Providing for further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is not a Blue Dog substitute.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

No, I would not object.

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

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 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.