household budget. In order for it to succeed, priorities must be set, and discipline must be exercised. Too often, however, discipline is sacrificed to the pleasures of the moment. In Washington, we call the consequences of such behavior budget deficits. In our households, we call those consequences debt. Neither is good--for the country or for our families.

As a reflection of our nation's priorities, the Republican budget resolution that we debate today is a clear demonstration of just how fundamentally the Republican majority misunderstands the needs of the American people. It is fiscally reckless, morally bankrupt, and utterly devoid of the type of economic discipline and leadership that the nation requires--a budget that sets yet another record budget deficit and threatens to unravel completely the social safety net that protects the least among us in the places where the need is greatest.

The Republican budget resolution continues to drive our nation's budget deficit higher; fails to protect Social Security and Medicare; underfunds education; makes damaging cuts to community and regional development programs, income security programs, the Earned Income Tax Credit, child care and foster care programs, and nutrition programs; cuts veterans programs while simultaneously imposing new fees on veterans for current services; and includes harmful cuts to Medicaid, thereby jeopardizing health care for over 52 million children, parents, seniors and disabled individuals who rely on the program for their healthcare.

In sum, the Republican budget we are considering today offers the most to those who need the very least and takes the most from those who can least afford it.

During debate of this budget, I have heard a great deal of rhetoric about hard choices and shared sacrifice. However, it seems that the only choice my Republican friends have made is the easiest one a politician can make--to continue to cut taxes, however fiscally irresponsible perpetuating them may be. With respect to shared sacrifice, the evidence leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that the only sacrifices in this budget are being borne by the poor, the elderly on fixed incomes, the infirm, children and students. Accordingly, in the Bizarro world of the Republican budget, those with the least are compelled to sacrifice the most, while those with the most are not asked to sacrifice at all. That formula certainly does not reflect my priorities; nor, I am confident, does it reflect the priorities of the American people.

In one of his great parables, Jesus once said, ``when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed.'' If you compare this budget to the great banquet He described, in this budget, there are place cards and a sumptuous feast for the Forbes 400 and the Fortune 500, for the rich and the powerful-- but, like Lazarus at the rich man's gate, the economically disenfranchised, the working families struggling to make ends meet, the students trying to get the education they need, those whose lives of poverty shocked the conscience of the nation when Hurricane Katrina exposed the straits so many grapple with daily in this wealthiest country in the world--they will be lucky to get even the scraps that fall from the table this budget constructs.

By contrast, my friend from South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, and the Congressional Black Caucus have offered two alternatives to the Republican budget that are fiscally responsible while meeting the real needs of the American people.

Both alternatives restore fiscal discipline, protect Social Security, narrow disparities for minorities in healthcare, education and wealth creation, and fund national priorities like education, veterans' programs, and community development programs.

The Democratic substitute achieves a balanced budget in 7 years, by 2012, all the while balancing fiscal responsibility with the moral obligation to maintain the social safety net for Americans in greatest need.

The CBC budget alternative achieves balance even earlier, by 2011, and yet still makes great progress toward narrowing the growing disparities in America's communities by focusing on education, health care, economic opportunity, justice, and retirement security. It fully funds the President's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB); provides an extension for the Head Start Program; increases federal funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions; enhances the Pell Grant allotment for college students; provides additional funding for the Minority Health Initiative and for Community Health Centers in urban and rural communities; increases assistance for job training, workforce development and adult education; funds home ownership programs; restores funding for Community Development Block Grants; and improves funding for law enforcement programs such as COPS.

Of personal significance to me, to my constituents and to the millions of Americans all along the Gulf coast whose lives were turned upside down by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the CBC budget acknowledges a reality that the Republican budget ignores--that recovery is a long- term effort. Recovery will not be achieved in a single fiscal year, and it should not be accomplished through emergency appropriations. There are a number of pieces of the recovery that we know will take time to achieve, for example, enhancing the levees and the hurricane and flood protection systems along the Gulf coast. The Army Corps of Engineers has told the Congress repeatedly that this project will take from 5 to 7 years to complete, and yet not only does the Republican budget provide no funding for this project, it actually cuts overall funding for the Corps of Engineers at a time of extreme need. By contrast, the CBC budget provides significant additional funding to enhance our hurricane and flood protection system back home.

The Republican budget starves housing programs at a time when, along the Gulf coast, we are facing the gravest housing crisis in our nation's long history. Both the Democratic and CBC alternatives recognize the need for a long-term commitment to resolving the housing crisis confronting thousands of Americans in Louisiana and Mississippi and provide significant resources for that critically important effort.

In the face of a natural disaster that laid waste to colleges and schools all along the Gulf coast, the Republican budget turns a blind eye to both the immediate and long term needs for reconstruction and rehabilitation of our education infrastructure. By contrast, both the Democratic and CBC alternatives provide additional resources to meet those challenges.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, both these alternatives recognize the success and critical importance of community and regional development programs to our nation's economy and to the recovery of our economy back home. Both alternatives allocate additional monies to these programs, while the Republican budget significantly shortchanges CDBG and other programs despite tremendous support and real current and long-term needs.

For these reasons, I am proud to rise in strong support of both the Democratic and CBC alternatives and in fervent opposition to the Republican budget. I will continue to fight to ensure that the needs and values of the least among us--hard-working American families--are reflected in the legislation we consider in the Congress. A responsible budget is the first step towards building a future worthy of the trust of the American people; and the Democratic and CBC alternatives are a step in the right direction; the Republican budget resolution is, at best, a step backward.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the Black Caucus budget for what it does for my district back home.

Mr. 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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), an esteemed member of the Budget Committee.

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. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Nussle.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

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.

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.