mr. chairman , i rise today in support of the house of representatives ' budget plan and thank chairman nussle and his committee for their dedicated work on this legislation .  i think many of us agree that a federal budget of more than $ 2.5 trillion dollars provides enough resources for the government .  as i tell my constituents , we do n't have an income problem herein washington ; we have a spending problem .  even as our economy has grown and revenues have increased in the past year , we continue to spend more than we take in .  our house budget takes important steps to address this spending problem while ensuing that our nation 's most pressing needs are being met .  we are at war , so defense and security funding remain a priority .  much of the increased spending in the past few years has gone toward national defense and security , including $ 258 billion in extra funding since september 11 , 2001 .  our house budget matches president bush 's commitment to our national defense needs with a 4.8 percent increase .  beyond national security , this budget provides sufficient funds to meet our priorities , but it also take important steps to begin addressing congress ' spending problem .  first , our budget does not raise taxes in order to pay for more spending , as some are proposing in their alternatives .  second , our budget actually reduces non-defense and non-homeland security discretionary spending by .8 percent .  third , this budget will set us on course to reduce the growth in mandatory spending , which is growing far faster than our economy and comprises nearly two-thirds of all federal spending .  by maintaining the tax relief and not allowing for tax increases , our house budget ensures that the economy will continue to grow and create jobs .  sustained economic growth resulting from sustained lower taxes also narrows the budget deficit .  while non-defense discretionary spending is only about 20 percent of federal spending , it is the area in which congress exercises the most direct annual control .  we know there are programs that are wasteful , duplicative or unnecessary .  by reducing spending in this area by .8 percent , we force ourselves to do better at finding the waste and consolidating or eliminating the programs we do n't need in order to make the best use of the resources available .  for the first time in eight years , congress is finally dealing with the unchecked growth of mandatory spending in this budget .  let 's be clear -- despite what we are hearing from some on the other side , this budget does not `` cut '' any programs that help those in need .  more will still be spent this year than was spent last year , and by my west texas definition , that is not a cut .  what this budget does is set on the track to slow the rate of growth on the mandatory side , which is currently unsustainable .  in the last ten years , federal medicaid spending has nearly doubled , growing at an average of 8 percent each year .  even with the savings called for in this budget , medicaid will still grow by 7.3 percent over the next 10 years , as opposed to increasing by 7.6 percent .  with regard to the mandatory spending reduction set for agriculture .  i am concerned that the target in this bill is more than agriculture 's total share of mandatory spending .  as we conference with the senate , i ask that the budget committee work toward a number that is more in line with agriculture 's 4.7 percent share of mandatory spending .  what we are doing here with respect to agriculture is allowing the agriculture committee to look at all mandatory spending at usda and have full discretion on how we reach our savings total .  we can do this without `` reopening '' the farm bill .  all usda mandatory spending , including nutrition programs , must be considered .  during the first three years of the 2002 farm bill , farm programs have cost $ 14 billion less than the congressional budget office predicted when the legislation passed .  the 2002 farm bill has proven to be a very effective safety net for our producers , providing support in times of lower prices , and reducing support when it is not needed .  and even though spending will increase somewhat this year due to lower prices , total spending over the life of this farm bill is still projected to be less than was predicted .  changing the rules of the game now , and then again in two years , is not sound policy .  budget decisions we make in agriculture today will not only affect the 2007 farm bill , but they will also affect our negotiating position in the world trade organization .  if we take all of our chips off the table now , we will not have anything left to negotiate with as our trade representatives continue efforts to open new markets and reduce other barriers to u.s. products .  during meetings with constituents throughout my district , farmers understood the importance of balancing the budget , and they are willing to do their part to reduce the deficit .  however , they do not support agriculture bearing a disproportionate share of the burden .  neither do i , and i am committed to working in conference to ensure our final budget outline for the year treats agriculture fairly .  our constituents are looking to us to make responsible decisions about the use of their hard-earned tax dollars .  they are counting on us to set the right priorities and follow through on past commitments .  i believe our house budget sets us on the right path toward reducing spending , keeping our economy growing and protecting our nation .  