[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 54 (Thursday, April 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2653-H2659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 242
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported on the
legislative day of April 28, 2005 (1) providing for
consideration or disposition of a conference report to
accompany 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 or (2) establishing a separate order relating to budget
enforcement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Rules,
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 purposes of debate only.
(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 242 is a same-day rule. It
waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider
a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules.
H. Res. 242 allows the House to consider the rule and conference
report accompanying 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 or
establishing a separate order relating to budget enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative we pass this same-day rule so that we
may consider the congressional budget resolution today. Once the House
completes consideration and passes the budget, we can send the budget
resolution to the Senate. The Senate will then be in a position to
consider, and hopefully pass, the budget resolution on Friday, before
they recess next week.
I am pleased and excited at the prospect of the passage of this
budget. For the first time since 1997, the budget includes
reconciliation instructions to authorizing committees, calling for the
reduced rate of growth of mandatory programs. Mandatory spending is the
guaranteed spending that grows every year, mostly without reform or
review.
[[Page H2654]]
It currently consumes 55 percent of our budget; and if it continues
unchecked, it will reach 61 percent of the total Federal budget by
2015.
More than half of the government's spending today is essentially on
automatic pilot. This is neither sound nor sustainable fiscal policy.
Congress is on its way to losing control over the spending priorities
that the people send us here to debate and review and vote on as
entitlements squeeze the budget more and more. Reconciliation
instructions are the critical step to beginning the process of getting
mandatory spending back to a sustainable rate of growth.
These savings are an excellent precedent. My hope is that
reconciliation instructions become a standard practice in this time of
deficits. With budget deficits, it is imperative to get a handle on all
spending, both discretionary and mandatory. This budget is an
inauguration of true fiscal discipline in a period of restrained
spending.
I want to commend the Committee on the Budget and its staff for their
hard work through the night to get this budget resolution finished so
that we may consider it today in preparation for the recess that the
Senate intends to take next week. The House will be back to work next
week.
The House Committee on Rules will be meeting later today to provide a
rule for the consideration of the budget resolution. I am pleased that
this same-day rule will help facilitate the timely deliberation of our
budget. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this same-day rule
so that we can move forward to the rule and eventually on to the
conference report on the budget today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and
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, well, here we are doing another martial
law rule and we wait and wait for the conference committee to finish
its work, the conference committee that, I might add, did not include a
single Democrat, which is unusual. Let me say that again. This
conference committee we are waiting for did not include a single
Democrat.
Whenever we do a rule to waive two-thirds consideration, it means we
will be rushing the underlying bill to the floor, giving the Members
virtually no time at all to actually read the bill or determine what it
is we are voting on. This time, we are waiting for the fiscal year 2006
budget conference, a bill that will spend more than 2 trillion taxpayer
dollars.
Why are we rushing something that is so important and impacts
virtually every American? Why do we not just follow the regular order
of business set forth in the House rules and let the conference finish
its work and file its report and give Members a minimum of 3 days,
required by House rules, so they can read and understand the blueprint
for spending the taxes? Is that too much to ask? After all, we only
have a 2\1/2\-day workweek in the House, and certainly most Americans
would not consider that a heavy workload, not compared to the ones they
have anyway.
The situation we are faced with today is one that is all too familiar
in the House. Yesterday, after 4 months of stonewalling, the majority
finally acquiesced and reinstated the proper ethical standards for the
House. But we did not find out about their intentions until the early
afternoon. And less than 45 minutes later, we were in the Committee on
Rules and asked to vote on a resolution we had never been given an
opportunity to read.
When the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) made a motion for a
brief adjournment from the Committee on Rules to give members and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, time
to read the new rules they were being asked to support, we were
defeated on a party-line vote.
The bottom line, the majority, after 4 months, decided the new ethics
rules had to be passed on an emergency status, in one day; and as a
result, no one in the House was given an opportunity to read the
legislation.
Where are these emergencies coming from? It is not an emergency the
first week of January or February or March, or the first three weeks in
April. And, unfortunately, these tactics and the poor administration of
the House are all too common. Today, we are faced with a similar
situation on the budget. The situation is sadly all too familiar to the
Members of the body: a great crisis has arisen.
The majority expects the House to pass a budget today that no one has
seen, and I would like to give a speech right now about what is and is
not in that budget, but I am not able to because I have not seen the
budget, nor has anyone else, not even the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. It is
truly a remarkable phenomenon that can only be found in Washington.
I guess this majority believes we should take everything they say at
face value and we should trust them. However, we have had enough
experience to know all too well we cannot do that. In fact, just
yesterday on this very floor we discussed how the Committee on the
Judiciary's majority staff grossly mischaracterized the work of several
Democratic members of that committee. It was truly one of the most
offensive acts I have witnessed in my 20 years in Congress and years
before that in legislative bodies. And that was just yesterday.
{time} 1030
In fact, early in the term I released a 147-page report about the
unethical administration of the Congress by its leadership, filled to
the brim with tactics just like the one we witnessed this past week and
the one we are suffering under today.
That is why I have said and will continue to say that the manner in
which this House is administered is not in keeping with democratic
values that we as Americans share. We have a shortage of deliberation,
democracy, and debate in the House of Representatives, and there is no
relief in sight.
In fact, the leadership is asking this body to pass the congressional
budget today, a bill which is probably the most important document we
will pass in the entire session of the 109th Congress without even a
single sheet of paper, and without even one day to review the hundreds
of pages contained in the bill. It is the height of arrogance. This is
not democracy under any definition of the word, and that is why I
strongly oppose this rule and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good friend and
distinguished colleague, I can certainly understand the gentlewoman's
desire to read the completed conference report. I would just point out
that the same-day rule was passed last night in the Committee on Rules
as an accommodation to the entire House so we can facilitate the work,
enable the budget conference report to be passed out of the House so
that it can go to the Senate; because the Senate, apparently in need of
a respite from their legislative productivity of the last several
weeks, will be taking next week off.
So in order to get the budget process moving and give the Federal
Government and the American people a blueprint of our priorities, we
wanted to move this as expeditiously as possible and out of
consideration for all Members to be able to get home to their districts
and have the budget conference report get to the Senate and be passed
out as soon as possible.
I certainly understand the gentlewoman's concern. I would like to see
the conference report completed as quickly as possible. We fully expect
that it will be today. The Committee on Rules will meet again where the
gentlewoman and our other colleagues on the Committee on Rules will be
able to consider the rule for the consideration of that conference
report.
As to the facts and figures in the budget, apparently they are
available as we heard during the 1-minute speeches from colleagues on
the gentlewoman's side of the aisle. There were a number of challenges
and concerns and problems that were discussed in disagreement with the
proposed budget, so I assume that some Members have
[[Page H2655]]
managed to find the facts and figures and statistics that they are
using to urge opposition to the budget. Apparently those figures are
available.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam) by saying his party controls the White House, the House, and
the Senate. We should be able to expect a better, smoother process
here. We should not have to be going to martial-law rules where we are
going to bring up a budget on the same day when Members will not have a
chance to go through it and read it.
A lot of us are getting our information from the newspapers because
we do not get very much information from the other side of the aisle,
and the newspapers tend to know more than we do, unfortunately.
We need to figure out a way, or the Republicans should figure out a
way, since they control everything, to work better with themselves so
we do not have to have a situation where major pieces of legislation
come to the floor like this under same-day martial-law rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. This resolution shows nothing but
contempt for the deliberative processes of the House. More than a month
has passed since the House passed the Republican budget resolution by a
narrow margin on this floor. In the House and in the Senate the budget
resolution this year was on a fast track. We had minimal witnesses,
fewer than any time I can recall; all, ostensibly, to get the work done
by the Easter break.
Well, it has been a case of hurry up and wait. More than a month has
passed. Only 2 days ago, after wasting a month, were conferees finally
appointed; and yesterday we had our first and only conference committee
meeting which essentially was a formality, a gesture taken to bless a
done deal, because as we met, a conference report, without a conference
committee, had been negotiated over the last 30 days and was coming
close to agreement. All we met for was to give some semblance of
collaboration to the budget process, but there has been absolutely no
collaboration and no transparency.
We have second-hand reports as to what may be in this budget
resolution coming here today which provides for the expenditure and the
taxing of $2.6 trillion. That is what we are treating with such haste
today. We have a little bit of insight into what it may contain, but we
will not know until we can examine the budget resolution. And I was
told last night by the chairman of the committee that we could not
expect the conference report to come to the floor before midday because
numerous changes had been negotiated into the agreement. I understand
that. I simply would like the opportunity to examine the changes and
weigh the bill in its entirety. This is no way to do the people's
business. It is not the process that we all agreed upon.
When we laid down the House rules, we said when Members want to bring
a conference report of consequence to the floor, it has to lay over for
3 days. That is being waived here today. This is not some
inconsequential piece of legislation. We are not naming a Federal
building here, we are deciding how we do the people's business with
respect to the allocation of $2.6 trillion. It comes to this floor
minutes after it has been filed, maybe an hour or two. This is no way
to deal with something so consequential.
We have only minutes to flip through this conference report and find
out what does it do to Medicaid. We had a very impassioned debate on
the House floor just 2 days ago. We showed 44 Republican Members who
had written a letter to their leadership saying do not whack into
Medicaid. It is the health care of last resort for the neediest among
us. If we are going to make changes, be careful.
Mr. Speaker, 44 Republican Members and an overwhelming majority voted
that sentiment on the House floor, just as the Senate did when they
eliminated the Medicaid cuts that were in the resolution that passed
the House. What does it do to Medicaid? My strong suspicion is we will
find that the will of this House and Senate has been ignored and that
substantial cuts have been made in not just Medicaid but in Medicare,
and in student loans and veterans health care, supplemental security
income, the earned income tax credit, and other programs for the
working poor. We will have minutes to find out what this resolution
does.
It will be argued here on the House floor that all of these cuts are
necessary because we have such a big deficit. Therefore, we have to cut
the spending of this country, including entitlement programs on which
people depend, in order to diminish the deficit. But the truth is this
budget resolution, I fully expect, will be like the House resolution
that passed a month ago and like the Senate resolution and like the
President's budget, it will add to the deficit. It will not diminish
the deficit. These cuts will not go to the bottom line. They will be
used to offset tax cuts that are being proposed, once again knowing
full well that these tax cuts will go straight to the bottom line and
swell the deficit and make it larger. They want to do some tax cuts
that will offset, at least partially, the effects of these tax cuts on
the bottom line. But this budget resolution will make the deficit
worse, not better. There is no question about it.
We do not have the opportunity to get here on the House floor and
examine and explain that to people. I think it is fair to ask, for
example, how do we justify a budget with a deficit of $427 billion this
year and every year that this budget covers, all 5 years, how do we
justify additional tax cuts that add to that deficit? And how do we run
the government when we continually cut taxes?
One answer which is adopted and used in this budget resolution and on
which we should debate closely on this House floor is you dip into the
Social Security trust fund which has a surplus of $160 billion and use
payroll taxes to make up for the income taxes that you are cutting and
diminishing, and that is exactly what this budget resolution does.
So why is it not coming to the floor in the deliberate processes as
prescribed by the House rules? Because they do not want the public or
the House to see that this conference report does not reduce the
deficit, it adds to the deficit. They do not want the House or the
public to see that this conference report raids Social Security once
again. It does not make Social Security solvent, it is a step backwards
from solvency. They do not want the House to see or the public to see
that this conference report will cut help to the working poor, it will
cut inner-city and rural hospitals that depend on Medicaid, it will cut
students loans and EITC. They do not want them to see that this is a
budget resolution in name only. There is no plan and there is no
process for reducing the deficit. That is why they are overriding the
process of this House and showing such contempt for the deliberative
procedures that we have laid down.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I certainly respect the views of the distinguished ranking member of
the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), who has worked very hard on the blueprint for the Federal
Government. He enjoys an exceptional working relationship on the House
Committee on the Budget. I think it has worked as well as that
committee can possibly work under the gentleman's leadership and the
chairmanship of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
I would just say, as a conferee he is probably privy to more
information about the status of the blueprint than I am, having been in
the meeting and having been one of the three House conferees.
Representing a third of our entire representation on that body, he
certainly has had access to the information about the differences
between the House views on the budget and the Senate views on the
budget, and he has articulated them well.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have not been to a conference meeting
where
[[Page H2656]]
we discussed the contents of this. This is not a collaborative process,
this is a unilateral process which makes it all the worse, to bring the
conference report to the floor and cram it down, giving us no time to
examine its contents.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply point out
the gentleman making up one-third of the entire delegation to the
conference committee, the ranking member has certainly been a greater
participant in that conference role than members on the majority side,
other than the chairman and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. Speaker, I know there is some interest on the part of both
parties about the schedule for today and tomorrow as it relates to
consideration of the budget conference report. We are considering the
same-day rule now allowing an hour of debate. We will take up the rule,
and then of course be able to debate the conference report.
After consulting with the majority leader, I can say with a strong
level of confidence that we will not have votes tomorrow. The Committee
on the Budget chairman has indicated he will have a conference report
ready to file within the next hour or so, and we would hope to consider
this conference report later this afternoon and conclude votes for the
week by late afternoon or early evening, giving Members an opportunity
to return to their districts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam)
for clarifying the schedule, but it just seems to me that a budget
resolution that deals with over $2.5 trillion deserves a little bit
more attention by each Member in this House than what the leadership on
that side of the aisle is giving us.
As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) pointed out, we
have rules in this House that the other side of the aisle continues to
break. One of those rules is that we are supposed to be able to read
the legislation before we vote on it. We are supposed to understand
what the impacts are. I would think that a concern on not only our side
of the aisle, but I would think there are thoughtful Members on the
gentleman's side of the aisle who would want to read and understand
what the budget conference has decided. We are not going to know until
this budget is filed. It is just frustrating. This is a big deal.
The other side of the aisle routinely waives the rules on major
pieces of legislation and Members on both sides of the aisle have no
idea what they are voting on. There are just the sound bites which the
Republicans put on on how they defend this budget.
As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) pointed out, we are
concerned that the budget resolution conference report is expected to
mirror the President's budget by using every penny of the Social
Security trust fund surplus to help finance the deficits that the other
side has produced. That in our opinion is unacceptable.
This whole process is just bad. I wish this were just the exception
to the rule, but it has become a pattern in this House. I know that
your party is in control, but for the life of me I cannot understand
why you want to undercut a deliberative process. What is wrong with
having Members understand what they are voting on, participate in the
debate and read the legislation? That should not be too much to ask;
and, unfortunately, we are going to be denied that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Solis).
{time} 1045
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member on the
Committee on Rules for yielding me this time for the opportunity to
speak.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the fiscally irresponsible
Republican budget that is being presented here today. The Republican-
passed budget claims to cut the deficit in half within 5 years, but
instead will actually provide for a $150 billion worse deficit over 5
years.
And I hope that the American public is paying attention and will
understand that the Bush administration and the Republican majority
refuse to finance priorities that matter most to Americans, like jobs,
cleaning the environment, and guaranteeing good health care.
The Republican budget will severely damage our Nation's health care
system by cutting Medicaid by $10 billion. Medicaid is so important in
my district. It helps to provide coverage for millions of low-income
and elderly and disabled Americans. Medicaid cuts would shut the
neediest individuals out of the public health insurance system and
severely impact Latinos across the country.
Latinos have the highest uninsured rates. One out of every three
Hispanics is without health insurance. Latinos are already marginalized
from our Nation's safety net programs because they have been severely
cut back. Despite this national tragedy, the proposed Republican budget
would cut billions from Medicaid while doing nothing, or minimally
nothing, to help health care to become more affordable for Americans.
Medicaid cuts will shift costs to the States, and beneficiaries or
health care providers, many of the doctors that serve in my district,
will not receive sufficient funds to provide services to the very
needy. And I have heard this over and over and over again, and we must
stop the hemorrhaging. States will be forced to reduce Medicaid
coverage or benefits, increasing the number of low-income Americans,
not only Latinos but African Americans, who are uninsured and
underinsured.
We must protect Medicaid and maintain the current Federal commitment
to the public health insurance system. The low-income families in my
district and throughout the country need to know that these programs
can be there so that they can depend on them.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, when
we begin to talk about inside-the-ballpark language, why we come to the
floor of the House and challenge this process. It is almost like for
those who have been in school to be taught a lesson at 9 o'clock in the
morning and asked to take a 3-hour exam at 9:30 a.m. Although one may
be very bright, it is important to deliberate and study, maybe digest,
even, the information that is given.
Tomorrow I will meet with my constituents to talk with them about the
devastating pathway that we have taken on Social Security, and now
today I have to debate a budget resolution that has not even been given
the light of day. No one has had the opportunity to review and find out
whether or not this destructive Republican budget resolution undermines
the very infrastructure of Social Security that is so very important to
the American people.
We already know that after 60 days on the road that the
administration has failed to convince anybody that the right way to go
is a private savings account rather than finding a way to make Social
Security solvent, for whether or not one is 21 years old or 30 years
old or 100 years old, if we are granted to live that long, Social
Security is necessary. This budget resolution makes the wrong choices.
They have made the choice to give out reckless tax cuts, not the kind
that help to shore up middle-class Americans; and while they make that
choice, they then make another choice to underfund Social Security.
That is what is wrong with this budget resolution: the continuing use
of moneys that should be utilized for Social Security. Of course, as we
take dollars out, we have got an indebtedness on behalf of the United
States of America. The crisis, of course, is that our President has
gone to West Virginia and said that does not count. We Democrats
believe we can put a budget resolution that provides solvency for
Social Security, funds Medicaid, eliminates a $60 billion cut that will
throw senior citizens out of nursing homes across America, and we
believe that we can fund education and provide the resources that we
need for our veterans and stop closing veterans hospitals.
[[Page H2657]]
But the choices over here are an insolvent Social Security, a $60
billion cut in Medicaid, and closing the doors on our veterans.
I have not taken a servicemen's oath, but when I listen to a young
veteran talk to me about the oath of service or the oath that our
soldiers take, willing to give the ultimate sacrifice, then I think
today we need a little bit more light on this budget resolution to
allow us to give a little bit more dignity to the returning veterans,
the injured soldiers coming back as amputees, the widows and widowers
who lost their loved ones who deserve to be funded for the rest of
their lives.
There are flaws in this conference report; but most importantly,
there is a major flaw in this budget. And I would hope that we would
have the good sense to turn this back and give us the opportunity to
serve the American people.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just marvel that in this deep dark process that we are engaged in
enough light has been cast to find all of the flaws in the budget. So
on the one hand, there are tremendous problems with the budget that
will be presented in the budget; and on the other hand, we do not know
what is in the budget because there has been inadequate time.
I submit that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) was
right when he said that this is a big deal, it is an important issue.
Having a blueprint, having a budget resolution for the Congress is
hugely important so that we may avoid the omnibus at the end of the
year, which also is open to the criticism that it is difficult to find
everything that is in it when we have to pass and manage the government
in that way. And the budget resolution lays forth a blueprint that
enables the Committee on Appropriations to do their work and enables
the American people to know what the priorities of their government are
for that fiscal year.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding to me.
I appreciate the tone of this debate, frankly. We have substantive
disagreements. But the point that I was making about the light of day,
and there certainly have been hearings. There is a conference report.
But I believe that when they come to the floor and ask for a same-day
consideration, they leave out the vast numbers of Members of the United
States House of Representatives that have not been on the Committee on
the Budget and therefore may not have the adequate time.
I hope that we can collegially work together to extend that time the
next time we come to the floor on a serious matter.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
sincerity of the gentlewoman from Texas. I would just point out that
this is a tool that we are using to enable us to expedite the
consideration of the budget conference report so that she can be with
her constituents tomorrow to tell them all of her disagreements with
our plans to reform Social Security.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman further
yield?
Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, his genuine attitude is
appreciated. I think the American people would welcome a closer study
of this issue; and I thank him for allowing me to go home, however, and
wake up the constituents of the 18th Congressional District for a fight
to come in the future. And we will continue the fight. I thank the
gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me again just remind my friend from Florida we are relying on
press accounts to try to figure out what is in this budget.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, their reliance on the press reports is much
more favorable to their side than it would be for ours and a much more
reliable source of information than it would be in our case.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman's party
controls everything. I thought he would be an expert on this budget by
now, given the fact that all the decisions are being made in a very
one-sided way.
And, again, some of us here are concerned about the potential
Medicaid cuts. These cuts would impact real people. We are not going to
know for sure what is in that budget until it is filed, and it just
seems that we need to fix this process. And, again, I have to believe
that there are people on his side of the aisle who feel as we do over
here that there is nothing wrong with deliberating, there is nothing
wrong with reading the bills before they come to the floor and
understanding what, in fact, are in these bills.
And they are giving away tomorrow. We could be here tomorrow. There
is no problem on our side about working tomorrow. But the bottom line
is they are just kind of giving it away. We spend a lot of our
legislative days doing nothing meaningful, quite frankly. It seems to
me we could take some of that time, and we are going to be here all
next week, to go over this in a very thoughtful way. But we are not
going to be given that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to this martial law rule, and I
would encourage my colleagues to vote against it because this budget
resolution is a travesty; but what is even worse is the process in
which this budget resolution is going to come before this body within
the next day or so.
This is a $2.6 trillion document. This is going to establish the
priorities and the important investments that we need to make as a
Nation for the next fiscal year, and yet it is being written by a
handful of people, mainly in the Speaker's office, at 2, 3, 4 o'clock
in the morning, drafted by a bunch of staff people, and not one of us
in this body will have the chance to thoroughly review it before we are
asked to cast a vote on it. And that is a joke.
And what is even worse is that it basically adopts wholesale the
budget parameters that the President had submitted earlier this year,
which, by the way, was written by a bunch of unknown people in the
President's Office of Management and Budget, which in essence now is
drafting and writing these budget documents that the Congress is
considering.
And I would defy any Member of this body to stand here today and
claim with a straight face that they think this House and this Congress
is a co-equal branch of government today. We have ceded everything to
the executive branch. Not only that, but just to a few enlightened
individuals, it seems, to make these important decisions for the rest
of the Nation. And we do not even have the common decency or courtesy
to take the time to allow an important deliberative discussion about
these priorities and allow a little bit more input from the various
Members who want to be involved in this process for the sake of the
people whom they are representing.
The resolution itself, I feel, lacks the vision that we need to deal
with the challenges facing our Nation. Instead of the majority party
and the President being so eager to dismantle the New Deal, we should
be talking about offering the American people a new New Deal to prepare
them for the challenges of a global marketplace, because it is here
now. And yet the effort that we are making in regards to support for
education and job-training programs is a joke, and it is not going to
get us there to maintain our technological and scientific edge in the
world when it comes to the competition of the jobs that are coming up.
This budget resolution that is coming before us allows the
continuation of the exploding budget deficits. It automatically
increases the debt ceiling for the fourth time in 4 years, and every
Member should understand that, by voting for it, they are increasing
the debt ceiling by another half a trillion dollars in this budget
resolution.
[[Page H2658]]
It fails to adopt budget disciplinary rules such as pay-as-you-go for
both the spending and the revenue side, rules that worked effectively
in the 1990s that led us on a glidepath to 4 years of budget surpluses.
It continues the raid on the Social Security, Medicare trust funds,
being used for other purposes, either tax cuts that are primarily
benefiting the most wealthy in this country or other spending
priorities at a time when they are claiming that Social Security is in
dire financial crisis; and there is no effort to try to repay those
trust fund moneys.
I think we can offer the American people a more realistic vision of
the challenges that I think we all appreciate on both sides of the
aisle; and yet this budget that is going to be coming up before us,
again mainly drafted in the dark wee hours of the early morning, lacks
that vision. And it is not offering enough people in this country the
hope or the optimism that we are going to be able to compete in the
global marketplace in light of what other countries are doing.
Let us start over. There is no need to rush to get this done within
the next day or even the next week. I would rather do it the right way
than the wrong way, and there are too many missed opportunities in this
budget resolution that is going to be coming up to be able to support
it.
So, again, I oppose the process, the martial law rule that we are
debating here this morning, and I oppose the substance of this budget
resolution and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman is obviously very passionate about the views that he
has on the direction this country should take, and I would encourage
him to offer his new New Deal concept. But it is clear that his
difference of opinion is about the substance of the budget, and this is
a rule about the facilitation of consideration of that budget.
There was not a single person from his side of the aisle that voted
for this budget in committee. There was not a single person from his
side of the aisle who voted for this on the floor of this House. He
knows that the Senate version differs greatly from the House version,
and he knows that the House version differs greatly from the
President's submission.
{time} 1100
So there are three distinct visions out there that are being
reconciled through this conference process that we will take up later
today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman, first of all, he mentioned
the three different versions of the budget that have been drafted. What
worries me is that in all three versions, Medicare and Medicaid get
whacked.
What everybody on our side has been talking about here today, even
aside from the substance of what is in the ultimate budget, is the fact
that there should be a process where people can read and understand
what is in the budget before they vote on it. That should not be a big
deal. The House rules say you are supposed to have 3 days, and you
routinely waive those rules so that Members on our side, and even
Members on your side, do not have a chance to even know what they are
actually talking about when they get to the House floor to debate some
of these major pieces of legislation. That is wrong.
Why do we have rules, if all you do is waive them all the time? We
should be able to have a deliberative process. We should not have to do
this. This should not be a controversial point. We should all be able
to agree, no matter what we think about the substance of a bill, that
we should be able to give Members an opportunity to look at what is in
these bills.
Now, you have the votes to do whatever you want and you will ram this
thing through, like you ram everything else through, and that is the
way it goes. But let me close, and I say this with no disrespect to the
gentleman, who I have great admiration for, and I am proud to serve
with him on the Committee on Rules, but it is my view that your party
is doing a lousy job running this government, and, quite frankly, this
process stinks, and I would urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this martial-law rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is entitled to his opinion, and we are
here to deliberate it on the floor, a criticism that he has leveled
against us. We are deliberating it under the same-day rule. He will be
able to make that same charge to me and my party when we debate the
rule, and he will be able to, along with the others who have managed to
find their facts and figures about all the terrible, awful, horrible,
no good things this budget will do that they have expressed on the
floor of this House, they will be back to deliberate it when we take up
the conference report.
There are very wide differences of opinion between these two parties.
The budget is the vision, the blueprint, the spending priorities of
this government for the fiscal year. Not one of your party voted for it
in committee, not one of your party voted for it on the House floor,
and I would dare say not one of you will vote for the conference
report. I cannot speak to that, but if I were a betting man, I think it
would be a pretty safe bet.
It is a reflection of the difference in philosophy about where we
ought to be going as a government, and we are judged by the American
people on that philosophy in this body every 2 years.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) made reference to a vision of
a new New Deal. I am fairly confident there will not be a new New Deal
in this budget conference report because that is a difference in
philosophy.
We have put together in negotiations with the Senate a spending and
budget package that gets our arms around mandatory spending, around
discretionary spending, that looks for savings through the
reconciliation process and attempts through economic growth and
development to put in place an economy that allows everyone to succeed
and find their piece of the American dream. Apparently you all
disagree, and that is your right, and we have hours of this floor
debate to go through these disagreements.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman suggesting that we should
have the right to read legislation only if we pledge to support the
legislation that comes to the floor? I am trying to understand, when
the gentleman was going on about how he did not think any of our side
would vote for the budget resolution, that may very well be true, but
the point of this martial-law rule is to bring it up on the same day so
we will not have an opportunity to fully read the entire budget. The
rules of the House say we should have 3 days.
I am asking the gentleman, does he believe the rules should be waived
and people should not have an opportunity to be able to read
legislation if they will disagree with the gentleman's party?
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows,
I voted for the same-day rule in the Committee on Rules, and, as I said
earlier, it is to facilitate Members getting back to their district,
like the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the other Members
who have expressed an interest in being back to talk about the issues
going on before this Congress, whatever those issues may be, and
whatever the individual Members' opinion of the outcome of those votes
may also be.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, what
is wrong with us debating this next week?
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows,
the Senate is taking a respite next week, apparently from their labors
of legislative productivity, whereas the House will be in session. Our
goal, knowing that April 15 was when we would have liked to have had
this budget done, our goal is to facilitate getting this process along
and pass the budget conference report out of this body so that the
Senate may consider it before they go out for a week, because, as the
gentleman knows, we are moving into the appropriations season and it is
important that the American
[[Page H2659]]
people and the Congress have a budget blueprint in place.
This is an important process that we have in place. It is important,
as a Committee on the Budget member, to me and to the entire House that
we have in place a working budget, something that the government has
not had every year, but I believe it is important that we should. I
think it is important that we reconcile our differences with the Senate
and move this along so that the House and Senate can take it up.
Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman will yield one last time to me, I just
want to make the point, and obviously it is falling on deaf ears today,
but one of the things that concerns many of us is that what is
happening today has become a pattern. Again, it impacts not only
Members on our side, but also a lot of Members on your side.
Important pieces of legislation are coming to the floor and people
have not had an opportunity to even look at them. That is a bad
process. That is undermining the process.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman in his 30
minutes of debate has made the point that he is opposed to us
facilitating consideration of this bill today so that Members can get
home, and he has respectfully made his point. We have made ours.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is on the
resolution.
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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 199, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 146]
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
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
Cubin
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
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
Radanovich
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--199
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)
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
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
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
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--5
Brown, Corrine
Ford
Hyde
Rothman
Stark
{time} 1134
Mr. LYNCH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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.
____________________