[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 32 (Wednesday, March 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H1536-H1545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                   ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 154 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 154

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal year 2005, and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. The first reading 
     of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution are waived. General debate shall not exceed five 
     hours, with four hours of general debate confined to the 
     congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget and one hour of general debate on the subject of 
     economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Saxton of New Jersey and Representative 
     Maloney of New York or their designees. After general debate 
     the concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall 
     be considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 
     those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by an opponent and a 
     proponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House and in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
     against such amendments are waived except that the adoption 
     of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution for amendment. After the conclusion of 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, the 
     Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to 
     the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final 
     adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to 
     section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     of its adoption.
       Sec. 2. After adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 95, 
     it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table Senate 
     Concurrent Resolution 18 and to consider the Senate 
     concurrent resolution in the House. All points of order 
     against the Senate concurrent resolution and against its 
     consideration are waived. It shall be in order to move to 
     strike all after the resolving clause of the Senate 
     concurrent resolution and to insert in lieu thereof the 
     provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 95 as adopted by 
     the House. All points of order against that motion are 
     waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it is a great day in our great Nation, and 
it is an honor to be here to begin the debate about the fiscal 
blueprint for our Nation, the priorities of our Nation.
  House Resolution 154 is a structured rule that provides for 
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 95, establishing the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
2006 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
2007 through 2010.

[[Page H1537]]

  Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Committee on Rules and the 
Committee on the Budget, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the 
floor for its consideration. This rule provides for 5 hours of general 
debate with 4 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on 
the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and 
controlled by the gentleman of New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) or their designees.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
concurrent resolution.
  This rule makes in order four amendments which are printed in the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Each is 
debatable for 40 minutes, the time equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and the opponent.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in 
the report, except that the adoption of the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the 
concurrent resolution for amendment. It also permits the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget to offer amendments in the House to achieve 
mathematical consistency.
  This is a fair rule. The Committee on Rules has allowed substitute 
budgets to be considered on the House floor. They range across the 
political spectrum affording Members of varying philosophies within 
each political party and across political parties an opportunity to 
support the budget they deem appropriate for our Nation.
  Since before my time in this body, the Committee on Rules has 
consistently afforded the minority the opportunity for its alternative 
to be heard, with the only exception being the fiscal year 2003 budget 
when there was not a budget alternative offered. I am pleased this rule 
provides a chance for all our Members to express their views on how our 
Nation should prioritize its spending.
  The congressional budget is an important tool of the Congress, 
allowing us to set priorities for the coming fiscal year. Therefore, 
this budget provides for America's most urgent needs. The driving 
forces behind this budget are continued strength, continued growth, and 
restrained spending.
  The congressional budget is the ultimate enforcement tool, allowing 
Congress to clearly identify its priorities for how taxpayer dollars 
should be spent. It allows us in a time of war to ensure that our 
Nation's soldiers are sufficiently equipped. Prioritizing guarantees 
that our economy continues to expand, providing jobs and opportunities 
for more Americans each and every day.
  Finally, this tool allows us to make certain that our government acts 
in a fiscally responsible manner to ensure opportunities and safety for 
future generations of Americans. This budget ensures that our Nation 
remains strong in the face of terror. We continue the multiyear plan to 
enable the military to fight the war on terrorism now and to transform 
itself to counter unconventional threats in the future. This budget 
works to prevent attacks, reduce vulnerabilities, and improve 
readiness.
  Continued economic growth is vital for our Nation to fund her 
priorities and give opportunity to her people. Today, the general 
consensus of both private and public forecasters is that the U.S. 
economy is in a sustained expansion with solid growth of real GDP and 
payroll jobs and with low unemployment and low inflation.
  The speed and strength of the economic recovery of the last several 
years has been due in large part to the tax relief packages given to 
the American people along with the extension of that tax relief passed 
last year. These policies continue to promote sustained economic growth 
and job creation.
  I am proud to be a member of the Committee on the Budget that this 
year reported out a historic budget that sets in motion a glidepath to 
cut the deficit in half both in dollars and as a percentage of gross 
domestic product in 5 years. This budget wisely targets both 
discretionary and mandatory spending in an effort to set priorities.
  The Committee on the Budget calls for a reduction in total 
nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary spending. And for the 
first time since 1997, the budget includes reconciliation instructions 
to authorizing committees calling for the slowed growth of mandatory 
programs.
  Mandatory spending is the guaranteed spending that grows each and 
every year, mostly without reform or review. It currently consumes 55 
percent of the budget; and if it continues unchecked, it will reach 61 
percent of the budget by 2015.

                              {time}  1315

  More than half of the government's spending today is on automatic 
pilot. This is neither sound policy nor sustainable fiscal policy. 
Congress is on its way to losing control over spending priorities as 
entitlements squeeze the budget more and more. Reconciliation 
instructions are the critical step to begin the process of getting our 
mandatory spending back to a sustainable level.
  I am hopeful that while the authorizing committees are reviewing 
their programs they may also conclude that many of these mandatory 
programs would be better suited as discretionary and, therefore, 
subject to greater oversight by the Congress.
  I am proud of the work the Committee on the Budget has put forward 
this year. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), the 
chairman of that committee, for pushing forward with fiscal discipline 
and bringing us this outstanding budget for consideration.
  I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam), my colleague, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, every day from this floor we hear our Members talk about 
values and morals that guide our Nation, but nothing reveals our true 
values as legislators more than how we choose to spend the American 
taxpayers' money. Each decision to fund a program or not to fund 
another is a conscious choice that we make.
  These choices have real consequences for the hardworking Americans we 
serve, and so, really, those choices are about our values and our 
morality. We, as legislators, choose to fund what is most important, 
what has the most value. That is why the Federal budget of the United 
States is a moral document.
  When we establish the financial priorities of the government each 
year, we show the American people in black and white what and who we 
value most.
  As the budget resolution we debate today shows with startling 
clarity, the majority's priorities I think are out of step with the 
values of the American people.
  The majority's budget resolution throws an additional $106 billion in 
tax cuts to the Nation's wealthiest, while cutting billions in crucial 
funding for health care, education and housing programs; programs that 
help the hardworking Americans get by from day-to-day; programs that 
give hope to mothers and fathers that they, too, may one day share in 
the American dream.
  I believe this budget resolution sends the wrong message, values the 
wrong priorities and shortchanges too many of our hardworking taxpayers 
that we should, in fact, be helping.
  What message are we sending about the values of this House when we 
cut more than $20 billion from Medicaid, threatening the health care of 
millions of children, seniors and disabled Americans?
  What message are we sending about the values of this House when we 
cut student loans, Pell grants and other educational spending by more 
than $21 billion?
  What message are we sending about this House when we cut more than $5 
billion from farm and nutrition programs, slashing the food stamp 
program that so many Americans depend on to feed their children?
  How can we hurt all these people, cut all this funding, slash all 
these programs and still afford $106 billion in

[[Page H1538]]

tax cuts for our wealthiest, a tax cut that balloons the deficit and 
shifts the financial burden to pay those taxes to our grandchildren and 
our children?
  That is right. Every penny we give away in this budget's massive tax 
cut to the wealthy shifts the burden of those taxes to the middle class 
and to the working poor who cannot even get unemployment benefits 
extended or an increase in the minimum wage out of this Congress.
  What will it take for this House to get its priorities in order? How 
much debt will we strap to the backs of our future generations before 
we get smarter? How much must we borrow from foreign countries to feed 
the majority's insatiable appetite for economic Darwinism?
  In 5 short years paying the interest, and this is so important I want 
to repeat this, by 2009, the interest that we pay on the Nation's debt 
will cost by itself more than all the domestic, non-defense, 
discretionary spending combined. That is very close by. Simply put, for 
every dollar we could be spending on roads and schools and putting more 
cops on the street, fifty cents of it will be passed on to foreign 
countries to finance the deepening debt with which this majority 
continues to encumber us. That is on top of the debt we incurred 
earlier today of $80 billion that we are hoping the Chinese will 
finance.
  If the majority had its way our grandchildren would end up having to 
use those privatized Social Security accounts they have been pushing 
for the past few weeks to pay off this massive new debt that Congress 
keeps throwing at them. What is the problem?
  What is included in this budget is just as horrifying as what is 
excluded from it.
  In a disingenuous attempt to conceal their own economic short-
sightedness, this majority has purposely hidden the harmful effects of 
their Social Security privatization plan, a plan that could cost the 
taxpayers trillions over the next 10 years, from this budget 
resolution.
  They have low-balled the cost of the war in Iraq, spending only $50 
billion over the next year, which just today we voted for $80 billion. 
Let me compliment the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) because if 
he had not put $50 billion in, there would have been nothing because 
the President did not include it at all in his budget. I call on any 
Member of the majority to stand here today and tell me we will spend 
just $50 billion and $50 billion alone next year.
  Rather than show the true cost of their budgetary unmindfulness, the 
majority has chosen to conceal from the public the true cost of their 
plans, and as they prepare to pass this resolution and further cripple 
the financial viability of our Nation, the real knockout punch looms on 
the horizon.
  Social Security privatization, while not detailed in this budget, 
would have disastrous, long-term, far-reaching impacts on the budget. 
The plan would cut Social Security benefits, make solvency problems 
worse and require massive borrowing, mostly again from the foreign 
countries, to the tune of $4 to $5 trillion over the next 10 years, and 
we have no less authority than Vice President Cheney who verifies this.
  In order to make certain that we are able to meet future budget 
obligations for the health and well-being of our children, our seniors, 
our veterans and disabled, we must protect Social Security from 
privatization.
  Therefore, at the end of this debate, I will be asking for a ``no'' 
vote on the previous question so that we can consider legislation by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), our colleague, that will 
prohibit the use of the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for the 
administration's ill-advised private accounts plan.
  Whether my friends on the other side of the aisle want to admit it or 
not, the administration plan to divert Social Security payroll taxes to 
private accounts will cut future Social Security benefits and make it 
nearly impossible to meet the future needs of so many Americans. That 
is why it is so important to stop this potential hemorrhage of Social 
Security in its tracks. The Salazar bill is a good step to show the 
American people that we will not allow their retirement checks to be 
slashed to pay for private accounts.
  It is time for this House to show the American people what we truly 
value. This is our choice today. Will we stand with the people we 
represent or with the CEOs, corporations and special interests that 
stand to gain from the tax cut and the plan to privatize Social 
Security?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my distinguished 
colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the budget resolution. 
The rule allows for debate, along with three substitutes, two of which 
were offered by the minority. I think it is a good rule.
  I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and members of 
the Committee on the Budget on a good product that addresses several of 
the concerns that I have had with President Bush's budget.
  I am pleased that the budget provides for extension of tax cuts that 
have brought 20 months of job growth to our Nation's economy. I also 
agree with the increases for our national defense and homeland security 
to provide for our troops fighting the war on terror and to keep our 
communities safe.
  One source of concern for me was the Community Development Block 
Grant program. It is crucial to city and rural areas across my 
district. The President's budget proposed reducing funds to the CDBG 
and 17 other economic development programs from $5.31 billion to $3.71 
billion. I am pleased that the Committee on the Budget added an 
additional $1.1 billion to the President's request for the functional 
category encompassing these programs. This budget resolution makes no 
assumption on the President's proposed Communities Initiative.
  Our veterans deserve the very best health care and services our 
Nation can offer them. Funding for veterans have increased by 47 
percent over the past 4 years, and I am pleased that the committee 
added $297 million this year to the President's budget proposal for 
veterans, and I will continue to seek further and additional funding 
for our veterans and their health care.
  I continue to have some concerns with the budget. I am a strong 
supporter of vocational education and TRIO programs. The President's 
budget proposal would combine these into a high school intervention 
initiative and reduce funding. TRIO programs are very successful. I 
actually worked in one in helping low income students with their 
transition to college.
  Vocational ed programs offer many high school students the motivation 
to work hard in all of their classes and provide job skills who do not 
go on to college. I look forward to working with appropriators to 
ensure adequate funding levels for both TRIO and vocational ed.
  Medicaid funds are very important also to all West Virginians, 
particularly low income West Virginians, and I urge my colleagues to 
avoid cuts to Medicaid as the reconciliation instructions found in this 
resolution are implemented.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that these 
priorities like veterans education, economic development and Medicaid 
are adequately funded as the process continues.
  I support the rule and the resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my New York colleague for 
extending me the 5 minutes.
  I rise in opposition to the rule because it appears to be 
inconsistent with all of the things that the President is talking 
about.
  The President is talking about relieving the tax burdens of working 
Americans, and yet there is no provision at all for the alternative 
minimum tax that is going to grab the middle income people with a tax 
that they do not deserve, and the Committee on Ways and Means and this 
Congress never intended that they have to carry this burden.

[[Page H1539]]

  I am glad that the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) saw fit to 
put the $50 billion in because it is an indication that they know that 
a war is going on, and I only wish that they would put something in 
there to help those veterans that are fighting the war.
  Lastly, if the President is going around the country selling this 
concept that we ought to eliminate this Social Security system and set 
up a new system, everyone agrees that it is going to cost a lot of 
money to do this. The transition is very, very costly. It runs into 
trillions of dollars, and yet there is not one scintilla of evidence 
that the President's legislative ideas are considered by the House in 
this budget.
  The President had a press conference today, and he has indicated that 
the personal accounts, as he called them, and private accounts, as we 
called them, actually will not do anything to make the Social Security 
system solvent. So, in support of the President's position, what we are 
saying here in defeating the rule, give us the opportunity to bring 
legislation to my colleagues that would prohibit us from taking the 
contributions that are made to the Social Security fund out of that and 
putting it into a private fund, which the President agrees with us has 
nothing to do with saving Social Security.
  As a matter of fact, he says that personal accounts will make sure 
that individual workers get a better deal in whatever emerges as a 
Social Security system, which means that if it is separate and just to 
make someone feel good because they have private investments, then 
come, Mr. President and my fellow colleagues of the other side of the 
aisle, and let us talk about it by taking personal private accounts off 
of the table and, in a bipartisan way, help us to get something that 
emerges out of Social Security.
  Then, if we want to encourage incentives for savings, since the third 
rail that the President has grabbed is changing the income tax system, 
then let us work together and put incentives in the tax system that 
would encourage low and middle income workers to have a savings.
  It just seems to me to have a budget today that excludes the real 
cost of the war, that punishes veterans that suffered in the war, that 
makes no provisions for relieving the economic pain that is going to be 
caused by the alternative minimum tax, and to act like the President 
going for 60 cities in 60 days will have no legislative impact, then 
let us save a lot of money and say that we cannot deal with Social 
Security reform today, not because we do not have a problem, but the 
President is committed in making certain that we do not find a 
bipartisan solution.

                              {time}  1330

  But the President going into districts knocking Democrats because 
they are not coming forward to work with him is inconsistent with what 
our President has said when he brought this subject up, and that is 
keep your powder dry, do not be critical because I will be coming up 
with a bill, and then after that come to us.
  The President has changed his position three times. First, he says 
there is no crisis; and we agree with him that there is a problem. Two, 
he indicates that the personal accounts really are not the solution and 
have nothing to do with the solution of solvency. And, three, he is now 
saying he wants ideas instead of coming up with what he thinks should 
be the solution.
  It just seems to me that it is up to us to make certain that we still 
work for a bipartisan solution; and if the President does not believe 
that his personal and our private accounts are going to help us in 
resolving this problem, then for God's sake let us get on with Social 
Security and with the help of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), a personal friend of the President who listens to him, tell 
him we agree with the President that if it does not solve the problem, 
get out of the way and let us together, Republicans and Democrats, 
solve this problem.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means in regard to the alternative minimum tax. 
The gentleman will be delighted to learn that this budget makes 
accommodation for a further AMT extension of relief so that middle-
class Americans are not impacted by that AMT provision that originated 
in the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman from New York will be 
further delighted to know that the budget process allows the 
flexibility and the discretion for that authorizing committee to make 
those changes rather than having the Committee on the Budget direct 
them for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I 
would like to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) who 
is doing a superb job, along with our colleague from Dallas, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). As members of the Committee on 
Rules, they are also serving in the very important capacity on the 
Committee on the Budget where they have played a key role in fashioning 
this work product that we are going to see.
  Let me speak about the rule itself. I am happy to see the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking minority 
member from Rochester, New York. I am happy this rule has been able to 
report out every single substitute that was submitted to the Committee 
on Rules calling for an opportunity to be considered here in the House. 
I am also happy we have been able to include an additional amendment 
which is unusual in that as Members know from the perspective of both 
sides of the aisle, when Democrats were in the majority here, 
Republicans in the majority, we have traditionally only made 
substitutes in order. But out of deference to the distinguished ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, we have chosen to 
make in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  I believe this rule is extraordinarily fair, extraordinarily balanced 
and will provide an opportunity for a wide range of public policy 
discussions to take place as we move ahead with consideration.
  Let me say when it comes to the budget itself, I think we have a 
clear choice. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) came 
before us and discussed the questions that relate to the budget 
proposal that have been assembled by the members of the committee under 
the very able leadership of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). I 
know the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), as we proceeded 
with questions in the Committee on Rules, talked about the 
gentlewoman's concern over things like tax cuts.
  I will say it is very important as we proceed with this budget for us 
to recognize what it is that tax cuts have brought about. I know in the 
eyes of many people it is counterintuitive in a sense that if we reduce 
tax rates, we can somehow increase the flow of revenues to the Federal 
Treasury and reduce the size of the Federal deficit. I know it is 
counterintuitive because there are many who unfortunately are stuck 
with this notion that the way to deal with the deficit problem, the way 
to increase revenues to the Treasury is to dramatically increase taxes.
  One of the points that I think is important for us to make, and I 
mentioned this yesterday in the Committee on Rules, the director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, Joshua Bolton, has on more than a few 
occasions reminded me, and I am sure he has said this to other groups, 
that if we did not have the tragic attack on September 11 against our 
Nation, September 11, 2001, if we did not have the horrendous cost of 
the war in Iraq with which we have had to contend, we would still have 
a Federal deficit.
  We often hear during this debate that we saw under President Clinton 
a dramatic improvement in the budget and a surplus created. It was 
during the leadership provided by a Republican Congress that we got to 
that point, but the issue that needs to be brought to the forefront was 
that it was the economic slowdown, not the attack of September 11, not 
the war in Iraq, as painful as that has been, that led to the deficit 
itself.

[[Page H1540]]

  It is the economic slowdown that began the last two quarters of the 
year 2000. The recession, the slowdown that we saw in early 2001, of 
course exacerbated as is regularly said by the attacks of September 11, 
by the corporate scandals we have seen, and the other challenges we 
have had to contend, but that economic slowdown is what led to the 
deficit itself.
  So the single most important thing that we can do is to ensure that 
we expand our economy. That is the best way to deal with the deficit. 
That is not to say we should not be reining in Federal spending. I 
believe at my core as a Republican that the reach of the Federal 
Government impinges on individual initiative and responsibility, two 
very, very important things that need to be encouraged. If we can 
couple focusing on economic growth with responsibly reining in Federal 
spending, it is very clear that is the most effective way to deal with 
the deficit.
  So what have we seen? When we had the debates in 2001 and then in 
2002 and 2003 and 2004 on the issue of tax cuts, we constantly heard 
the argument from our very distinguished friends on the other side of 
the aisle that the Bush tax cut would ruin the country. It would 
dramatically increase the deficit itself. I am very happy to report, as 
I know most of my colleagues know, based on the projections we had for 
the last fiscal year, because of the economic growth that we saw, 
because of the unanticipated revenues that came into the Federal 
Treasury, because of the tax reduction that brought about that economic 
growth, we have seen the deficit itself actually reduced by $109 
billion over what had been projected. That reduction in the anticipated 
level of the Federal deficit demonstrates that reducing rates is, in 
fact, the best way for us to deal with this. That is just a 
philosophical difference that we have between the two political 
parties.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe a Democrat, John F. Kennedy, was 
absolutely right when he argued this in the early part of the 1960s. It 
was successful. We saw dramatic economic growth as President Kennedy 
brought about a dramatic reduction on capital gains in the early 1960s. 
We have empirical evidence. It happened during the 1980s when we saw a 
doubling of the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury following the 
implementation of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to recognize that this 
package is one which is deserving of bipartisan support. It is a 
responsible budget which will rein in the kind of profligate Federal 
spending that we have seen in the past and which we know is very easy 
to engage in, regardless of political party. Under Republican 
leadership, we are reining in that growth in Federal spending and at 
the same time we are focused on very important priorities.
  Last night in a speech the President gave to an event we had, he 
talked about the importance of an ownership society, how homeownership 
is at an all-time high. It is approaching 70 percent. Minority 
homeownership is at an all-time high.
  One of the things we want to do, we want to make sure that younger 
workers have an opportunity to have confidence in the Social Security 
system. We have all been forced to pay into the Social Security system. 
Anyone who has been around since 1937 when it was implemented has been 
forced to pay into that system. We need to make sure that it is 
solvent.
  We know in 13 very short years more will be going out of Social 
Security than is coming into Social Security through the FICA taxes. We 
also know while people talk about the so-called $2 trillion hole, the 
other night the Treasury Secretary told me if nothing is done on Social 
Security, that borrowing level will be even greater than the $2 
trillion that those who are critical of the President's proposal argue 
is out there on the horizon.
  I think if Members look at these very important issues and then focus 
on what is our number one priority, the national security of the United 
States, this budget is one which should enjoy broad support across the 
board from Democrats and Republicans alike. I urge support of this rule 
which allows alternative proposals, those that I have just discussed, 
to be considered. I think the rule itself is one which is modeled after 
the rules that our friends when they were in the majority put together 
for consideration of the budget.
  I look forward to strong support for the rule, and I hope at the end 
of the day there is strong bipartisan support for the budget 
resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, just a brief word about the gentleman from 
California's remarks about unprecedented deficits. The gentleman points 
to 9/11, it was one of the causes; so was the recession that occurred 
under the Bush administration, and also policies that were adopted by 
this Congress and the President and the tax cuts that went 
predominantly to the very wealthy. When Mr. Greenspan was confronted 
with this, he said, ``I relied on the projections that most people 
made,'' but he was reminded he was wrong. A lot of us here said that at 
the time.
  I want to say now a word about this rule. It completely ducks the 
issue of Social Security and what the costs would be if privatized. The 
President said just a few hours ago, ``personal accounts do not solve 
the issue.'' I am glad that the President acknowledged that 
privatization does not solve the issue. What he did not say is it makes 
it worse, far worse if it were to occur.
  When we take their own figures and project them through the first 20 
years if privatization were to occur, and we are going to make sure it 
does not, it would mean that this 2042 shortfall year, 2052 according 
to CBO, but take 2042, the shortfall would occur 11 years early. It is 
fiscally irresponsible.
  Secondly, the President said, ``I have not laid out a plan yet 
intentionally; I have laid out principles.'' But they have also had 
briefings and endorsed plans and called them a good blueprint, and the 
impact would mean, it would mean there would be a deduction from Social 
Security benefits of 70 to 100 percent what would be in private 
accounts.

                              {time}  1345

  What it also means is that there would be a mammoth cut in benefits 
under Social Security, worse and worse the younger you were, $152,000 
for a younger worker over their lifetime. We know enough about these 
proposals that come out of the White House, come out of their briefings 
or words of the President to know massive debt, major benefit cuts, and 
they would not, for most younger workers, help but hurt.
  The President also said, ``A nest egg you could call your own.'' 
Those are his words. No, that is not correct. Because it would be under 
a government managed account and most workers would have to annuitize 
what was left in their private accounts and there would be nothing to 
pass on. No, it would not be a nest egg. It would be, for most people, 
an empty egg.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
  Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the effort to defeat the 
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, my bill, H.R. 
1330, the Social Security Trust Funds Protection Act, will be brought 
before the House for debate and a vote.
  My bill would ensure that Social Security payroll contributions 
cannot be diverted to establish private accounts. I know that people 
say that Social Security was not meant to be the only source of 
retirement income, but the sad reality is that for too many people it 
is the only source of retirement.
  Amelia Valdez from Pueblo, Colorado, gave me this photograph about 2 
weeks ago. As she gave it to me, she looked up into my eyes with tears 
as she said, ``This is a photograph of Franklin D. Roosevelt signing 
the Social Security Act in 1935. Please hang it in your office as a 
reminder.'' She continued and said, ``Please do not let them dismantle 
my only source of income.''
  In rural America, Social Security keeps tens of thousands of people 
from falling into poverty. My Democratic colleagues and I are committed 
to keeping our promises to American workers. We will fight to 
strengthen

[[Page H1541]]

Social Security so that American worker gets the benefits that they 
were promised.
  Creating private accounts will only hasten the demise of Social 
Security by draining trillions of dollars from the Social Security 
Trust Fund. We cannot forget the lessons that we learned from Enron. A 
retirement fund that relies on the stock market is simply not a secure 
benefit. The proposal to privatize Social Security would mean a 40 
percent cut in benefits. It simply does not make sense to change the 
Social Security system program so that it cuts benefits. The first step 
towards saving Social Security is to make sure that the payroll moneys 
are only used to pay Social Security benefits.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that 
we can protect the retirement security of every American.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman and the previous speakers for drawing attention 
to the looming crisis that impacts people my age in Social Security, 
the people who frankly have come to the conclusion that unless Congress 
acts sooner rather than later, there will not be that program and that 
dramatic and important action is needed. But coming back to the rule on 
the budget, which is the order of the day, it is also good to know that 
it is more about what reforms we will be taking up later this year are 
dominating the discussion, which I take to mean and assume to mean that 
the overall and underlying budget itself is a sound one and that the 
rule is fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution sets the priorities 
of the Congress. It is a moral compass for what we stand for, what we 
believe in. It shows if our priorities are in the right place. It shows 
whether we are going to provide for the less fortunate or if we will 
continue to reward the rich and the powerful at the expense of people 
in need. The mundane minutia that are detailed as budget authority and 
outlays are actually the blueprints of our Nation. I do not like what 
the Republicans are building. They are creating a government without a 
conscience.
  The Republicans control the White House, they control the Senate, and 
they control the House of Representatives. It is their agenda that 
determines the future direction of this country. That agenda includes 
slashing Medicaid, food stamps, education programs and veterans 
benefits. That agenda includes protecting tax breaks for the very 
wealthy in this country. That agenda also includes privatizing Social 
Security. Today, they will have an opportunity to put their vote where 
their rhetoric is. As we just heard, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Salazar) has introduced a bill that frames this issue plainly, that no 
payroll taxes may be diverted to privatize Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose privatization as do most if not all of my 
Democratic colleagues. The position of our Republican friends is not 
quite as clear. They say that all options are on the table and that 
they are open to listening to various ideas. They talk about the 
impending doom facing Social Security, creating a crisis out of thin 
air. They extol the virtues of Wall Street. They are desperately trying 
to find a way to make Social Security privatization more palatable. 
Their problem is that the more the American people learn about 
privatization, the less they like it. I believe that Social Security is 
a sacred compact between the Federal Government and senior citizens. It 
is an insurance program, a safety net intended to keep our senior 
citizens out of poverty. It has worked for 60 years. The privatizers 
want to unravel that safety net. They want to slash guaranteed 
benefits, run up trillions of dollars in debt and decrease the solvency 
of the trust fund. That is their plan.
  Today we will have a chance to see if those privatizers have the 
courage of their convictions. So far, we have not seen that courage, 
because the budget resolution before us does not include the trillions 
of dollars in transition costs required to privatize Social Security. 
The Republican majority claims to support the President's privatization 
scheme. They say they want to do it this Congress. But they are not 
willing to put it in a budget.
  Maybe the vote on the previous question will help them. If you 
believe as I do that we must not privatize Social Security, then you 
must vote ``no'' on the previous question. If you believe in 
privatizing Social Security, then you will vote ``yes'' on the previous 
question. It is that simple.
  Social Security does face long-term funding challenges. Everyone 
recognizes that. As Democrats, we stand willing to work in a bipartisan 
way to meet those challenges. But we will not stand idly by and let the 
Republican majority destroy Social Security in the name of saving it. I 
urge my colleagues to say no to privatizing Social Security by voting 
``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a vigorous debate about the priorities that are embodied in 
our budget blueprint. But for the second day in a row now, we have had 
this characterized as a government without a conscience. Yet since 
1995, we have seen dramatic and historic increases to IDEA, Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act. Title I, historically high numbers. 
Veterans health care, $18.9 billion in fiscal year 2000, $30 billion 
today. Education numbers, up in double digits. HHS and NIH, doubled. 
That is not a government without a conscience. That is a government 
that has seen unsustainable rates of increases to discretionary 
domestic spending. This budget turns that corner and begins the process 
of slowing the growth in mandatory and discretionary but continuing to 
provide for those priorities, continuing to make those tough decisions 
in ways that have been avoided by prior Congresses.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. First, I must comment on the gentleman's remarks that if things 
were so good, then why is it that we have parents of children with 
special needs decrying these budgets? Why is it that we have 
firefighters coming to us decrying this budget? Why are we seeing so 
many people saying that we have our priorities in the wrong place? 
Certainly we should look at this budget resolution because it should be 
defeated.
  Even though Social Security privatization is the President's number 
one priority, this Republican budget resolution hides the cost of the 
harmful effects of Social Security privatization. It refuses to include 
any details on the President's privatization plan and it further 
continues to spend every single cent of the Social Security surplus 
reserve on things other than Social Security. That means over the next 
10 years under this budget that we have before us, $2.6 trillion of 
worker contributions that are supposed to be dedicated to Social 
Security will be spent on something other than Social Security. Like 
what? To pay for these tax cuts that are going principally to the 
wealthiest Americans in this country.
  Even with that being done, using all the Social Security surplus 
moneys, we still have deficits never seen before in this country. This 
year alone we will have the biggest deficit this country has ever seen, 
more than $400 billion. That is more than $1,000 on the head of each 
and every man and woman in this country. They are gleeful. They believe 
that that is what we should do.
  Mr. Speaker, many of us believe that we should have a plan as the 
Salazar legislation would propose that we save every single cent of the 
Social Security surplus which this year alone the surplus in Social 
Security contributions that will not be needed to spend for benefits to 
Social Security recipients will equal $169 billion. We can start by 
saying that $169 billion of Social Security moneys will not be spent, 
because this budget spends every single cent of the $169 billion coming 
in this year for Social Security on something other than Social 
Security. That is why so many Americans are so insecure about

[[Page H1542]]

Social Security and insecure about what the President proposes to do 
about Social Security.
  Not more than 2 hours ago, one of the President's Cabinet 
secretaries, Secretary Elaine Chao of the Department of Labor, said 
before the committee, Social Security is not guaranteed.
  I asked the Secretary, ``Can you clarify? Do you mean in the future 
perhaps if we don't do something to make it stronger, it won't be 
guaranteed?''
  She just continued to say, ``It is not guaranteed.'' That is why 
people today feel so insecure about what the President is proposing, 
especially with privatization, because he will not tell us what it will 
cost. We know it could end up costing some 46 percent in benefit cuts 
if we privatize. We also know that it would require massive government 
borrowing, some $5 trillion over the next 20 years, if you try to 
privatize the system.
  Where does all that money come from? Mr. Speaker, the reason people 
are so insecure about Social Security is not because the system is not 
there for them, it is because we have leaders talking about changing it 
without giving us the facts. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us in our 
budget documents to speak to the people, to give them the facts. This 
budget resolution does not do it. We should defeat it.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am delighted to provide the gentleman some facts. Fact number one, 
title I has grown 10 percent per year since 2000. Pell grant funding, 
grown 10.3 percent per year since 2000. No Child Left Behind funding, 
grown 40 percent. Special education since 1996 has more than 
quadrupled. Funding for IDEA has quadrupled since 1996. IDEA funded 
only 8 percent of the per pupil expenditure in 1994 and 1995. Now it is 
nearly 20 percent. The Education Department discretionary budget 
authority has increased 146 percent since 1995. Those are the facts.
  Was there not a conscience in the Congress prior to 1995? Is a 146 
percent increase unconscionable? The commitment to education, the 
commitment to health care, the commitment to the NIH, the commitment to 
defense and the commitment to policies that expand and grow our economy 
and give Americans tremendous opportunities have been embodied in our 
budgets and are embodied in this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. The minority has an 
issue we want to discuss in the course of this budget. That issue is 
whether or not we should stand by and allow the continued diversion of 
revenue assessed taxpayers for the specific purpose of Social Security.
  Social Security means a lot to me. I have received a Social Security 
check. I have received that survivors benefit when my dad died. It 
meant so incredibly much to our family. One in six North Dakotans that 
I represent, 114,000, get a Social Security check every month. Well 
over half of North Dakotans pay into Social Security. They say what we 
have heard all across the country, and that is, ``My Social Security 
taxes are for Social Security. Don't raid those Social Security 
dollars.''
  Now, of course, given the discussion on this radical overhaul of 
Social Security, we have the other prospect that these dollars will be 
taken away from Social Security and placed into private accounts, 
resulting in either massive additional borrowing to continue Social 
Security benefits or very draconian budget cuts. Massive additional 
borrowing or budget cuts if the revenue coming into Social Security is 
diverted into private accounts.
  We think right now is the time to have this discussion. I support so 
much the amendment brought up by my friend from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), 
a new Member.

                              {time}  1400

  He wants to have this body move immediately to a debate on his 
amendment which would prohibit the diversion of Social Security money 
upon our completion of the budget. I think this is a good idea. I would 
like to hear one reason why we ought not move to discussing this 
diversion of Social Security money away from the Social Security trust 
fund, why we should not discuss today the prospects of massive 
additional Federal borrowing if we divert the Social Security money, 
why we should not discuss today the Draconian budget cuts that would 
reduce benefits potentially to people who desperately need them if we 
divert money that is coming in to pay benefits into private accounts.
  There is a lot of explaining to do, in my opinion, for those who are 
advancing this privatization scheme on Social Security; and I know the 
Nation would feel an awful lot better, certainly those I represent, if 
we conduct this debate having first adopted the preservation of Social 
Security. Let us move to the discussion on how we shore up and maintain 
and strengthen Social Security, but not in ways that would cause 
massive additional borrowing, massive benefit cuts.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Support this opportunity to 
debate the Salazar amendment.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There will be that opportunity, this being the rule on the budget; 
but I will engage in a bit of discussion about the Social Security 
because I am one who will gain or lose a great deal, being someone who 
will reach that retirement age at that year of insolvency. And it is 
shocking to me that the party who gave us Social Security, and should 
be very proud of it and are, are almost in complete denial about the 
looming crisis that it faces and refuse to accept the fact that, 
regardless of which option we choose to solve the problem, that it is 
something that should be kicked down the road to future generations, to 
future Congresses, to future years.
  And there is a stone wall of resistance to any discussion at all 
about for once Congress getting ahead of a big issue, for once Congress 
actually dealing with the problem before it is crashing down around our 
heads, for once Congress actually being bold and looking into the 
future beyond the next budget cycle, beyond the next election, beyond 
the next short-term problem and actually tackling it and dealing with 
it.
  Anyone who has been through their freshman orientation upon being 
elected has a bipartisan group give them the long-term unfunded 
liabilities of this government, and we acknowledge that there are vast 
differences in the approach to saving Social Security. But, 
unfortunately, largely with one bold, brave exception in the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Boyd), there has been total resistance to have any 
constructive effort to bring about a solution to this problem.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me 
and very much appreciate the constructive tone of his debate.
  We actually have advanced provisions for the safeguarding of Social 
Security. This Democratic Party which stood so strongly in preserving 
surplus dollars saved Social Security first, walling them off, the 
lockbox. We saved Social Security revenues for Social Security. And it 
is the Democrat Members of this body who are prepared to enter 
discussions when going-in principles are agreed to. Those principles: 
there shall be no insecurity added into Social Security and that there 
should be no additional Federal borrowing, no vast amounts of Federal 
borrowing.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments. I look forward to that constructive effort 
because we share that passion that those 55 and older, those at or near 
retirement, will not be impacted. But by golly, we have got an 
obligation to those people who are under 35 or under 45 or whatever 
number we finally arrive at, people who have time to plan and people 
who know, and all of us know, of all stripes, that there will be a 
problem in either 2040 or 2041 or 2042. We can argue over months and 
weeks all day long, but the point is we are not doing anything to take 
care of that first-year teacher, that first-year firefighter, that 
first-year soldier that all of us stand up on a regular basis and claim 
to speak for.

[[Page H1543]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say to the gentleman from Florida that we do not believe 
that the way to increase the solvency of Social Security is to decrease 
the solvency of Social Security. Everybody on our side of the aisle is 
prepared to work in a bipartisan way to increase the solvency of Social 
Security. What we are objecting to is this privatization scheme.
  Let me also say to the gentleman, because he questioned why I said 
that the Republican majority of this Congress has a budget that will 
create a government without a conscience, the reason why I say that is 
because this budget would cut $5.3 billion from the Department of 
Agriculture, cutting food stamps and other programs that are vital to 
America's farmers. This budget would cut 21.4 billion from education, 
cutting student loans and higher education spending.
  He brags about the increase in money for No Child Left Behind, but we 
never properly funded No Child Left Behind. And our teachers and our 
principals and our superintendents are screaming about the fact that we 
have passed an unfunded mandate to them.
  This bill would cut $20 billion, mostly from the Medicaid program. It 
would cut $270 million in spending from section 8 and other housing and 
homelessness programs. It would cut money from the Witness Protection 
Program, $103 million from transportation. It would cut $798 million 
for veterans health care. It would cut the earned income tax credit. It 
would cut money for unemployment insurance programs.
  I mean, this is why I say that this is a budget that creates a 
government without a conscience. We are turning our backs on people who 
need our help, and I think that is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would respectfully request that the gentleman give us the page 
number and paragraph of this budget blueprint that cuts the Witness 
Protection Program.
  As the gentleman knows, the budget document is a broad blueprint for 
spending that directs the authorizing committees, those committees of 
members who have developed expertise in their areas, to find savings 
through reconciliation instructions. It allows Members like the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) on the Committee on Ways and Means 
to best formulate those revenue measures that avoid AMT taxing; that 
allows members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to deal with the 
issues facing Medicaid program, which all of the Governors acknowledge 
is swallowing up State budgets; that allows the Committee on 
Agriculture to fund within their committee's jurisdiction those savings 
in a variety of programs.
  This budget blueprint is a sound document that sets the course for 
our Congress and for our Nation for the coming year; and the cuts that 
the gentleman refers to are reductions in the rate of growth in those 
programs, with the exception of the reconciliation instructions, which 
are a remarkable and historic first step to this Congress restraining 
spending and funding priorities and simultaneously getting our arms 
around the deficit that both parties are understandably concerned 
about.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me first say to the gentleman that only in Washington would one 
call a cut a reduction in the rate of increase in spending. The bottom 
line is that this budget is more than just a general blueprint. There 
are specific directions in this budget that not only cut to the bone 
but cut through the bone. And, again, I repeat that this is a budget 
that creates a government that will have no conscience, and it needs to 
be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will modify this 
rule to provide that immediately after the House passes the budget 
resolution, it will take up H.R. 1330, the Social Security Trust Fund 
Protection Act. This legislation, introduced by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Salazar), would ensure that Social Security contributions 
are used to protect Social Security solvency by mandating that trust 
fund moneys cannot be diverted to create private accounts.
  Mr. Speaker, while Members of this House may differ on what is the 
best long-term solution to ensure solvency of Social Security, I think 
we probably all agree that we need to protect the money that goes into 
the trust fund and that any diversion of these funds must be undertaken 
with great care. Private accounts do not help the trust fund solvency. 
In fact, it is estimated that they would cost the system more than $5 
trillion. H.R. 1330 will give us an opportunity to vote up or down on 
whether we want the Social Security trust fund to be used to pay for 
these fiscally irresponsible private accounts.
  Let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question 
will not stop consideration of the budget resolution, nor will it 
change the process by which it is to be considered. But a ``no'' vote 
will allow the House to vote to prevent the siphoning off of the Social 
Security trust fund to pay for private accounts.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The untrained observer would believe that we were debating a Social 
Security bill here this afternoon. In fact, it is the rule on the 
budget blueprint for this country for fiscal year 2006, a budget 
blueprint that does a number of things important to the American 
people.
  It puts our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines and Coast 
Guard and Reservists and Guardsmen foremost, fully funding the 
President's defense request, budgeting for the continued global war on 
terror to the tune of $50 billion; prioritizing, even making tough 
divisions, something that we are loathe to do often in this process, 
but it is what we are here for, making tough decisions about 
priorities, priorities in government, priorities in households, 
priorities in our individual lives, something every American is 
accustomed to.
  It continues to invest heavily in our Nation's defense and homeland 
security. But it also recognizes that these challenges that have come 
about since 2001 have also required us as a Nation to make some 
tradeoffs. And so for the first time since the Reagan administration, 
it calls for an eight-tenths of a percent reduction in nonsecurity 
discretionary spending. It directs the authorizing committees to find 
savings on the mandatory side of spending, discretionary being just 
over a third of the budget anymore; mandatory nearing two thirds, 
essentially on auto pilot.
  So a balanced approach to finding savings in our government such that 
we may begin to get our arms around the deficits and cut the deficit in 
half in 5 years so that we do not shoulder young people just entering 
the workforce, school-age children, children not yet born with these 
massive debts. We begin the difficult process of fiscal restraint, 
something that is anathema to this body oftentimes, all too often.
  It has been said in the context of the Social Security debate that 
the other side does not believe the solution to solving Social 
Security's problems is to privatize it. We do not believe the solution 
to Social Security's problems is to do nothing. We have led with our 
chin on this issue, and I am very proud of that effort; and I am proud 
of the manner in which we have conducted this debate because it will 
undoubtedly be an extensive debate occupying a good part of the 109th 
Congress.
  It is an opportunity for this Congress to lead, to lead the American 
people to an understanding of an issue that is at a total insolvency 
point occurring in 2042, but its impacts on the Federal budget 
beginning as soon as 2008. And as a young person who will be impacted 
by that, it gives us an opportunity to look beyond the short term and 
be truly visionary in the great ways that this Congress is capable of 
being.

[[Page H1544]]

  We have done a lot of great things over the past several years: 
doubling NIH, continuing to invest in research and cures and trials to 
make the human condition better. And, frankly, we have succeeded to the 
point that the reason why Social Security faces insolvency is because 
the life expectancy of Americans continues to grow. Every 5 years that 
pass, life expectancy goes up a year. This budget continues to fund our 
priorities, continues to invest in people, and continues to lay the 
groundwork for policies that allow people to pursue their own version 
of the American Dream, to find opportunity in a growing, expanding 
economy; that allows for job creation, that does not punish 
entrepreneurial spirit, that allows people to continue to invest in 
their businesses, to have more money in their own pocket to make 
decisions about their own children's future, about their own 
opportunities, and about their own hopes and dreams.
  And with that I urge my colleagues to support the rule, which is a 
very fair and balanced rule, and to support the underlying budget 
produced by the committee.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

      Previous Question for H. Res. 154, Rule for H. Con. Res. 95

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision in this 
     resolution, immediately after disposition of the concurrent 
     resolution H. Con. Res. 95, the Speaker shall declare the 
     House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1330) 
     to provide that Social Security contributions are used to 
     protect Social Security solvency by mandating that Trust Fund 
     monies cannot be diverted to create private accounts. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill for amendment 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 4. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill H.R. 1330, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of that bill.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
adoption of the rule if ordered, H.R. 1270, by the yeas and nays, and 
H. Con. Res. 98, by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 202, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 78]

                               YEAS--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cubin
     Radanovich
       

                              {time}  1442

  Mr. PALLONE and Mr. REYES changed their votes from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. FORTENBERRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.

[[Page H1545]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 196, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 79]

                               AYES--228

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cubin
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Jefferson
     Melancon
     Radanovich
     Rush
     Watson
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)

                              {time}  1451

  Mr. SPRATT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________