[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.

                          ____________________