Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to acknowledge our dear friend and colleague Chairman Nussle for his great work. It has been one of my great honors and privileges to serve on his Budget Committee. I have thought that Chairman Nussle has had the hardest job in this body, and he has always chaired the Budget Committee with fairness and principle and diligence, and, I might add, success. Again, it has been an honor and a privilege to serve with him as he introduces his last budget. All I can say is Congress's loss is certainly Iowa's gain.

Mr. Chairman, over 10 years ago, visionary men and women of the Republican Party came forth with a very bold budget plan called the Contract with America budget. The Contract with America captured the imagination of the American people, and it gave the Republicans control of the people's House for the first time in decades.

More than just numbers, Mr. Chairman, the budget was about bedrock values. It called for true compassion by removing the yoke of dependency fashioned by the welfare state and replacing it with an opportunity society. It spoke of restoring personal freedom by ending centralized bureaucratic micromanagement of the Federal Government. It called for reforms, it called for accountability, and finally, Mr. Chairman, it actually balanced the budget without tax increases on hard-working American families.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Contract with America budget was never enacted. Washington ignored the budget's ominous warning that if it failed to pass, within 10 years the national debt would grow to over $7.5 trillion from excess spending. That has proven true.

Today, members of the Republican Study Committee introduce the Contract with America Renewed Budget, a budget that is dedicated to achieving the goals of the original, chiefly balancing the budget in 5 years without raising taxes. This is the only budget proposed in Congress that would do so.

Mr. Chairman, not enough Americans realize it, but you can actually balance the budget without cutting 1 penny of Federal spending. That is right, without cutting 1 single penny. Even our budget will still grow government, but we slow its rate of growth, as we must. For the last 10 years, the Federal budget has grown beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. Washington has spent twice the rate of inflation and 50 percent faster than the family budget, and yet Democrats want to spend even more and tax more.

Every time Congress grows a Federal program, it takes money away from a family program, like a down payment on a home, college tuition for a child, or money to launch a small business. American families have to prioritize their spending every year. They have to balance their budget every year. They should expect no less from their Federal Government.

Now, to achieve a balanced budget without increasing taxes, our budget demands accountability, performance, and priorities. We propose the elimination of over 150 Federal programs. After almost 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we should still not be funding Radio Free Europe. The citrus canker program is not of equal priority to Kevlar vests for our brave troops, and we simply do not need other bridges to nowhere.

Our budget prevents the massive, the massive planned Democrat tax increase that threatens the 5 million new jobs that have been created since Republicans in this body enacted tax relief and progrowth job policies in 2003. Our budget proposes to reform out-of-control entitlement spending and then saving, actually saving, Medicare as we know it for our children.

The budget proposes a number of reforms, like a constitutional line item veto, a sunset commission, and earmark reform, all geared towards saving the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that soon Democrats will stand up and call this something akin to a tough and heartless budget. But, Mr. Chairman, the tough and heartless budget is theirs. Their budget ignores out-of-control spending and will lead the next generation to desperate economic times.

According to the General Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and anybody else who has looked at the problem, without spending reforms we will soon be faced with the choice of having a Federal Government consisting of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or actually doubling taxes on the next generation. That is the Democrats' budget plan for America.

But if we will simply embrace the principles of a balanced budget and limited accountable government, our future is bright. We can ensure unlimited freedom and unlimited opportunity for this generation and the next. We should enact the Contract with America Renewed Budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I find it a little surreal to be lectured by a Democrat on the subject of spending since for the last 10 years every time the Republicans have introduced a budget, they have introduced a budget that spends more. If the gentleman is really concerned about spending, he should support the budget that spends the least, which is this budget.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman who is of the class of 1994 who voted for the original Contract With America, a former chairman of the Republican Study Committee and one of the great conservative leaders in the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a coauthor of the Family Budget Protection Act, one of the great fiscal conservatives of Congress, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to a gentlewoman who knows that spending will increase every year under this budget, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the esteemed majority deputy whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, since I know he has capability of being twice as profound, I will yield him half the time. At this time I yield 30 seconds to the father of earmark reform, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, one of the great conservative leaders in our Nation, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, again, what we see in this budget debate is it comes down to a debate about values, it comes down, frankly, to a debate about spending, it comes down to a debate about taxes.

Now, again, what we have heard all evening is that somehow the tax relief passed by Republicans has led to great deficits. The only problem is, that doesn't seem to jive with the facts.

I hold in my hand here the latest Treasury report on revenues. Since we have actually passed tax relief, we have more tax revenues. More tax revenues. When we allow the American people, the American families and small businesses to keep more of what they earn, they go out and they create jobs. And a lot of these jobs happen to be in my district. But, Mr. Chairman, if we enact this Democrat alternative, you are going to have a massive tax increase and you are going to start taking the jobs away.

Since we passed tax relief, Hugh Dublin in my congressional district, his business used to have three employees. Since we passed tax relief, he added two new employees, a guy named Dan and a guy named David.

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

Let me tell you about Eddie Alexander of SSS Electric in my district back in Texas. Since we have had tax relief, he has had to hire two new people himself, a gentlemen by the name of Jared and a gentleman by the name of John Feagins. They were both unemployed, looking for employment in Henderson County, Texas.

Well, due to tax relief, they were able to expand their business. Yet the Democrats in their substitute budget want to increase taxes on Eddie Alexander and SSS Electric. They want to take away the paychecks of Jared and John and replace them with welfare checks. That is not compassion, Mr. Chairman. We need to reject this Democratic alternative.

Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to speak at this point in time in the debate. But somebody, sometime ought to talk about facts.

The gentleman mentions the Contract with America. The first plank of the Contract with America was fiscal

responsibility. Now, you weren't in charge when the Contract With America came into your purview as the majority in 1995. Bill Clinton was President of the United States. I have served here, my 26th year; 18 of those have been with Republican Presidents. Eight have been with a Democratic President. Every one of those 18 years we had a deficit of over $100 billion.

Now, there is only one person in America who can stop spending, the President of the United States. Reagan didn't stop spending. Bush didn't stop spending, and this President has spent, and you have spent, twice as much as we spent under Bill Clinton. The Heritage Foundation will tell you that, not we Democrats. We will tell you that too, but the Heritage Foundation will tell you that, I tell my friend from Texas.

You have voted for budgets which have provided the largest deficits in our history. In the last 64 months, your budgets and your policies have resulted in an additional $3 trillion of deficit spending. Three trillion. You are in charge of the House, you are in charge of the Senate, and you have the Presidency.

Now you say, oh, we had 9/11 and then we had the war. You didn't have that during the Reagan years, and you had a deficit every year. You didn't have that in Bush I. You had the Gulf War I, but guess what, that President Bush had the rest of the world substantially pay for that effort.

$3 trillion in additional debt. And in this budget, you are going to add an additional 650 billion-plus to the national debt. Those deficits, by the way, so you understand, and these are facts, you are welcome to look at your little books, get out your staff and say, oh, no, Hoyer is lying. The public maybe is watching.

During Republican Presidents those 18 years, $4.3 trillion of deficit spending net. You know what you had under Bill Clinton? $62.5 billion of surplus. The only President in your lifetime, I say to all of you, who had a net surplus during the course of his terms.

So I hear the gentleman from Texas get up and talk about the Contract With America. It was blarney.

You said you were going to be fiscally responsible. The finances of this Nation over the last 6 years have been the worst since my service here, and perhaps in the history, I think in the history of America. You talk a good game, but you are not playing a good game. You are not playing for real, and you are trying to fool the American public. The problem you have is they are not being fooled.

Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that Democrats have not spent any money over the last 6 years. None of our budgets have passed. The appropriations bills would not have passed but for Republican votes, and the Republican President signed the budgets. That is what this crowd has offered. They have done it all. What has that meant? Three trillion dollars of additional deficit spending. That is what it has meant. This budget continues that practice.

Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming majority of Americans now believe that our great Nation is headed in the wrong direction. Not difficult to understand why they think that.

The Republican Party's incompetence over the past 5\1/2\ years is undeniable, from the miscalculations in Iraq to the inept response to Hurricane Katrina, to failure to secure our ports and borders, to the historic turnaround in our fiscal health from the $5.6 trillion surplus that they inherited, which they have turned into a $4 trillion deficit, a $9.6 trillion turnaround in 64 months; 5.4 million more Americans live in poverty, 6 million more are uninsured. Real median household income has dropped nearly $1,700. Thus, today it is stunning that our Republican colleagues have brought a budget resolution to this floor that so badly betrays our values and fails to meet our Nation's priorities.

This shamefully short-sighted budget resolution cuts crucial investment in our Nation and our people. The difference, I tell my friend from Wisconsin, is we want to pay for what we buy. You are buying a lot. You are buying more than we bought when we were in charge. You are not paying. You are borrowing from the Japanese, the Chinese, the Saudis. You borrowed more money from foreigners over the last 5 years than were borrowed in the 210 years before that.

Over the next 5 years, it slashes education by $45 billion; veterans health care, to which the gentleman referred, by $6 billion; public health by $18 billion; and environmental protection by $25 billion.

Even worse, this budget resolution is a continuation of the most reckless fiscal policies in the history of our Nation, policies that have squandered, as I said, a $5.6 trillion budget surplus. Who said that? George Bush, March 2001, said that is what we had.

They added more than $3 trillion to the national debt and weakened our ability, weakened our ability to respond to national and international crises.

Listen, my friends, to the warning of the nonpartisan Comptroller General David Walker, not a Democrat, appointed by your side, who stated in February, ``Continuing on the unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode if not suddenly damage our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security.''

Mr. Chairman, that is what Mr. Walker says their budgets are doing to America; yet that is precisely what this Republican budget continues to do. It not only fails to rein in the record Republican deficits of the last 5 years, it makes them worse. Hear me. This budget makes the deficits worse. It not only fails to arrest our exploding national debt, it calls for a debt limit increase of 653 billion additional dollars.

Last year during our debate on the budget resolution, the chairman of the Budget Committee confidently proclaimed, and I quote, ``We will be able to give, I believe, our kids and grandkids the opportunities of a debt-free world if we begin with a small step again this year.''

That is the chairman who brings to this floor a $653 billion additional increase in our national debt. The chairman's assertion then has been eviscerated by the facts now. Vote for this responsible Spratt alternative and reject this fiscally reckless proposal on top of the last five fiscally reckless proposals.

The reality is, this budget resolution--and the Republican party's policies--have instigated a dangerous spiral of deficits and debt that constitute nothing less than fiscal child abuse, because they will immorally force our children and grandchildren to pay our bills.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic alternative is reasonable and responsible.

It would balance the budget by 2012; reinstate the pay-as-you-go budget rules that were instrumental in creating four consecutive budget surpluses in the 1990s; and invest in our Nation and our people.

Our Democratic alternative provides matching resources for defense, and more resources for education, veterans' health care and other health priorities, and the environment.

I urge my colleagues: vote for fiscal sanity.

Vote for the budget that puts America back on the right track.

Vote for the Democratic substitute.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rose to express my appreciation on behalf of the people of Maryland for allowing us to invest in some very important projects. I will continue to take credit for those. But your budgets are the only ones that have passed, and the appropriations bills are the ones you have offered on the floor.

But let me say to the gentleman, I have been here long enough so that in 1993 I heard all the arguments from all your leadership that adopting our budget proposal would send the country to rack and ruin, would explode the deficit, explode unemployment, and create a deep recession. Dick Armey, your leader, said that, the Speaker said that, the chairman, Mr. Kasich, of your Budget Committee said that.

You are 180 degrees wrong, dead flat wrong. Exactly the opposite happened. Under a proposal that we made that you said was a massive tax increase, you never talk about of course the $250-plus billion spending cut, but we had the best economy in the history of America.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

You know, Mr. Chairman, there are some things we know about this budget proposal and some things that we don't know. We know that it raises taxes. We know that it raises taxes by a bunch. We know that it is about $100 billion a year, or half a trillion dollars over 5 years; that it raises taxes. What we don't really know is what taxes and for how much.

Now, the gentlemen across the aisle have indicated that it is their intention to raise taxes on those making $200,000 or more.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, it is funny. If I am taxing you at 15 percent and then I tax you at 30 percent, I would think that most people would think that was an increase. I don't know how anyone would say that is not an increase. Four is more than three. Five is more than four. Thirty percent is more than 15 percent. Twenty percent is more than 15 percent. So you can call it anything you like, but it is in fact a tax increase.

So my question is for you, which you can answer later, but have you done any computations as to how you are going to tax?

I would like to finish my remarks at this time, if I could, thank you.

How you are going to tax people with $200,000 or more income? What rate are you going to go to to raise this kind of money? So we know it is going to tax a lot. We don't know exactly how. We also don't know, because we don't know exactly how, what effect that is going to have on the economy.

We can talk a lot about tax increases and so forth, but the fact is that since the tax decreases of 2003, revenue to this government has increased substantially. We are tracking nearly a 12 percent increase this year after a 15 percent increase last year, and the rate since 2003 of increased revenues to the government is substantially higher after the tax rate reduction of 2003 than it was after the tax increases of the early 1990s.

You might find this hard to believe, but that is the way economics works. Sometimes when a business lowers the price of a product, people buy more of it and they actually make more money.

What has happened here is exactly that. We have lowered taxes, and the economy has increased, the economy has grown, and more total dollars are coming into the Federal Government. So we know taxes will be increased, but we don't know how much this is going to depress the economy. But it will.

Therefore, even though you may increase taxes at the rate of $100 billion a year, you will not see $100 billion a year revenue, because we know also the computations show that the tax decreases we have had already actually resulted in increased revenue.

The other thing we know that it does is it spends more money. The gentleman from Virginia outlined a bunch of things, most of which sounded to me as though it was discretionary spending increases, I believe, which means that if I am doing the math correctly, we are looking at discretionary spending increases of about 7 percent just in one year, 7 percent every year, which, if you keep that going with the entitlement increases which are already there, and there is no entitlement reform to deal with those, it is so perplexing to me that you introduce a budget on the basis of it being fiscally responsible and balancing, and then you propose to increase spending along the way, and increase spending by as much as 7 percent a year on discretionary spending.

That is not how you balance budgets. That is not how you get things back in line, by increasing spending.

Also, there was a discussion of smoke and mirrors. Well, the other thing that was included in the committee's budget was a reserve for natural disasters, which I believe you now have added to your budget here just recently, but there is an additional reserve we have for the war, the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, you may not agree with that war, and that is not the issue we are discussing today, but even if you were to terminate, decide you were going to immediately withdraw from both Iraq and Afghanistan, there will be additional supplemental expenditures going into next year even to do that. So by not including that, you are not including some additional spending, which is going to happen and is not included in your budget which is included in the committee's budget.

So, in summary, I think we are looking at higher taxes, less economic growth, more spending, and I would argue, when computed properly, higher deficits.

Mr. Chairman, if this budget levels with the American people, then level with the American people and tell them what taxes you are going to raise. Tell them who you are going to raise it on, tell them how much you are going to raise it.

Sir, I am only taking a minute and a half. You can respond at that time, because I have several other questions.

Tell them who you are going to raise it on, what rates they are going to be and what effect those are going to have on the economy.

Again, level with the American people on whether or not the spending that you have added to this thing increases the deficit or not, and level with the American people about whether or not you have accounted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are still going on, and level with the American people about whether or not you have included any reform of the entitlement programs that will soon eat up two-thirds of our entire Federal revenues and eventually eat up 100 percent of our Federal revenues; and level with the American people that that tax cut that the President just signed today, that increased time of those tax rates, has increased the economy in the United States and resulted in more revenue to the Federal Government and thereby reduced the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, what I hear here and what I see here are four things: tax, spend, smoke, and mirrors.

Tax. We have seen, we have heard half a trillion dollars over 5 years, massive tax increase as yet not clearly defined, but a massive tax increase nonetheless.

Spend. Spending, that is, nearly a 7 percent increase in discretionary spending, that sort of spending which is unsustainable over time without constantly accelerating tax increases. So spending supposedly as the way to get us out of the deficit.

Smoke. Smoke to hide those things which are not addressed in the budget, such as the spending necessary for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to deal with the ever escalating entitlement spending that we have going forth.

And mirrors used to make all of this look like somehow it is going to reduce the deficit over time, which I assure you, with the reduction to the economic growth that this will do and the additional spending that is in here and the lack of reform on any of that spending, I absolutely assure you, reducing the deficit is one thing this budget will not do.

Mr. Chairman, I tried to keep track on my paper here of how many times the opposition to this budget proposal used the word ``cut,'' and I ran off the edge of the page. It is 30- something or 40-something times they used the word ``cut.''

The truth is, this budget that is before you increases spending every single year. Let me repeat that. This budget increases spending every single year. Increasing is not a cut. When you go from three to four, that is not a cut. It does not increase spending as much as the current rate of increase, which is unsustainable over time, which is why this is such a responsible budget.

It also does not increase taxes and does not depress the economy in the way an increase of taxes would do, but it does balance this budget in 5 years in the only way we know we can do it; without smoke and mirrors, without any games, by simply spending within our means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend Mr. Bishop, for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, not because of what it allows, but rather because of what it blocks. I am also inclined to oppose the underlying legislation, not because of the process, but rather because of the lack of progress which we have made in the last year in our efforts to protect and improve our environment.

Nearly 1 year ago to the day, I stood on this floor also with the gentleman from Utah when the House considered the fiscal year 2006 Interior, Environment and related agencies appropriations bill. Under that bill, $240 million had been cut from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Conservation funding was approximately $750 million below, or less than half of what was promised when Congress passed the Conservation and Restoration Act of 2000, and, overall, EPA's budget had been cut by $300 million.

Today, the House is being asked to consider an Interior appropriations bill that is even worse. Indeed, this is not by any fault of the Appropriations Committee, but it is the fault of the majority in this body, which has tied our hands in a knot of fiscal irresponsibility.

If this rule passes, the House will be forced to consider an Interior appropriations bill that not only includes the massive cuts from last year, but actually cuts these programs even more, so that my friends in the majority can pay for their massive tax cuts to the very wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

The underlying legislation cuts the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by another $199 million, to a level that is more than $660 million less than it was in 2001. The bill cuts funding for the Land Water Conservation Fund by $28 million, to a level that is $90 million less than it was in 2001. Overall funding for Federal land acquisition aimed at helping States preserve open spaces is cut in this bill by $98 million, a level that is more than $400 million less than 2001. This is an 86 percent cut in funding, Mr. Speaker; 86 percent.

Certainly it just can't be true that only Democrats care about preserving our lands so that future generations will enjoy them. Yet where is the outrage from the majority Members of the other side of the aisle?

Yesterday evening, the ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that restored $800 million in funding cuts to these and other critically needed environmental programs. Mr. Obey's amendment, most importantly, was revenue neutral and would have required not one penny of additional cuts in this or any other bill. During the hearing, however, Rules Committee Republicans, along a straight party line vote, blocked Representative Obey from offering his amendment.

I am also troubled by language in the bill which overrules longstanding Presidential and Congressional moratoria for drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. This provision will permit drilling to occur as close as 3 miles to the shores of coastal States, including my home State of Florida. In doing so, the health of Florida's beaches and tourism industry, the largest industry in our State, will be in direct danger.

Let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker: Drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf will have zero impact at the gas pumps. It will not under any circumstances reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

I say if supporters of lifting those moratoria are serious about reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies then they should join me and others in calling for increased fuel conservation and investment in mass transit and alternative energy sources.

Mr. Speaker, while I cannot speak on behalf of every Member of Florida's delegation, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of us in Florida and our citizens and our Governor do not want offshore oil drilling in Florida, and we intend to do whatever is necessary to strip this provision from the bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that I am extremely grateful that under this bill Congress furthers its commitment to restoring Florida's Everglades. This is a project that is absolutely crucial to the environment and to the potable fresh water supply of many south Florida and Treasure Coast communities in my district.

My constituents and I deeply appreciate Chairman Taylor and Representative Dicks' continued efforts in this area. Equally. I was also very pleased to learn that the committee has restored the President's proposed budget cut for the Office of Environmental Justice at EPA and included the limitation language that I offered last year ensuring that EPA respects the needs of the environmental justice community.

Yet despite these positive provisions, Mr. Speaker, this bill is an overall disappointment. I firmly believe that the appropriators did the best they could do with what we gave them to work with.

Nevertheless, I find it offensive that the majority of this body is more concerned today about protecting $114,000 tax cuts for people making more than $1 million than fully funding programs which ensure that all Americans have access to clean air and drinking water.

Enforcement is not free, and neither is environmental restoration. Everyone in America shares in the responsibility of contributing her or his own share. Is there anybody in this body who is unwilling to pay just a little more to ensure that everyone in America has clean air to breathe and safe water to drink? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool her resources with others in her neighborhood to collectively ensure that everyone has safe drinking water, or that no child will be forced to grow up playing in backyards polluted by dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins?

If the budget is about priorities, Mr. Speaker, then appropriations bills are about fiscal reality. The fiscal reality of this bill and the appropriations bill that will soon follow are that America is in trouble with the majority at the helm. Their fiscal mismanagement has placed the wishes of wealthy individuals, and I question that. I do not know whether wealthy people have made these requests. Most wealthy people I know are willing to share their resources for the collective needs of their respective communities.

Is there something in the DNA here in the majority that allows them to decide that wealthy people ought be prioritized over the collective needs of a community? The underlying legislation is, unfortunately, only the first of 11 installments this year of the grim reality of which Democrats have warned for the last 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to understand that before we finish this appropriations process all of us will understand those grim realities, for the chickens are coming home to roost.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me thank Chairman Watt, and, of course, let me thank Congressman Scott for his excellent work, and all of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I have not heard the theme of priorities being addressed on the floor of the House today. That is what the CBC budget represents. I would like to be standing here for working Americans, middle-class Americans.

With the CBC budget, we save $10.5 billion more in interest. That money goes into the pockets of working Americans. We cut the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars of deficit, and we are able then to cut, if you will, the kinds of insidious, insidious, eliminate cuts on the budget that hurt the people of America.

I like the CBC budget because, in fact, it provides the opportunity to eliminate the $6 billion cuts that you make on veterans health care, or the $6 billion cuts that you make over 5 years on homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, it restores the moneys to Head Start. It restores the money to Pell Grants. It restores the money to provide better health care for Americans. And, yes, it provides $10.5 billion of interest back in the pockets of Americans.

Vote for the CBC budget. It balances the budget, but most importantly it stands for working Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I think one of the problems that we have is not explaining to the American people the amount of pain that this Republican budget casts on Americans. So let me just tell you the truth this evening.

When the Democrats were in, when we passed the 1997 budget resolution, we developed a $5.6 trillion surplus. I think that is easy enough to understand. But right now, today, we have seen an arrow sink us down into an $8.8 trillion deficit and sliding on the slippery slope of this huge deficit that breaks the backs of working Americans. In fact, right now, today, when they vote, they will create a $3.2 trillion, if you will, deficit that will break the backs of working Americans. What that does is, of course, is to reenforce the fact that the tax cut that you are giving gives only to the richest of America, the 1 percent, but, in fact, even though Americans understand about mutual sacrifice of which they would rather have investment in education and health care and homeland security, your tax cut is going to cost $3 trillion, which is going to add to the trillions of dollars of deficit that we already have.

When we talk about priorities, what that means is that we are cutting $6 billion from homeland security, the very debate that we are having today, $6 billion we are cutting over a 5-year period in homeland security. What does that mean? It means we have no funding for border security. It means we have no funding to ensure that the homeland is safe with intelligence resources and collaboration. It also means that our military has no armored jackets. It means that our veterans hospitals are cut for $6 billion. But, most importantly, it cuts the children of America because it is the largest cut in education in 23 years. That is what this trillion-dollar deficit budget makes. That is what the Republican budget does. It cuts priorities, and that is what the Democrats are saying.

Our priorities are different. We want to invest in America. We do not want to build the deficit. We do not want to build $3 trillion in tax cuts that do not go to the average working American. We want that single mother, we want that family of 4, we want that family of 10, we want that young person looking for an opportunity to have the investment of capital to ensure that America is great.

Vote for the Democratic substitute. That is what makes America great, and that is what we would like to do for America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to add my voice of opposition to the Republican Budget Resolution.

The budget of the United States is more than a financial document and accounting device. Rather it is the numerical expression of the obligations free people voluntarily assume to help others, to serve the common good, and to form a more perfect union. But it is more than that. A budget is a reflection of our national values and a scorecard by which we can judge whether we are keeping faith with what we profess to believe. The budget resolution brought to the floor today by the Republican leadership does not reflect the best of American values. This budget breaks faith with what we know to be right.

Let me count the ways:

This budget undermines the federal programs that bolster the economy and welfare of our citizens.

The President's budget cuts $6.3 billion in Social Security benefits over ten years by eliminating the survivor benefits safety net for women and children. This benefit can make the difference between subsistence and destitution, and it is heart breaking that Congress could even consider pocketing funds rightly earned and needed by or constituents and their families.

The President's budget slashes Medicare by $36 billion over five years and $105 billion over 10 years and includes gross Medicaid cuts, including both legislative and regulatory cuts, of $17 billion over five years and $42 billion over 10 years, on top of the deep Medicaid cuts that Congress enacted in 2005.

The Republican 2007 budget resolution cuts spending on education by 29% and freezes Head Start funding at this year's level, guaranteeing that 19,000 children will have to be cut from Head Start next year. Even the President's own No Child Left Behind program is funded at $15.4 billion below the authorized level.

Cuts are also in store for environmental protection projects (by 4%), community block grants ($736 million), and community development programs ($4.3 billion below the amount needed to maintain current services).

Even the budget for Homeland Security is 24.9% lower than the amount enacted in FY2006.

What I have just described is a systematic asphyxiation of funding for vital elements that make up the fabric of our society--education, healthcare, social security, housing, and homeland security.

All of us agree on the American future we want for our children and generations yet unborn. An America that is highly educated, confident, capable, globally competitive, strong, and sage. Whether we achieve this goal depends upon what we do here today and now. This budget will not make America smarter, stronger, safer, more competitive, or proud. We can do much better. We must do better if we are to be true to the best of ourselves and to be consistent with our fundamental values.

I urge all members of the House to reject this budget resolution. I further urge my colleagues to support the Democratic Substitute Budget (the Spratt Resolution) and to support the CBC amendment to the Budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 818 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for an open rule on H.R. 5386, the Interior Appropriations Act for 2007. It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for certain legislative provisions which are specified under the text of the rule.

For purposes of the amendment, the rule provides for priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to stand and introduce this rule as well as the underlying legislation. I appreciate the hard work and the hard choices that have been done by the subcommittee members, specifically Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks, as well as the full committee under the leadership of Chairman Lewis and many others who have played a essential role in putting this budget together, which actually comes in at $145 million less than last year's enacted levels.

This important measure provides funding for the entire Department of Interior, except for the Bureau of Reclamation, for the U.S. Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, for the Indian Health Service within the Health and Human Services Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other programs.

At the same time, this measure provides for a moderate increase over the President's proposed budget for the Forest Service, for the National Park Service, EPA, Environmental programs and management.

This budget provides for $5.9 billion to programs for Native Americans, including three new health centers in underfunded and depressed areas. It provides for a fully-funded National Fire Plan, eliminating duplications, which will result in the stopping of wildfires from getting out of control and becoming more expensive and damaging to both people, as well as wildlife and the environment.

There is land acquisition, which has been reduced to $60 million for in-holding, which is significant and important to do, but it is significant that it does not add inventory to our public land policies that are above and beyond what we can already afford.

There is one particular note of significance to me I wish to address, that this bill provides $228 million for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program at the Department of Interior. This figure is $30 million above what the President requested, and I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Taylor, ranking member Dicks and the entire committee in providing the restoration of funds. However, it is still below the $332 million that was provided for in last year's budget, and significantly below the authorized level of $350 million, which would be there today.

If one were to draw a line from Montana through New Mexico on the map, everything west of that line has 57 percent ownership by the Federal Government. Everything east of the line is 4 percent ownership by the Federal Government.

When the western States, which I live in one, entered this country under their enabling acts, there were legal commitments that were made, that in the 1950s the Federal Government unilaterally changed and since that time have been repeatedly changing. In fact, there are several amendments that have been threatened to be only the floor today which would increase that change in commitment.

No one who does not live in that area understands the significance of Federal ownership of that particular land. Chairman Taylor though, having a significant amount of Forest Service land in his district, is one of those that is empathetic to this situation, and we are appreciative of all his efforts in this particular area. I wish the administration were the same. In dealing at one time with an administrative official, he asked me why I was so concerned about all this Federal land; it was simply useless land and no one lived there anyway.

It has to be realized that half of the West is essentially tied up in Federal lands and is controlled by it. Payment in lieu of taxes is not charity, it is simply rent on land that is due to compensate for economic problems created by the Federal Government, created by Federal Government actions, and in contradiction to the deals that were made when these States originally came into the Union.

The Department of Interior took the concept of payment in lieu of taxes from the BLM as an effort, in their words, ``to ensure appropriate emphasis,'' and that it would be a benefit accrued to both Congress, the Department, BLM and to the counties of the West as well.

Since that time, that has not been the case. In fact, in each of the last 2 years, the administration and the OMB have actually cut this particular program, only to have it restored by Congress, which once again I thank Chairman Taylor, his committee and his staff for their efforts in that area.

In like contrast though, it is unusual that even though the overall funding for the Interior Department has been

around 7 percent over the past 5 years, if my math is correct, the Department of Interior's administrative budget has increased 100 percent in that same time, from $64 million to $118 million today.

While I may disagree with this portion of the bill, we will be joining with other western Congressmen later on today to try to present an amendment through regular order that will address this one particular issue.

I am appreciative once again to Chairman Taylor and the ranking member from the State of Washington who have been understanding of this situation, empathetic of this situation, and very helpful to us, as we move forward to try and find some kind of redress with this particular situation.

Mr. Speaker, while I have a few disagreements obviously that I have just stated, overall that is only one aspect of this important underlying bill that will be presented by this rule. We will be trying to address that agreement at some other time.

Still, the overwhelming majority of this bill is very positive and it does move us forward, and it was a responsible result of a lot of bipartisan work done on the part of this particular subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am honored to offer the Congressional Black Caucus 2007 fiscal year budget alternative, and I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, a number of budgets are going to be offered tonight, and I think we are going to see a lot of smoke and mirrors and trickery.

But we are honest in the way we approach our budget. We believe a budget is a statement of priorities, and we believe that there are priorities that we must pay for, and we must find the money to pay for them.

So let me be straight up front that we intend in our budget to roll back, rescind the tax cuts on individuals' adjusted gross income in excess of $200,000. People will still get the benefits of tax cuts under $200,000, but by doing that over a 5-year period, we will gain $137 billion. We intend to eliminate corporate tax incentives for offshoring jobs. By doing that over a 5-year period, we will gain $50 billion. We intend to close tax loopholes and abusive shelters, and with that we will gain $10 billion. And on and on and on. So we are transparent in where we are getting our money from.

We intend to spend that money on priorities that we have identified in the Congressional Black Caucus' agenda to close and eliminate disparities that continue to exist in our country between African Americans and other Americans in this country in education, in health care, in every conceivable way that we can approach this. It is our intention to do that.

Let there be no mistake. We are not here to apologize because we think it is a higher priority for our country to eliminate and close these disparities that have existed throughout our history. We think that is more important than giving tax breaks to people who make over $200,000 a year. That is the simple premise of our budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, tell us, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Chairman, I take it that the gentleman from Florida just spent 7 minutes telling the American people that for the people who make over $200,000 a year, how much of a tax benefit they are giving them, because all of the things he described adds up to the tax benefit that these people are getting. And I appreciate the gentleman's doing that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I made no such intention. You characterized it that way. I have never characterized it as raising taxes. We are rescinding the tax cuts on income over $200,000.

I really appreciate you all continuing to point out to the American people how much that represents when you look at it and to say that we don't have enough rich people in the country to do that.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would like to answer the question.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just submit to the gentleman that I would rather educate my children than give a tax cut to people on income over $200,000. I hope he agrees with me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlemen from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, can you tell us how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown)

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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, would the Chair repeat what he just said?

Can I make a parliamentary inquiry as to why that is the case? It is our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlemen will give us some more time, we have a whole list of speakers over here. But we are going to run out of time before we run out of speakers, I can assure you.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman give us some time?

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida for a unanimous consent request because we don't have enough time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Would the Chairman tell me what that means I have left total?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

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

I will let my colleagues and the American people determine what our budget does, but let me summarize it. The CBC budget balances the budget in 5 years, and is the only budget you are going to see on this floor tonight that yields a surplus at the end of 5 years instead of a deficit.

The CBC saves $10.5 billion in interest on the national debt over that period. The CBC budget adopts the PAYGO rules which you all have forgotten about.

Even with those accomplishments, the CBC budget funds these important programs: $80 billion more on education and job training, $20 billion more on veterans benefits and services, $20 billion more on health care, $6 billion more on community and regional development including the gulf coast, and billions more on research, nutrition, and food programs. And where do we get it from? On that money that comes from people making over $200,000 a year. We think these are higher priorities, and we are honest enough to tell you so.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget resolution. The Republican budget resolution is no plan to bring the budget back to balance. The Republican budget includes a deficit for 2006 of $372 billion, and a deficit for 2007 of $348 billion. These deficits mean that, under Republican policies, the five largest deficits in history will have occurred in five consecutive years. Over the next five years (2007-2011), the budget resolution calls for deficits totaling $1.1 trillion.

Since this Administration took office, it has requested and the Congress has provided four increases in the statutory debt ceiling totaling $3 trillion. Under this budget, by 2011 the statutory debt will increase by another $2.3 trillion, for a total increase of $5.3 trillion. It will leave the statutory debt at a record level of $11.3 trillion. The President's reckless economic policies have doubled our nation's debt. Further, I am concerned by the amount of the debt that has been accumulated by foreign bank, individuals and governments. In 1980, 17 percent of the federal debt held by the public was in foreign hands. By 2006, 45 percent of the debt held by the public was owned overseas. Unfortunately, this trend seems to be increasing rapidly. During the past year, approximately 90 percent of the debt we have accumulated has been purchased by foreign banks, individuals and governments.

I support the Representative John Spratt's alternative budget, which would reach balance in 2012. The Spratt budget also has smaller deficits than the Republican budget, and accumulates less debt. By contrast, the Republican budget never returns to balance, and even refuses to show how big its deficits will be after 2011. The Spratt budget backs the two-sided Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) budget enforcement rules that require that the cost of any new mandatory spending or revenue legislation be fully offset. During the 1990s, two-sided PAYGO rules played a critical role in turning record deficits to record surpluses. The Spratt budget also requires a separate vote to increase the debt limit, and prohibits using fast-track reconciliation procedures to make the deficit worse.

The Republican budget cuts appropriations for domestic services by $9.4 billion relative to current services, and by $3.2 billion below the level passed by Republicans in the Senate. Meanwhile, the budget continues Medicare subsidies close to $60 billion for managed care providers of Medicare even though they are supposed to save Medicare money, not cost more. The resolution also includes $228 billion over five years for additional tax cuts, part of a $3 trillion ten-year Republican tax cut agenda.

The Republican resolution cuts appropriated funding for education and related programs below current services, providing the same inadequate level as provided by the President. For 2007, that Republican level cuts funding for the Department of Education by $2.2 billion below last year's comparable level, and eliminates 42 education programs.

The Spratt budget provides $4.6 billion more than the Republican budget for education appropriations, and over five years provides $45.3 billion more than the Republican resolution. The Spratt budget rejects the deep cuts proposed by the Republican budget, and preserves programs such as vocational education, Perkins loans, Safe and Drug-Free Schools state grants, and the GEAR-UP college readiness program. The Spratt budget also makes a down payment on college affordability by cutting student loan interest rates.

After a temporary one year gain, the Republican budget after five years cuts funding for veterans' health care by $6.0 billion below current services. The Spratt budget includes $6.0 billion more than the Republican budget over five years for veterans' health care. The Spratt budget also rejects the increase on health care fees on military retirees who are enrolled in Tricare. The Republican budget asks additional sacrifices from those who have served and sacrificed for our country; the Spratt budget rejects the misguided Republican policies and keeps our commitment to our veterans.

The Republican budget cuts funding for health by $18.1 billion below current services over five years, the same insufficient level provided by the President. The Republican level means cuts to priorities such as the Centers for Disease Control, 18 of 19 institutes at the National Institutes of Health, and rural health activities.

The Spratt budget provides $18 billion more over five years to fund health priorities cut by the Republican budget, including medical research at NIH and graduate medical education for children's hospitals. The Spratt budget also takes steps to address the problems with the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, including extending the May 15 signup period through the end of year and protecting seniors from any enrollment penalties. The Spratt budget also takes steps to help the uninsured, and creates a reserve fund to increase Medicare payments to physicians, which are currently scheduled to be cut.

For the environment and natural resources, this Republican budget imposes a $25.0 billion cut relative to current services over the next five years and imposes a $2.9 billion cut for next year alone. This is the same level as the President's budget, which cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (including the Clean Water State Revolving Fund), the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Park Service.

Mr. Chairman, the House Republican budget resolution actually makes the deficit worse, offers no plan to bring the budget back to balance, and adds to the growing burden of the national debt. Meanwhile, the Republican budget makes harmful cuts to critical services for the American people--including education, veterans' services, health, and environmental protection. I ask my colleagues to oppose this budget and support the Spratt alternative budget.