Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I call up the Senate Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I offer a motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me say from the outset what we said yesterday in the debate of this bill. But let me refer to third parties, independent, disinterested third parties like the Concord Coalition. They took a look at our budget, and they said unequivocally, and I'm quoting, ``Thus, to be clear, the budget resolution does not call for or require a tax increase.''

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, excellent analytical work, they took a look at our budget and they said, ``The House budget does not include a tax increase.''

And then, finally, the Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution, independent, disinterested said, plainly, simply, ``This budget would not raise taxes.''

We have included in the budget resolution not one place, but twice, in different parts of the resolution, our wholehearted endorsement, our commitment, our pledge, our determination to see that these middle- income tax cuts are preserved and enacted and carried forward when they expire per their terms.

The budget resolution does not cause them to expire. They were designed to expire, written to expire when they were offered and passed. At that particular time, that was part of the provision.

In addition, I am making clear again that our budget resolution allows all of the deductions, credits, exemptions and exclusions that are provided in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. All of them are provided and allowed to stay in place this year, next year, and for the next 4 years. So there is very little disagreement about us except I am wondering about the arithmetic.

Budget resolution motions to instruct are nonbinding. They are a valid part of the process. But they do present a problem. They single out specific elements of a budget resolution without looking at how one goal, such as tax reduction, interacts with another goal, such as deficit reduction. In that respect, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have offered is a resolution that calls for support of all of the tax cuts they laid out plus a surplus of $96 billion.

Could I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, what does this assume about the bottom line before the tax cuts? How big a surplus would you have to have in 2012 in order for there to be, after taking these tax cuts, a $96 billion remaining surplus?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

How much?

So what is the surplus before these tax cuts are taken?

It would have to be pretty substantial. Isn't the cost of these tax cuts in the first year $180 billion or more?

It's my understanding, roughly speaking, that the cost of these tax cuts, the revenue impact of these tax cuts, in the first year was about $180 billion. If you take that kind of charge against the surplus and still have a surplus left of $96 billion, then you've got about a $276 billion surplus in that year.

Is this the CBO number?

CBO's projection.

And what you would then expect is a $276 billion surplus before the tax cuts?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the last speaker, if we support this resolution, it's because we originally provided in our budget resolution, in two different aspects of our budget resolution, our full, wholehearted support for these middle-income tax cuts. We still have, I will have to confess, concern about your arithmetic here, but we supported it in the budget resolution we filed, which passed the House. We endorsed and pledged that we would seek to the extension of the 10 percent individual tax bracket, the child tax credit, research and experimentation tax credit, all of these things. Read the resolution. They're there. We were there before you were, saying that, over the next 3 or 4 years, we need to see that when December 31, 2010, comes along, these tax cuts will survive and be preserved. We are committed to that, black and white print, budget resolution.

I will yield for one question.

No. I'm talking about statements in our budget resolution which state emphatically and clearly, ``It is the policy of this budget resolution to preserve, defend and protect the middle-income tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003, which will expire in 2010.''

Now, we do believe, and this also is in our budget resolution, we believe in the PAYGO principle. We believe that the Tax Code is full of deductions and credits and exemptions and exclusions, and you can go through a closet cleaning in the Code and come up with enough offsets to provide for the extension of many of these tax cuts, maybe not all but many, without any adverse impact on the bottom line budget deficit.

I will yield.

There was a provision that allowed for reserve accounts so that we could provide for these tax cuts. But basically we took the position that this decision does not have to be made now, and indeed it can be better made closer in time to December 31, when we see what is the bottom line then. How much debt have we accumulated? What is the total deficit? What is the forecast for the future? At that point in time, we can consider the tax cuts, extension of them.

By my understanding, if you extend all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that expire on December 31, the cost over 10 years is about $2 trillion. That's a big decision. We think you should make it deliberately and closer in point of time to when these tax cuts actually expire.

Let me say also that not only did we put these tax cuts and state our support for them in the budget resolution, but in addition, when the tax cuts were passed in 2001, we either had substitutes or occasionally voted for independent free-standing provisions like the marriage penalty relief. Democrats were there when that passed the House. I voted for it the first time it came up and voted for it again repeatedly. In our substitutes, we had a 12 percent bracket and then a 10 percent bracket. We had a child tax credit, which we continually increase, and we had the R&E tax credit extension. We had expensing for small businesses. Many, if not all, of the things you are talking about here we voted for, maybe not on your bills but on our bills because these are tax policies favoring middle-income Americans for whom we think tax relief is well in order.

Secondly, we have a problem still with the arithmetic that you've got here.

According to my information, looking at CBO's most recent report, the Social Security surplus for 2012 is $255 billion. If you want to stay out of Social Security, you have got to have a surplus of at least $255 billion, a unified surplus of at least $255 billion, am I correct?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand that. But the Social Security surplus is $255 billion.

Mr. Speaker, on the other hand, if you look at the surplus you are claiming, $96 billion, and also provide for these tax cuts, my information is that these tax cuts have a revenue impact of at least $180 billion.

That would mean in the year 2012 there has to be a bottom line surplus of $276 billion before the tax cuts are taken.

$180 billion I believe is 1 year.

But you haven't shown us the arithmetic. We are not sure your arithmetic is correct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I have here a copy of the President's budgetary proposals for fiscal year 2008 published by the Congressional Budget Office. If you turn to page 6, you will see that the cost of the tax cuts, extending the tax cuts, which the motion proposes, the cost or the revenue impact of that in the year 2012 is $231 billion. That is what CBO says.

If you now add $96 billion to that, the surplus that year must be $327 billion. The surplus, $327 billion. Last year the deficit was $248 billion. If we move to a surplus of $327 billion in the year 2012, that requires a movement in the right direction of $575 billion which is hard to believe.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

The point, I am sure, is you are supportive of all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. You are limited by procedural rules to only dealing with that which is in the scope of the two resolutions. But, in fact, I am sure you are supportive of that. If that is true, you have to acknowledge that the number is $231 billion. That is the revenue impact of extending all of the tax cuts. If you add 96, which is the surplus you project, you get a big, big number.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this goes back to something that our President called fuzzy math. And if I seem hung up on the topic of math, it is because arithmetic is important when you are putting together a budget.

What they are telling us is they can run a $96 billion surplus in the year 2012 even though they are taking tax cuts that will take $231 billion in revenues out of the Federal Treasury. It is a stretch, to say the least. That involves assuming that we will have a surplus in the year 2012 of $327 billion.

How far from that are we today? Last year we had a deficit of $248 billion. If

we are to move to a surplus of $327 billion by the year 2012, there has to be a movement in the right direction, a positive movement of $575 billion. Let's hope it happens, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

They then say and just said we are raiding Social Security. How absurd can you get? Here it is right here. The Social Security surplus is $255 billion. They do not even claim more than $96 billion on the surplus. If they left the tax cut out, they would indeed have enough bottom line, 96 plus 231, to cover the surplus, but they haven't done that.

Here on the bottom line, the back of an envelope, is a simple chart that I bring down to the well with me every time I talk because we need to be reminded. When President Bush came to office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Six years later, the national debt is $8.8 trillion, an increase of $3.1 trillion over the last 6 years. That is a 60 percent increase in the debt of the United States. We have not seen anything like it since the Second World War.

Are we worried about fuzzy math? You better believe we are because this is the consequence of it. What the Republican budget resolution would have done had it been adopted is it would have extended again and again the policy of borrow and spend, leaving the tab to our children.

Here is what the tab looked like, in addition to the $8.8 trillion: You can cut taxes today, but what you leave in the wake of what you have done is a debt tax, the one tax that has to be paid because it is the amount of money we have to levy and raise every year to pay interest on our national debt, which is obligatory. It cannot be avoided. It has to be paid.

Here is the difference between interest on the national debt, which is well over $200 billion, headed to $300 billion within the foreseeable future, and look what it does to other priorities, things that are pressing and important like veterans health care, homeland security, and education. All of those things are dwarfed by the increase in interest payments on the debt.

This is a debt tax we have to pay today. All Americans have to pay it. Our children will have to pay it because of our irresponsible fiscal policy. This is why we need to clear up this fuzzy math and put the country back on a firm path to fiscal responsibility.

For the clarification of Members, let me give you my take on what is before us right now. This motion to instruct conferees calls for us to recede, back off the revenue levels in the House amendment and insist on, listen to this, policy statement in section 401 of the House amendment. That is our budget resolution, the Democratic budget resolution.

It is the place in our resolution where one time we have insisted, pledged our support for the extension of these middle-income tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003. That is paragraph A. It is hard for us to disagree with the enforcement of the language that we put in the budget resolution in the first place.

Secondly, paragraph B, insist on the lowest possible levels of revenue within the scope of the conference.

It is hard to tell what that level might be, whether or not it is consistent with the one above, but we certainly will give some consideration to that.

And finally, set forth a unified surplus of at least $96 billion in fiscal year 2012. I hope we can do it, but you have heard me go through the arithmetic out here, and I think it is a reach to even imply that these three variables can be integrated and solved in this one multi varied equation.

If you can do it, fine. If you can come out of all this still having these tax cuts and still having a $96 billion surplus, great. But I have to tell you, I think it is fuzzy math.

But we are wholeheartedly in support of the middle-income tax cuts that are enumerated here. Indeed, they have been lifted straight out of the Democratic budget resolution, and that is why we are supportive of them.

Mr. Speaker, this rule simply makes in order a motion to go to conference on the House and Senate budget resolution. That's all it does.

The budget resolution, in turn, frames all that we will do in fiscal year 2008, next year; and it helps keep the process fiscally disciplined as we move forward. Usually, this procedure is accompanied by, expedited by, unanimous consent. In this case, we couldn't be assured of unanimous consent, so we are, instead, moving forward with the rule.

Now, naturally, we in the House think that the House-passed budget is a better expression of our goals. But both resolutions to be resolved in conference, both are Democratic products, and we think both are vastly better, far better budgets than the Republicans offered this year or last year, for that matter. It's a matter of record. Last year the Republicans failed to pass a concurrent budget resolution. They couldn't get the two Houses together.

When we came back here in November, we had to finish up the unfinished work. Only 2 of 11 appropriations bills were passed, partly because they didn't have the framework of a budget resolution in which to proceed.

Just weeks ago, we had the Republican budget on the House floor. It fell 60 votes short of a majority, way behind. So unless we do what we are doing today, we are going to find ourselves shortly in the same situation we were last fall when the work was undone at the end of the year.

Both budgets, both the House and the Senate budgets, have this goal. Both budgets are designed to bring the budget back to balance by the year 2012. The House resolution carries forward, I'm proud to say, carries forward our commitment to pay-as-you-go. And the Senate resolution includes a pay-as-you-go rule of its own.

There are a number of initiatives, it's true, in this bill. A number of new initiatives. One is the Children's Health Insurance Initiative, but none of these initiatives, including CHIP, will be undertaken, none of them will be undertaken unless there are offsetting revenues or offsetting expenses to make them budget neutral so they do not have any impact on the bottom line.

This budget resolution and the Senate resolution both contain program integrity measures requested by the President, augmented by us in our budget resolution to crack down on wasteful spending. We're proud of that. We want to see that money appropriated. We want to see some that could be saved on wasteful sending.

Both budgets, and let me emphasize this, both budgets support middle- income tax relief. We'll say it again and again and again. It bears repeating because it's absolutely true.

The House budget resolution sites in its text income tax cuts that were passed in 2001 and 2003, and it supports, not in one place, but two, wholesomely supports the extension and renewal of those tax cuts past 2010, when they will all expire.

Now, let me make something clear. This budget resolution for the next 4 years does not take a thing away from any taxpayer. The tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 remain unaffected, remain standing and in place.

In addition, let me make clear that when the tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of 2010, it's by design. That's the way you wrote the resolution. That's the way you wrote the bill that passed it. And we do not propose anything here in this bill about not renewing those tax cuts when they come up. We simply say that's a bridge we will cross when we get to it.

But in the Senate, Senator Baucus has offered an amendment that will require a vote before the year 2010 to renew those middle-income tax cuts that sunset in the year 2010. The Baucus amendment limits these tax cuts to $180 billion in annual revenue reduction, the amount of the surplus that is anticipated in 2012 in the budget resolution.

In the meantime, let me say again, all the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 were provided for, allowed and in place under this budget resolution. It is completely specious to say that we have raised taxes by one dime. Completely specious.

If you don't believe, let me say once again or let me show you in writing what Mr. McGovern just introduced. Here is the Concord Coalition. Nobody would dispute their bona fides or their unpartisan character. Here is how they sum up their analysis of our budget resolution: ``Thus to be clear, the budget resolution does not call for or require a tax increase.'' That is the Concord Coalition.

Next is the Brookings Institution, Hamilton Project: ``This budget would not raise taxes.'' An independent group, no axes to grind. That is their opinion.

And, finally, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: ``This claim is incorrect. The House plan does not include a single tax increase.''

Those are three outside organizations with no axes to grind. They looked at our resolution. That is the judgment they rendered on it.

Now, let me move on to say that both the House and Senate budget resolutions meet the President's request for national defense. They protect our country, and they exceed the President's request for veterans' health care. Funding for veterans' health care in our resolution is 6 billion bucks, $6 billion, above the 2007 level and more than $3 billion above the President's request.

Both budgets are also designed to reduce the deficit and bring the budget back to balance, as I said earlier. That will decrease our reliance on foreigners who buy our debt. Since 2001, foreign ownership of Treasury bonds has more than doubled to $2.2 trillion, making our economy vulnerable to global markets and the whims of foreign investors.

If I could see this chart next to show you the total debt accumulation under this administration. On the back of an envelope, this shows you what we are about, what we want to avoid. When this administration came to office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. In the last 6 years, they have added 60 percent to that sum, $3.1 trillion in additional debt. And as a consequence, the national debt stands at $8.8 trillion. This is what Republicans have produced. This isn't about claiming or argumentation or anything else. This is a matter of record. You can look it up, from $5.7 to $8.8 trillion.

Finally, this budget resolution maintains the priorities that we Democrats stand for and are proud of. We put families first. We put children first by investing in health care; child care; education; Head Start; and as I said earlier, tax relief to middle-income families. Both budgets, both budgets, plan huge steps, and this is one of the great initiatives we hope to achieve in this Congress, huge steps to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program so that it covers most of the 9 million children without health insurance in this country, and we propose to do that with offsets so that there will not be a dime of the cost of that added to the bottom line.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, in short, this rule will make in order the steps necessary to send our budget resolution to conference so that they can move us forward on a fiscally responsible, fiscally disciplined path.

I urge support for this resolution so that we can move forward with the budget process.

I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I mean that compliment, I return the compliment, that I nevertheless vigorously disagree with some of the points you just made.

Facts are stubborn things, and the fact of the matter is that during the Clinton years, on average 237,000 jobs were created every month over an 8-year period of time. The Bush record is half that amount, if that. During the past month, you're leading with your left making that point at this point in time because during the past month job growth was just 88,000 jobs.

Secondly, with respect to Medicare, we know that Medicare has to be dealt with, but you know as well as I that this is not the forum. We need a much bigger group. We need the administration involved in the process. It is a very difficult undertaking to make the systemic changes that are necessary. And before we commence those negotiations, we need to do what President Clinton required in 1997, everybody needs to put some ante on the table. Everybody's got to have some skin in this game to be a player in this process of trying to diminish the cost of the health care entitlements to the United States. It has to be done, but this is not the correct forum for doing it.

The gentleman's budget resolution, I believe, cuts Medicare by $250 billion.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Well, the President's budget cut Medicare by $252 billion over a 10-year period of time and cut Medicaid by 50 to $60 billion over the same 10-year period of time.

Those numbers are correct, are they not?

Well, I can only surmise what happened to your budget resolution. One reason it didn't muster, besides the fact that you lost 40 votes, as you recall, is I am sure there are certain Republicans on your side of the aisle who did not want to vote for those massive cuts emasculating Medicare and Medicaid.

If I could reclaim my time, it takes a bigger forum than the Budget Committee provides. It takes more participants than just the Congress. Everybody has got to be a player in this game to make it happen in a significant way because it has got to involve, as you and I know, systemic change. No question about it.

And, finally, PAYGO. We are proud of the fact that we adopted the PAYGO rule in 1991, and it contributed significantly to the fact that over a period of 8 years during the Clinton administration the bottom line of the budget got better every year for 8 straight years to the point where we had a surplus of $236 billion under the Clinton administration resulting in part from the Balanced Budget Act of 1993 and 1997. $236 billion we handed over to President Bush. By the year 2004, between 2001 and 2004, we went from a surplus of $236 billion to a deficit of $412 billion. That happened on your watch. The Republicans controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, they controlled the White House. There is no way you can escape responsibility for what happened in those circumstances.

I yield to the gentleman.

PAYGO is never applied to discretionary spending. It would be very difficult at this time to do it when every year we have an end run around discretionary budget with the President's supplementals for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be very difficult to cap discretionary.

Your party, on its watch, allowed PAYGO discretionary spending caps, all of those constraints in 1990, to expire and did not renew them. The main reason you didn't was you knew if we had a double-edge PAYGO applicable to tax cuts as well as mandatory increases, you would be unable to pass additional tax cuts as part of your agenda.

Yes, sir.

We'll talk about it. If we've got a forum, the Budget Committee, once we've got this budget resolution behind us, and that is the order of the day, there are lots of things along those lines that we can explore, and we will.

Let me conclude by saying everybody should vote for this budget resolution if they want to see an orderly, fiscally responsible, disciplined process in the next fiscal year.

Mr. Chairman, I have to return to South Carolina to attend the presidential primary debate and the dedication of the library at Shaw Air Force Base. As a result, I will be unable to cast my vote today for H.R. 249, to restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. If I were able to cast my vote, I would vote in favor of H.R. 249, as I have done in the past 109th Congress, rollcall vote 199.

In the 109th Congress, I joined Representatives Rahall, Sweeney, and Whitfield in offering an amendment to the Department of the Interior Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 to ensure that none of the funds made available would be used for the sale or slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. Our amendment passed the House by a vote of 249-159.

The number of wild horses is dwindling. Just a century ago, 2 million horses roamed the west. Today, the combined number of wild horses and burros is less than 30,000, demonstrating that these animals need more protection.

I hope that others will join me in supporting this and other legislation to end the slaughter of our American horses.

Madam Speaker, today's opening prayer was given by the Reverend Ronald B. Jackson. Reverend Jackson serves as the minister of East Gaffney Baptist Church in Gaffney, South Carolina, a pulpit that he has filled with distinction since 1989.

Reverend Jackson's ministry is based in East Gaffney Baptist Church, but not confined there. He has a television ministry in Greenville and a radio ministry in Gaffney. He is a prominent preacher, for sure, but he is also a pastor who has been recognized for service throughout the Southeast. He has established, for example, a foundation to help needy ministers and their families called the Parsons' Pantry Fund.

Three years ago, Governor Sanford awarded him the Order of the Silver Crescent, our State's highest award for volunteer service.

Reverend Jackson has spread the gospel from the Second Baptist Church of Great Falls, South Carolina, where he was called to the pulpit, to Bethel Baptist Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and even to Bourbon Street in New Orleans, where he was assistant chaplain, before coming home to South Carolina and eventually settling in Gaffney.

Reverend Jackson is married to Karen A. Jackson. They have two children, Kimberly McMillin of Inman and Bryan Jackson of Gaffney; and three grandchildren. Karen also has a son, Brock Burgess, of Gaffney.

On behalf of the House, I want to thank Rev. Jackson for his inspiring prayer and the Speaker and Rev. Coughlin for asking him to open today's session.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Chairman, to talk just a bit about what is truly contained in this budget resolution, the devastating cuts it imposes on sensitive areas, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Dicks, the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee of Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, budgets are about values and vision. Where your treasure is, the Bible says, there also is your heart. But if you cut through all of the arcane detail, all the numbers, it is hard to find the heart in the Ryan resolution.

Buried in this budget resolution, if you dig deep enough, are some enormous cuts exceeding anything that has ever been proposed, much less passed, in the past, particularly with respect to health care, in which people are totally dependent. These cuts are so extreme, so deep that they go to the reality of this whole resolution. It turns on these cuts, and the real question is whether or not they are politically or practically possible.

These cuts are dictated by an extraordinary process called reconciliation. Here is what the cuts amount to: Our committee, the Budget Committee, if this resolution were adopted, would be dictating to the Energy and Commerce Committee, with jurisdiction over Medicare and Medicaid, cuts of $97 billion over the next 5 years.

With respect to Medicare, this committee, if this resolution were adopted, would direct that the Ways and Means Committee go back to Medicare and cut another $153 billion out of Medicare or, if they couldn't get that much out of Medicare, cut it out of the safety net programs that are in the province of the Ways and Means Committee, shredding the safety net for SSI, for TANF, and other programs.

Altogether, the cuts in the health care entitlements in this resolution come to $266 billion. And not just the health care entitlements are in jeopardy.

Education and labor, $4.9 billion. Where does that come from? Student loans, Pell Grants.

Natural resources. You heard Mr. Dicks a moment ago. Where does that come from? Clean water, Environmental Protection Agency, conservation. $22 billion less than we provide over 5 years.

Education, $46 million over 5 years for Function 500 less than we provide. There is a huge difference.

But it also goes to the veracity, the practical reality of this resolution, and begs the question: If cuts of this enormity have never been proposed before, why do we believe that they would be enacted now?

Instead, we have a sneaking suspicion that when all of these cuts are put together, we are going to be right back where we have been for the last 6

years, that is, deeper in deficit. That is because in addition to making spending cuts that total $278 billion, the same reconciliation instructions call for tax cuts, tax decreases, of $447 billion; and when you net the spending cuts against the tax cuts, you get an impact of $168.5 billion on the deficit. It makes it worse.

If this budget resolution would come back to the House as a concurrent budget resolution with these provisions, we would invoke the rule we passed on the House floor to the effect that you cannot abuse the process of reconciliation and use it for the purpose of worsening the deficit. It can only be used to improve the deficit, to use these extraordinary powers to improve the deficit.

That is why we say the Ryan resolution should be defeated. We think it is a sham. We don't think it will achieve its stated purposes. We think it will put us right back on this track of debt accumulation in which we have seen $3.1 trillion added to the national debt over the last 6 years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, here is the Ryan resolution on the back of an envelope: look at what it does for reconciliation, because it does it elsewhere within the budget proposal.

Mr. Ryan proposes crippling, emasculating Medicare and Medicaid totaling over $250 billion, $278 billion altogether in hypothetical, wholly impractical, and unlikely cuts. But what is the net effect? Because at the same time and in the same bill he lowers taxes, has a tax cut of $447 billion. The net effect is an

increase to the deficit of $168 billion. That is why we have with this kind of arithmetic, why they have added $3.1 trillion to the debt of the United States.

Alternatively, we offer the base budget, the Spratt resolution, the Democratic resolution. It moves to balance by 2012, it leaves in place all of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003. They will be in place in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010; and it leaves until the future the decisions as to whether or not and to what extent to renew these tax cuts when they expire, not because of this resolution but because of the way you wrote them, in the year 2010.

We fully fund defense. We don't have a lot of left over, but we husband our resources to do more for education, more for science and innovation, more for veterans health care, and more for SCHIP which barely ranks an honorable mention in their budget. It is the centerpiece of our effort this year to see that more American children will be covered by the program known as the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Otherwise, we restrain spending, and throughout our budget resolution, we apply religiously the rule we adopted this January, the rule of pay-as-you-go. So that for every mandatory spending increase we make possible, we provide that it has to be offset by mandatory spending cuts elsewhere.

We protect the tax cuts, as I say. We present a good budget resolution. I say vote for the Spratt resolution. Vote for the Democratic resolution, and vote resoundingly ``no'' on the Ryan resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, H. Con. Res. 99 is not the full and final solution, but it is a good solution. It moves us in the right direction towards a balanced budget. It moves us to balance in 5 years, as a matter of fact, by 2012. It posts a smaller deficit than the President's budget over 5 years. It adheres to PAYGO, and it contains no new mandatory spending that is not fully offset.

It also includes program integrity initiatives to root out waste, fraud and abuse in the Department of Health and Human Services and in the reporting of taxes in the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this resolution described both in our markup in committee and today during the debate on the rule. I think you have to bear in mind what our critics have said, in terms of where the criticism is coming from, because the party that is opposing this resolution and criticizing this resolution is the same party that took a surplus of $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011 and turned it into a deficit of $2.8 trillion during this same period of time.

As a consequence, we have heard a lot of talk out here today, but the truth of the matter is, with respect to taxes, their bill imposes on future generations, our children and grandchildren, an unerasable tax called a debt tax, because they will be servicing the debt of the United States for years to come.

Let me show you just a few charts to illustrate what I mean.

First of all, the chart showing the debt of the United States that has increased since 2001 when Mr. Bush took office. This is a simple chart, but it contains an enormous amount of truth.

When Mr. Bush took office in 2001, he came to office with an advantage that few American presidents have ever enjoyed, a budget in balance, in surplus by $236 billion the year before. Within 4 years, he had driven that surplus of $236 billion into a deficit of $418 billion; and, as a consequence, the debt when he took office, which was $5.7 trillion, today is $8.8 trillion, having increased $3.1 trillion over the last 6 years.

We have never seen a debt accumulation like this, certainly during any normal period of time. Except for the Depression or Second World War, we have never seen, except for those periods, any kind of accumulation of debt that approaches this. And if we continue on this path, if we continue on this path, then we will see the debt, by the time Mr. Bush leaves his presidency, at $9.6 trillion, as opposed to $5.7 trillion when he came to office.

Net interest on the national debt is today $170 billion. That is the debt tax I am talking about. This is the debt service that our children and their children will have to pay for years to come. It is a debt tax that is indelible, almost permanent, unless we can do something to turn this budget around and start reducing our debt, instead of accumulating mountainous debt year in and year out.

The budget that we bring to the floor today fully funds the President's defense request, and we husband what little is left over for some centerpiece initiatives which we strongly support as Democrats.

First of all, we created in 1997 a Children's Health Insurance Program. The authorization for it runs out this year. We would propose in our budget resolution to reauthorize the CHIP program, Children's Health Insurance, and add $50 billion to the program so we cover most of the children who are eligible for coverage in the United States.

The second point: With respect to education, we think the education of our children, of today's workforce, is critically important as never before in American history; and we think it would be shameful to cut back for education. But for 3 straight years President Bush has sent us a budget that would cut the Department of Education, this year by $1.5 billion.

If you take Function 500, which includes elementary and secondary education and student loans and workforce investment and Trade Adjustment Assistance Training, the Bush administration requests $3.6 billion next year

less than this year; and in 2012 the request is $8.6 billion below current services. That is for training our workforce. That is what this administration is willing to invest in the education of our children.

We feel differently, and strongly differently, and we provide $8 billion to $9 billion more than the President and, over 5 years, $46 billion more than the President provides for education and job training and related activities.

We also call for a long-term fix in the Alternative Minimum Tax. The President has told us twice that they can take the Alternative Minimum Tax and, within the context of the Tax Code in a revenue-neutral manner, change the Alternative Minimum Tax so that it will not extend to middle-income families for whom it was never intended. They have told us that, but they are yet to do that.

We are saying in this budget resolution to the Ways and Means Committee, given its jurisdiction over taxes, and to the administration, we need to fix the AMT.

You will hear, as you have heard earlier today, a lot of talk about this being the biggest tax increase in American history, which is absolutely absurd. The Democratic budget resolution which I am presenting right now, introducing, which we will discuss tonight, does not raise taxes, period. The budget resolution that we bring to the floor tonight in no way affects the tax cuts that were passed in 2001 and in 2003. It leaves those tax cuts in place for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

What we do assume is the same revenues that CBO projects in its current baseline. If you look at the CBO baseline and the OMB baselines, you will find they virtually converge. There is about a 1.2 percent difference between the two of them, as this chart right here will easily show you.

All this palaver about taxes and the biggest tax increase in history, this is the difference between our revenue projections, the green bar, and theirs, which is blue, 1.2 percent over a 5-year period of time.

Looking at this budget in its whole context, three outside groups which are vigilant overseers and advocates for good, sound fiscal policy, the Concord Coalition has said, ``Thus, to be clear,'' this is how they sum up their letter, ``this budget resolution does not call for or require a tax increase.'' As plain as you can put it, from a group that is truly disinterested and independent politically.

Then we have got the Brookings Institution, the Hamilton Project. ``This budget would not raise taxes.'' ``This budget would not raise taxes.''

Finally, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, they took a look at our budget and they said, ``This claim is just flat incorrect. The House plan does not include a tax increase.''

What the House plan does do is allow the tax cuts that were passed in 2001 and 2003 to follow their course. They will expire on December 31, 2010. Not because of this budget resolution. It doesn't have a thing to do with the expiration or extension of those tax cuts. But, in 2010, those tax cuts expire of their own volition, because they were so drawn, designed, intended by those on this side of the aisle, the Republicans. They were designed to expire on December 31, 2010.

What we are simply assuming in this budget resolution is that that decision will be taken when we reach it. When we have to cross that bridge, we will cross that bridge. We will know then what our deficit is in 2010. We hope we will have a surplus by that point in time; and if we have a surplus, we will know whether or not we can offset it against the extension of some of these tax cuts.

I will say this and will say it repeatedly: Read this budget resolution. Give us a fair shake. And you will find in two different places prominently inserted, this resolution says we endorse, we support, and we will seek the renewal of the middle-income tax cuts that have been passed since 2001 and 2003, the marital tax penalty, the child tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, State tax reform. All of these things we embrace and we pledge ourselves to the extension to see when they expire, as they will, they will be duly renewed.

We will have this debate continually throughout the night. It will be brought up again and again and again. But I want to say one final thing: This budget resolution does not raise taxes, and it does not cause the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. They expire of their own volition.

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

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Texas, I yield myself 1 minute to reply.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will acknowledge that they have requested in their budget resolution $278 billion in reconciled tax cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and a number of different areas. He is faulting us for not joining in this endeavor. That is partly because, number one, we don't agree with his specific cuts. But number two, having so-called saved $278 billion, there is then enacted by reconciliation directive to the Ways and Means Committee $447 billion in tax cuts.

So the net effect is not to use entitlement cuts for reform, but to actually add to the deficit $168.5 billion.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield myself 1 minute.

While the gentleman was on his extended sabbatical back in California, he missed the heyday of our experience here under the Clinton administration and seems not to know that during those years the average job creation was 237,000 jobs per month. By comparison or by contrast, for the Bush administration comparable figures are 68,000 jobs per month.

Now, you can fudge that number by starting to count in August of 2004, claiming that it doesn't apply until then. But if you go back to January of 2001, the average per monthly increase for the Bush administration is 68,000 versus the Clinton administration which was 237,000.

Furthermore, the Clinton administration every year had a better bottom line in the budget. Every year, the deficit got smaller and smaller, to the point where, in 1997, we had a surplus for the first time in 1998 in 30 years; and in 2000 we had a surplus of $236 billion.

I now yield 1 minute to Mr. Davis of Alabama.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) with the request that he be allowed to yield part of the time that is allotted to him to other Members.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Moore, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) let me just say once again that this budget resolution leaves in place all of the tax cuts implemented in 2001 and 2003. Had we wished, we could have repealed those tax cuts. It leaves them in place in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The year 2010, December 31, those tax cuts expire their provisions, because they were written and designed to expire by the other side, by the Republicans. That is what happened to them.

This present resolution does not trigger their re-elimination, it doesn't trigger their determination. It doesn't decide either way. By its open volition, by its own terms, these tax cuts will expire on that very day unless they are renewed.

For the purpose of renewal at that point in time, 2010, 2011 and 2012, we will have a surplus of $450 billion, and those surpluses, over time, according to our projection, according to this budget resolution, will build to $1 trillion. If we so choose then, depending on the situation, we can so choose, then, to apply these to all or some of the renewable tax cuts. But that decision can be reached and made then better than it can be now. In the meantime, the tax cuts stand for the next 4 years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the former superintendent of education in the State of North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

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

Mr. Chairman, I thought I had seen it all, until I just saw the cartoon. What we have seen tonight is a sort of unrelenting attack for 3 hours on a straw man, a demonized version of this particular budget resolution. Because if you read it, you read it in vain in search of any particular language or place where these tax cuts are terminated or extended. That decision, as we have said, has been left open until a better time when we know better where we stand.

If we had wanted, if we had wished, we could have repealed all of the deductions, credits and exemptions passed in 2001 and 2003. We did not do that. They remain in effect this year, next year, 2009, 2010. Then they expire on December 31, 2010, because that is the way they wrote them to expire, in order to diminish the size of the tax cuts somewhat and shoehorn them into the budget situation, which would only provide for so much tax expenditure reduction.

I have also heard it said out here something about defense spending. Let me mention to you one little anomaly we haven't brought up tonight. But in order for the other side to say they are spending more than us on defense, I guess, I surmise, they have added $38 billion to budget authority, BA, for national defense. But, at the same time, they have taken $60 billion out of the outlay stream. That is the real money that is outlaid, that is spent by the Pentagon.

So they have taken $60 billion away from our troops in the field by their assumption about outlays, if it were efficacious; and, in fact, it is not efficacious. You can't control outlays. So they have an anomaly like that in the middle of the budget.

So I don't think it behooves them to criticize our budget resolution or to make it something that it isn't, because they have got things there in their own budget resolution that won't bear scrutiny and require explanation.

But the tax cut, let's get down to the bottom line, this budget resolution does not raise taxes. It allows all of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 to remain in place until they expire December 31, 2010, and leaves for then the decision as to what to do about their renewal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Before yielding to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), let me read from three letters we received in our committee. One is from the American Legion with respect to our support for veterans' health care.

``The American Legion and its 2.8 million members applaud the Budget Committee,'' that's us, Democrats, ``for the budget resolution recommendation of $43.1 billion in funding for veterans' health care. That is our recommendation.'' That is the American Legion speaking.

The DAV says, ``The budget recommendation coming out of the House will make a real difference in the lives of America's sick and disabled veterans. This is important if our Nation is at war.''

And the Veterans of Foreign War, the VFW says, ``The members of the VFW stand firmly behind you in support of your strong advocacy for this Nation's veterans.'' These letter go on and on and on. We had a press conference yesterday where they endorsed our budget resolution because of what we provide for veterans' health care, the biggest increase in veterans' health care funding in the history of the organization.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

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

If you are quoting the Congressional Budget Office, can you cite the quote?

How much time is left on each side, and who has the right to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am reserving my time to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have been treated to a show tonight featuring a one- trick pony. Every Republican who has come to the well of this Chamber has come with the same mantra, the same slogan, alleging wrongfully that our budget resolution would raise taxes. We have repeatedly explained why, only to have them keep coming to the floor basically on the belief if they say it often enough, maybe somebody will believe it.

Here is one thing you can believe. There is no conjecture in this. These are matter of fact. As Casey used to say, you can look it up. You can look it up. There is the debt of the United States, $5.7 trillion before President Bush came to office. Here is the debt of the United States today, $8.8 trillion. That arithmetic is very simple and very straightforward. It's a $3.1 trillion increase of debt of United States on their watch. This isn't conjecture, this is a matter of record.

I will just show you this chart one more time, because it shows that the revenue flows that we are projecting, based upon CBO's base-line certification of projection of revenues is essentially the same as the President is assuming in his budget from OMB, there is a 1.2 percent difference. This is the so-called biggest tax increase in American history. The President is right where we are, 1.2 percent difference between us.

Now, why all of these shenanigans? Partly it is because this is a red herring. They don't want to talk about really what is in their budget resolution. It's their resolution they will have to pass tomorrow. They bear the burden of truth and persuasion. You would think they would be talking about it.

But deep down in that resolution, you have to dig hard. You will find the same thing in the Agriculture Committee. This year they are to renew and reauthorize the farm bill. We want you to reconcile $9.85 billion in cost reduction in the agriculture bill. It will be awfully hard to get that farm bill out if that reconciliation is implemented.

They say to Labor, which has student loans, Pell Grants under its jurisdiction, you can cut $4.9 billion. Where from, student loans? No where else to go.

They say to Energy and Commerce, with Medicare and Medicaid in its jurisdiction cut $97.539 billion over the next 9 years. Judiciary and our law enforcement programs, cut $3.5 billion

dollars; Natural Resources, already strained, huge backlog for our national parks, cut $4.7 billion; Transportation and Infrastructure, about to run short of funds for our highways, cut $4.2 billion; Ways and Means, with all kinds of safety net programs, this is an instruction to Ways and Means, to cut $153 billion.

Now, this is done under the name and guise of balancing the budget. But what's the bottom line? They also tell Ways and Means to cut taxes by $447 billion.

When you net the $447 billion tax cut against the $278 billion in reconciled spending cuts, the result is $168 billion more to be added to the deficit. That is why they are talking about this other subject. That is why they wouldn't talk about their own resolution. Our resolution will stand on all fours. Our resolution is a good resolution. It's not the best, but it is doggone good.

It brings us to balance by 2012. It fully funds defense. By the way we don't have any shenanigans with the outlays. We don't short up guys in the field $67 billion in outlays. When we get through paying and providing for defense, which is a big item there, is not a lot left over. We husband our resources. We say to our veterans, by golly, you deserve what you are talking about. We give the biggest increase in history, $5.4 billion over current services for veterans health care.

Education, we think it's critically important. We genuinely believe in it on this side. We provide $9 billion more than the President for education next year, over the next 5 years, we provide $46 billion more for education than does theirs.

Children's health insurance, it's going to expire this year. What they propose will not even allow us to insure the children now on the program. We want to not only renew it, but expand it. We also want to pay for it. So we say to those who advocate SCHIP, its expansion, if you pay for it, you can go up to $50 billion in expanding the program. That is in our budget resolution.

Why do they want to put this red herring out there? To keep us from talking about these things that the American people really care about, the health of their children. They should.

We don't have any Medicaid cuts, and we don't have any Medicare cuts. I will tell you, because I have been at this business of the budget for a long time, in 1990 and 1991 Democrats voted for budget measures that truly reduced the deficit and had some restraints on Medicare and Medicaid in them; 1997, the same thing; 1993, with Mr. Clinton, the same thing. When we knew that it was going to improve the bottom line and not be used simply to offset another of their tax cuts, we were willing to pay for Medicare and Medicaid reduction. They have not been able to or willing to.

Finally, as to taxes, we have no tax increase anywhere in this resolution, none whatsoever. For that matter, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, particularly those middle-income tax cuts, which we list and enumerate, not once but twice in our resolution, we fully protect them and leave them in place, full force and effect, this year, next year, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

They only expire then, not because of anything in this budget resolution, but because when the Republicans first wrote those tax cuts and passed them, they put that sunset date in there in order to diminish the size and shoehorn these tax cuts under what was allowed under that budget resolution.

We have got a good budget resolution. It will stand on all fours. It brings the budget to balance in 2012, encourages less in deficits and depth than the President does. Furthermore, we have got a track record to talk about.

When President Clinton came to office in 1993, there was a deficit of $290 billion. Every year thereafter, every year thereafter, the bottom line of the budget got better, to the point where in 2000, there was a surplus of $236 billion. That is what happened on his watch.

President Bush came to office with an advantage few preceding Presidents have enjoyed, a surplus of $5.6 trillion projected by his own economists. He has run that into a deficit of $8.2 trillion. We haven't seen a reversal like that since the Great Depression. That was not the President's fault in the 1930s.

This is the record they have to rely on. The record we have to rely on is the record of the Clinton administration, which balanced the budget in the year 1998 for the first time in 30 years, and built up a surplus of $236 billion, which we turned over to Mr. Bush.

We will discuss this further tomorrow. But what we offer is a responsible budget resolution that reaches responsible results but is balanced well in its priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and rise to support the resolution and to talk about something the President seldom mentions, the cost of the war in Iraq. In deciding what we should do, cost is not the determining factor, but it is considerable, and with costs overall approaching $500 billion, it has to be a factor.

During the first Persian Gulf War we had real allies, Britain, France, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, and our gross cost was around $80 billion in current dollars. But Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States contributed in kind about $16 billion, and allies like Germany and Japan and Saudi Arabia contributed in cash around $60 billion, so the net cost to the United States was a mere $4 billion.

Because we had allies willing to share the burden, the cost of the first Gulf War was minimal. But in this war our President was able to enlist only one major ally, Great Britain, and he chose to go it alone with a motley coalition. That is one reason this war is proving more costly than the first, in lives and in dollars.

So far, over 3,100 service men and women have been killed in action; so far, over 23,000 have been wounded in action, many of them grievously; and so far, Congress has appropriated $379 billion for the war in Iraq.

As we speak, two supplemental appropriation bills are on deck. One is to cover operations in Iraq for the rest of fiscal 07, and it provides $100 billion to the $70 billion provided last year. The other supplemental is to cover operations in Iraq during fiscal 08, and it provides $145 billion. These bills, when passed, will push appropriations for the war in Iraq over $600 billion. $600 billion. When the 08 supplemental is added to the 08 base budget, these two will push appropriations for fiscal year 2008 alone to $643 billion. In constant dollars, that is more than we spent at the peak of Korea or Vietnam.

In a few weeks we will enter the fifth year of our engagement in Iraq. You would think after 5 years spending would come down. But spending over this time has not come down, it has gone up. Three years ago, 2004, the Pentagon was obligating money for Iraq at the rate of $4.8 billion a month. Today the Pentagon is obligating money for Iraq at the rate of $8.6 billion a month, and considering the supplemental for 07, with $170 billion, and the surge in Baghdad, the obligation rate will probably rise to $10 billion a month by the end of this year.

To support this surge, the President has called for five brigades, 21,500 additional troops. He sends a supplemental of $3.2 billion to pay for these troops. The CBO says, how about the support troops? How about the staff? This will cost billions more.

CBO has also looked out 10 years and tried to figure what future costs might be. By its estimation, future operations in Iraq and Afghanistan together could come to $824 billion between 2008 and 2017. Mind you, this assumes that the troops deployed in these theaters will be declining from a little over 200,000 today to a steady state of 75,000 in 2013.

If future costs are split 75-25, then over the next 10 years that is another $600 billion in store for us. Surely, surely at this juncture, as spending surges head upwards to more than $10 billion a month, surely we should ask whether we want to raise our commitment of troops and thrust them into a civil war with no clear exit, no timetable for completion, and, worse still, an urban war.

The Pentagon will say they can't see past 2008 and they don't know what the budget is for the outyears, and they will probably dispute this end state of 75,000 troops in the two theaters 10 years from now. And I hope they are right.

But there are other costs, the cost of ``reset,'' of refurbishing or repairing our equipment, which our commanders have told us could easily be $60 billion to $70 billion. And I haven't talked about the toll on our troops and their families, where some will soon be going for their third tour. The dwell time between tours is now 1 year instead of 2 years.

Whenever you go into the field to visit these troops, you have to be impressed with their attitude, with their readiness to serve and their willingness to sacrifice. I have always come away from these experiences saying thank God there are such Americans. They deserve our admiration and support, but they also deserve something else. They deserve not to be asked to do

what Iraqi troops and Iraqi police should do themselves.

For the past 2 years, the Bush administration has said to us just forebear, just wait, because we are training Iraqi forces, and as soon as these forces are stood up, ours can be stood down. Well, 118 Iraqi battalions have been stood up, and none of ours have been stood down.

In the Defense Authorization Act for 2006, Congress enacted this policy into law. We called for 2006 to be a year of transition. The resolution before us embodies that notion. The resolution heeds that advice. It does not call for pulling out our troops. It does not call for cutting off our funds. It says simply but solemnly that we disagree with the surge of our troops, thrust into what the Intelligence Estimate has called ``self-sustaining sectarian violence,'' especially when there are more than 118 Iraqi battalions trained to take on that task.

It is time for them to stand up and us to stand down, and Baghdad is a good place to start.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Madam Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. Speaker, section 511 clause (a)(4)(B)(i) of H. Res. 6 provides that I submit the 302(a) allocations contemplated by House Concurrent Resolution 376 of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, as adopted by the House. In addition, section 511 clause (a)(4)(B)(ii) of H. Res. 6 provides that I submit accounts identified for advance appropriations pursuant to section 401(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 376 of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, as adopted by the House.

The attached tables, which I submit, provide that information.

DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTION

[Fiscal years, in millions of dollars] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2007 2007-2011 total

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Rule XI clause 2, I am submitting the Committee on the Budget's rules for the 110th Congress. The rules were adopted during our Committee's organizational meeting, which was held January 18, 2007.

Rules of Procedure of the Committee on the Budget, January 18, 2007

General Applicability

Rule 1--Applicability of House Rules

Except as otherwise specified herein, the Rules of the

House are the rules of the committee so far as applicable,

except that a motion to recess from day to day is a motion of

high privilege.

Meetings

Rule 2--Regular meetings

(a) The regular meeting day of the committee shall be the

second Wednesday of each month at 11 a.m., while the House is

in session.

(b) The chairman is authorized to dispense with a regular

meeting when the chairman determines there is no business to

be considered by the committee. The chairman shall give

written notice to that effect to each member of the committee

as far in advance of the regular meeting day as the

circumstances permit.

(c) Regular meetings shall be canceled when they conflict

with meetings of either party's caucus or conference.

Rule 3--Additional and special meetings

(a) The chairman may call and convene additional meetings

of the committee as the chairman considers necessary, or

special meetings at the request of a majority of the members

of the committee in accordance with House Rule XI, clause

2(c).

(b) In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the

chairman shall provide written notice of additional meetings

to the office of each member at least 24 hours in advance

while Congress is in session, and at least 3 days in advance

when Congress is not in session.

Rule 4--Open business meetings

(a) Each meeting for the transaction of committee business,

including the markup of measures, shall be open to the public

except when the committee, in open session and with a quorum

present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the

remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the

public in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(1).

(b) No person other than members of the committee and such

congressional staff and departmental representatives as the

committee may authorize shall be present at any business or

markup session which has been closed to the public.

Rule 5--Quorums

A majority of the committee shall constitute a quorum. No

business shall be transacted and no measure or recommendation

shall be reported unless a quorum is actually present.

Rule 6--Recognition

Any member, when recognized by the chairman, may address

the committee on any bill, motion, or other matter under

consideration before the committee. The time of such member

shall be limited to 5 minutes until all members present have

been afforded an opportunity to comment.

Rule 7--Consideration of business

Measures or matters may be placed before the committee, for

its consideration, by the chairman or by a majority vote of

the members of the committee, a quorum being present.

Rule 8--Availability of legislation

The committee shall consider no bill, joint resolution, or

concurrent resolution unless copies of the measure have been

made available to all committee members at least [4] 6 hours

prior to the time at which such measure is to be considered.

When considering concurrent resolutions on the budget, this

requirement shall be satisfied by making available copies of

the complete chairman's mark (or such material as will

provide the basis for committee consideration). The

provisions of this rule may be suspended with the concurrence

of the chairman and ranking minority member.

Rule 9--Procedure for consideration of budget resolution

(a) It shall be the policy of the committee that the

starting point for any deliberations on a concurrent

resolution on the budget should be the estimated or actual

levels for the fiscal year preceding the budget year.

(b) In the consideration of a concurrent resolution on the

budget, the committee shall first proceed, unless otherwise

determined by the committee, to consider budget aggregates,

functional categories, and other appropriate matters on a

tentative basis, with the document before the committee open

to amendment. Subsequent amendments may be offered to

aggregates, functional categories, or other appropriate

matters, which have already been amended in their entirety.

(c) Following adoption of the aggregates, functional

categories, and other matters, the text of a concurrent

resolution on the budget incorporating such aggregates,

functional categories, and other appropriate matters shall be

considered for amendment and a final vote.

Rule 10--Roll call votes

A roll call of the members may be had upon the request of

at least one-fifth of those present. In the apparent absence

of a quorum, a roll call may be had on the request of any

member.

Hearings

Rule 11--Announcement of hearings

The chairman shall make a public announcement of the date,

place, and subject matter of any committee hearing at least 1

week before the hearing, beginning with the day in which the

announcement is made and ending the day preceding the

scheduled hearing unless the chairman, with the concurrence

of the ranking minority member, or the committee by

majority vote with a quorum present for the transaction of

business, determines there is good cause to begin the

hearing sooner, in which case the chairman shall make the

announcement at the earliest possible date.

Rule 12--Open hearings

(a) Each hearing conducted by the committee or any of its

task forces shall be open to the public except when the

committee or task force, in open session and with a quorum

present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the

remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the

public because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other

matters to be considered would endanger the national

security, or would compromise sensitive law enforcement

information, or would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate

any person, or would violate any law or rule of the House of

Representatives. The committee or task forces may by the same

procedure vote to close one subsequent day of hearing.

(b) For the purposes of House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(2), the

task forces of the committee are considered to be

subcommittees.

Rule 13--Quorums

For the purpose of hearing testimony, not less than two

members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.

Rule 14--Questioning witnesses

(a) Questioning of witnesses will be conducted under the 5-

minute rule unless the committee adopts a motion pursuant to

House Rule XI clause 2(j).

(b) In questioning witnesses under the 5-minute rule:

(1) First, the chairman and the ranking minority member

shall be recognized;

(2) Next, the members present at the time the hearing is

called to order shall be recognized in order of seniority;

and

(3) Finally, members not present at the time the hearing is

called to order may be recognized in the order of their

arrival at the hearing.

In recognizing members to question witnesses, the chairman

may take into consideration the ratio of majority members to

minority members and the number of majority and minority

members present and shall apportion the recognition for

questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage the

members of the majority.

Rule 15--Subpoenas and oaths

(a) In accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(m) subpoenas

authorized by a majority of the committee may be issued over

the

signature of the chairman or of any member of the committee

designated by him, and may be served by any person designated

by the chairman or such member.

(b) The chairman, or any member of the committee designated

by the chairman, may administer oaths to witnesses.

Rule 16--Witnesses' statements

(a) So far as practicable, any prepared statement to be

presented by a witness shall be submitted to the committee at

least 24 hours in advance of presentation, and shall be

distributed to all members of the committee in advance of

presentation.

(b) To the greatest extent possible, each witness appearing

in a nongovernmental capacity shall include with the written

statement of proposed testimony a curriculum vitae and a

disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program)

of any Federal grant (or sub-grant thereof) or contract (or

subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year

or either of the two preceding fiscal years.

Prints and Publications

Rule 17--Committee prints

All committee prints and other materials prepared for

public distribution shall be approved by the committee prior

to any distribution, unless such print or other material

shows clearly on its face that it has not been approved by

the committee.

Rule 18--Committee publications on the Internet

To the maximum extent feasible, the committee shall make

its publications available in electronic form.

Staff

Rule 19--Committee staff

(a) Subject to approval by the committee, and to the

provisions of the following paragraphs, the professional and

clerical staff of the committee shall be appointed, and may

be removed, by the chairman.

(b) Committee staff shall not be assigned any duties other

than those pertaining to committee business, and shall be

selected without regard to race, creed, sex, or age, and

solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of their

respective positions.

(c) All committee staff shall be entitled to equitable

treatment, including comparable salaries, facilities, access

to official committee records, leave, and hours of work.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraphs a, b, and c, staff shall be

employed in compliance with House rules, the Employment and

Accountability Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and

any other applicable Federal statutes.

Rule 20--Staff supervision

(a) Staff shall be under the general supervision and

direction of the chairman, who shall establish and assign

their duties and responsibilities, delegate such authority as

he deems appropriate, fix and adjust staff salaries (in

accordance with House Rule X, clause 9(c)) and job titles,

and, at his discretion, arrange for their specialized

training.

(b) Staff assigned to the minority shall be under the

general supervision and direction of the minority members of

the committee, who may delegate such authority, as they deem

appropriate.

Records

Rule 21--Preparation and maintenance of committee records

(a) A substantially verbatim account of remarks actually

made during the proceedings shall be made of all hearings and

business meetings subject only to technical, grammatical, and

typographical corrections.

(b) The proceedings of the committee shall be recorded in a

journal, which shall among other things, include a record of

the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded.

(c) Members of the committee shall correct and return

transcripts of hearings as soon as practicable after receipt

thereof, except that any changes shall be limited to

technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections.

(d) Any witness may examine the transcript of his own

testimony and make grammatical, technical, and typographical

corrections.

(e) The chairman may order the printing of a hearing record

without the corrections of any member or witness if he

determines that such member or witness has been afforded a

reasonable time for correction, and that further delay would

seriously impede the committee's responsibility for meeting

its deadlines under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(f) Transcripts of hearings and meetings may be printed if

the chairman decides it is appropriate, or if a majority of

the members so request.

Rule 22--Access to committee records

(a)(1) The chairman shall promulgate regulations to provide

for public inspection of roll call votes and to provide

access by members to committee records (in accordance with

House Rule XI, clause 2(e)).

(2) Access to classified testimony and information shall be

limited to Members of Congress and to House Budget Committee

staff and staff of the Office of Official Reporters who have

appropriate security clearance.

(3) Notice of the receipt of such information shall be sent

to the committee members. Such information shall be kept in

the committee safe, and shall be available to members in the

committee office.

(b) The records of the committee at the National Archives

and Records Administration shall be made available for public

use in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives. The chairman shall notify the ranking

minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3)

or clause 4(b) of the rule, to withhold a record otherwise

available, and the matter shall be presented to the committee

for a determination on the written request of any member of

the committee.

Oversight

Rule 23--General oversight

(a) The committee shall review and study, on a continuing

basis, the application, administration, execution, and

effectiveness of those laws, or parts of laws, the subject of

which is within its jurisdiction.

(b) The committee is authorized at any time to conduct such

investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or

appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under

clause (1)(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House, and,

subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as required by

clause 6 of Rule X, to incur expenses (including travel

expenses) in connection therewith.

(c) Not later than February 15 of the first session of a

Congress, the committee shall meet in open session, with a

quorum present, to adopt its oversight plans for that

Congress for submission to the Committee on House

Administration and the Committee on Government Reform in

accordance with the provisions of clause (2)(d) of House Rule

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule providing for consideration of the College Student Relief Act. This bill is good for students, it is good for the budget, and it is deserving of our support. This bill will help make college more affordable to students who need it most by cutting the interest rate in half on subsidized student loans.

College costs, as we all know, have risen dramatically. In the last 5 years, the cost of attending a 4-year public college increased $3,095, or by 34 percent. Interest rates the students pay on college loans have also risen this year to a fixed rate of 6.8 percent. This combination of factors makes attending college more expensive, if not impossible, for some of today's high school students.

This bill, the bill before us, takes a long first step towards making college more affordable. Each year it cuts the interest rate that undergraduates will pay on the standard subsidized student loans until that rate is cut in half to 3.4 percent in the year 2011. At the same time, the bill we have before us will save the Federal Government by reducing the deficit by a significant sum.

That is why this bill meets all of the tests laid down by the pay-as- you-go rule which the House adopted on January 5. That rule requires that direct spending or mandatory spending be budget neutral or deficit neutral over 6 years, 2007 through 2012, and over 11 years as well, 2007 through 2017, which is as far out as our cost estimates run. This bill is more than deficit neutral or budget neutral because it actually reduces the deficits in most years, saving $1.5 billion in 2007, $65 million over 6 years, and a total of $7.1 billion over the next 11 years, 2007 through 2017.

So, overall, this bill helps students get a good college education while helping us reduce the deficit. It meets the requirements of PAYGO. It is a bill and a rule that deserves our support.

I would urge every Member on both sides to vote for this rule and vote for the rule that enables it to come to the floor.

I thank the gentleman for the compliment and wish I could accept it, and I am glad to have the time to explain what is before us.

The budget summit in 1990 ended up with a 5-year deficit reduction plan and a kit of budget process rules known as the Budget Enforcement Act of 1991. Among these process changes was something that we have come to call the PAYGO rule, or pay-as-you-go.

Basically, the pay-as-you-go rule provides that any increase in entitlement benefits has to be paid for by a new revenue source, and that any cut in taxes has to be offset by equivalent cuts in entitlements or by equivalent increases elsewhere in the Tax Code. In other words, entitlement increases or tax cuts have to be deficit neutral. They cannot worsen the bottom line. This is the basic principle of PAYGO; a common-sense, truly conservative principle.

PAYGO was originated by Democrats, but it was embraced by the first President Bush in 1991, in the Budget Enforcement Act. It was adopted by President Clinton in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. It was confirmed again by Clinton and by this Congress in a bipartisan way in the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. It was even endorsed by the second President Bush in his 2001 budget submission: Reinstate PAYGO. That is what the President requested.

But the Bush administration soon found that if we did that, it would get in the way of its huge tax cut agenda, and that was its driving force behind all the budget policy of this administration. So in 2002, even though it had worked, demonstrably worked, and brought the deficit down, in 2002, the Bush administration and this Congress, under Republican leadership, allowed the PAYGO rule to expire.

PAYGO had been renewed three times. From 1991 to 2001, it was the law of the budget. It worked. But it was allowed to expire. The result was a deficit that soared. President Clinton handed over to President Bush a budget that was in surplus, in surplus by $236 billion the year before President Bush took office. By 2004, without the PAYGO rule, without the strictures of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1991, the surplus was gone, wiped out, replaced by a deficit of $413 billion. That was a swing of more than $600 billion in the wrong direction.

In an effort to diminish these debts and to rein in the deficit, Democrats tried repeatedly over the last 6 years to reinstate the PAYGO rule. And Republicans, just as repeatedly, rebuked us at every turn. Today, with a new majority, we want a new commitment to fiscal responsibility. We want to pay as you go. We want to quit stacking debt on top of debt.

The statutory debt, on the watch of this administration, has increased by 60 percent, 60 percent since President Bush took office, more than $3 trillion in new debt. This is not a sustainable course. Nobody in this House would rise to support this course. So let us reverse course. Let us start today. Let us enact something that worked for 11 years, the PAYGO rule that was adopted first in 1991.

Today, we add two new rules to the rules of the House, section 402 and section 405 of title IV in the package before you. The original PAYGO rule was statutory. It set up a scorecard on which tax cuts and tax increases, entitlement cuts and entitlement increases were all entered. At the end of the fiscal year, the tally was taken by the Congressional Budget Office, and if there was an adverse balance, it had to be rectified. If it was not rectified and removed, then it would result in across-the-board abatement or sequestration cuts.

Why not just reenact the statutory rule, since that is the form that worked? I wish we could. But it is not at all clear we can pass a statutory change or reenactment of the PAYGO

rule in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed. And it is even less clear, and extremely doubtful, that the President would sign a statutory PAYGO rule if it reached his desk.

So what we propose today is the art of the possible. What we propose is a House rule, setting up a point of order to any PAYGO violation. We also correct here the practice of using the reconciliation process, an extraordinary process in order to do things, that would worsen the budget deficit. But I want to focus mainly on the PAYGO result.

The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, and I look forward to working with him, he is a good man who knows his stuff, and I look forward to a good relationship, but I have to take exception when he says this rule does not reduce the deficit. By itself, it may not. But it establishes in the rules of this House a commonsense, truly conservative principle that when the budget is in deficit, deep deficit, at the very least, we should avoid making it worse. We should avoid entitlement increases that are not paid for and we should avoid tax cuts that are not offset.

This rule is not immutable, it can be waived or modified, but it establishes a strong working presumption in favor of fiscal responsibility and it holds accountable every Member who votes otherwise.

Mr. Ryan claims this bill will set a double standard favoring higher spending. But in truth it is a double-edged sword. It applies to entitlement increases as well as tax cuts. So if you want to start the 110th Congress on the foot of fiscal responsibility, the right thing to do is to vote to reinstate PAYGO. Vote for this package and its fiscal responsibility provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2007 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 401 and 501 of H. Con. Res. 376, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 6. This status report is current through January 1, 2007. An additional report will be filed to reflect any changes in committee jurisdictions.

The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature.

The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set by H. Con. Res. 376. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2007 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered.

The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 376 for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal years 2007 through 2011. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a).

The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2007 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation.

The fourth table gives the current level for 2008 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 376. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

The fifth table provides the current level of the nondefense reserve fund for emergencies established by section 501 of H. Con. Res. 376. The table is required by section 505 of the budget resolution, and is needed to determine whether an increase in the reserve fund, allocations and aggregates will be necessary for any pending legislation that contains emergency-designated discretionary budget authority.

Madam Speaker, the package before us will be modified tomorrow to include provisions that reinstate a practice that was followed throughout the 1990s in the budget process called pay-as-you- go.

Pay-as-you-go was first instituted in 1991 as part of the Budget Enforcement Act when President Bush, the first President Bush, was the President of this country. Pay-as-you-go simply provides that if you want to cut taxes when you have a deficit, you can't make the deficit worse; you have got to offset those tax cuts either with entitlement cuts in an equivalent amount or with tax increases elsewhere in the Tax Code. And, if you want to enhance an entitlement, you have to pay for it with an identified revenue stream.

Our friends across the aisle are trying to imply that this PAYGO rule is a sham. I will simply say to you that our

PAYGO rule is the art of the possible; it is what we can do at the present moment, and that is we can amend the rules of the House today and tomorrow to include two new PAYGO rules which we have provided for and which have been published.

There is some dispute as to whether or not the baseline against which to measure increases and decreases is going to be something that we can manipulate in the Budget Committee. I would simply invite everybody to read the language of the rule, and they will see that in this particular case, the Committee on the Budget is bound to turn to the Congressional Budget Office, which is traditional practice, and to use the recent baseline estimates supplied by the CBO consistent with section 257 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1985. That is what the rule provides. We go to CBO for the baseline, we determine whether or not the extent to which there will be an increase in spending or decrease in revenues. It is a CBO function based upon the latest baseline. And any other construction of this is a false construction.

Now, some may say this is just a rule of the House, it can be waived by the Rules Committee because, as the other side well knows, points of order of this kind traditionally have been mowed down by the Rules Committee. But this is the best we can do with a rule of the House. We can later come back and make a statutory change, but it will be good to know if our opponents on the other side who support such a change.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the following commentary by Jason Ackerman, of Fort Mill, South Carolina, which is in my congressional district. Jason was a House page in 2003- 2004 and is now a student at New York University.

The Importance of the Page Program

(By Jason Ackerman)

New York Times columnist John Tierney argues that the

congressional page program should be eliminated because it

serves no purpose for pages or for the country (``A page,

M'Lord, at your service,'' Oct. 4).

Well John Tierney was obviously never a page.

I served as a page from August 2003 to January 2004. These

months were some of the most special moments of my life--

months in which I not only learned how Congress operates, but

also months in which I made some of the greatest friends of

my life.

A day in the life of a page is not easy. It starts at 6:45

in the morning when we all walk from our dorm a couple of

blocks from the Capitol to the Library of Congress's

Jefferson Building where school is held. Full-time teachers

teach the same subjects that we would otherwise have been

taking back at our home schools.

The school is not a piece of cake either. The courses are

very challenging, so challenging in fact that when I came

back to my high school I was way ahead in most subjects.

After school, which lasted until the House of

Representatives commenced, we would head over to the Floor of

the House of Representatives where we would start our daily

tasks. There are many different page jobs, most of which are

rotated around so everyone gets an opportunity to experience

different areas of the House.

Some pages are runners, which involved taking documents

from one place in the Capitol to another. Others are

cloakroom pages, where we worked in the cloakroom answering

phones about floor proceedings. Still others are in charge of

the bell system and of raising and lowering the flag every

day on the top of the House of Representatives to declare

that the House is in session.

The day ends when the House goes out of session. This can

be anywhere from 5:00 in the afternoon to 7:00 in the

morning. Then we head home, do homework, socialize, clean our

rooms (which are checked three times a week), and then go to

bed at mandatory curfew hour, which was 10:00 on weekdays and

12:00 on weekends.

Some of my most memorable and enjoyable moments as a page

were getting to interact with members of the House. Some

would come by and tell us jokes, and others would take the

time to help us identify someone we were trying to find or to

explain to us what was going on at that moment in the

complicated proceedings of the House.

Yes there were some unfriendly ones, but by and large most

members are very kind and generous. There was not a single

time in which I felt insecure or unsafe while on the Floor or

at any other time while I was a page.

The lifelong friendships that I made because of the page

program are some of the most amazing friendships of my life.

Former pages are some of my closest friends, and I keep in

touch with a lot of them on a daily or weekly basis. I now

have friends in California and Wyoming that I would never

have had the chance to make without this experience.

The page experience is something that I would not trade for

anything, and it was one of the greatest times of my life. I

witnessed history first hand, and made a ton of friends in

the process. The experience also sparked my interest in

public service, government, and the political process. I

would not hesitate one moment to send my child to be a page.

These views are also shared with every one of my classmates

that I have spoken to since the Foley scandal has erupted. My

roommate, who was actually sponsored by Congressman Foley,

stressed the importance of continuing the program because of

how the program changed his life as well.

The only people who do not want the program to continue are

people who know nothing about the program and have never

talked to a page.

Congressman Foley made a mistake, and should be punished to

the full extent of the law, but to punish the page program

for his mistake is not only unfortunate but also unjust.