[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 54 (Thursday, April 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2693-H2702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H2693]]
 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H. CON. RES. 95, 
        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 109-63) on the resolution (H. Res. 248) waiving 
points of order against the 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, and 
for other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and 
ordered to be printed.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 248 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 248

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the 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. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
       Sec. 2. (a) During the One Hundred Ninth Congress, except 
     as provided in subsection (c), a motion that the Committee of 
     the Whole rise and report a bill to the House shall not be in 
     order if the bill, as amended, exceeds an applicable 
     allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as estimated by the 
     Committee on the Budget.
       (b) If a point of order under subsection (a) is sustained, 
     the Chair shall put the question: ``Shall the Committee of 
     the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted notwithstanding that the 
     bill exceeds its allocation of new budget authority under 
     section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?'' 
     Such question shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by a proponent of the question and an 
     opponent but shall be divided without intervening motion.
       (c) Subsection (a) shall not apply--
       (1) to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI; or
       (2) after disposition of a question under subsection (b) on 
     a given bill.
       (d) If a question under subsection (b) is decided in the 
     negative, no further amendment shall be in order except--
       (1) one proper amendment, which shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole; and
       (2) pro forma amendments, if offered by the chairman or 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
     their designees, for the purpose of debate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it is a great day in this House and a great 
day for our Nation and an honor to kick off the debate about the fiscal 
blueprint, that our conference of the House and the Senate has come 
together to set forth the priorities for our Nation.
  House Resolution 248 is a closed rule that provides for consideration 
of the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 95, 
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2006 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
fiscal years 2007 through 2010.
  As a member of both the Committee on Rules and the Committee on the 
Budget, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its 
consideration. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Budget. The rule waives all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration. It 
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  Importantly, section 2 of the resolution is a valuable addition to 
the rules and process of the House. I appreciate the work that a number 
of Members in the House have put into this effort. Specifically, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) particularly have 
fought for budget process reform and, with the leadership of the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the gentleman from Iowa 
(Chairman Nussle), have included it. Congress in this resolution makes 
a strong commitment to enforcing fiscal responsibility with the 
addition of a separate order for the 109th Congress. The resolution 
creates a point of order in the Committee of the Whole against a motion 
to rise and report a general appropriations bill if that legislation, 
as amended, is in breach of its 302(b) budget allocation. Any Member of 
either side of the aisle, on the Committee on the Budget or not, on the 
Committee on Rules or not, may raise this point of order.
  A breach in allocation will be determined by the Chair, based on 
estimates provided by the Committee on the Budget as is currently 
prescribed in the Budget Act.
  If the Chair sustains the point of order, the Chair would put the 
question to the Committee, and there would then follow 10 minutes of 
debate on the question, equally divided.
  At the conclusion of the debate, the Chair would put the question to 
the whole Committee. If the motion to rise and report were defeated, 
then no further amendment shall be in order except one proper amendment 
equally divided and debated and multiple pro forma amendments, if 
offered by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, for the purpose of debate.
  This point of order is only applicable once for a given bill and does 
not apply to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI.
  The congressional budget is the ultimate enforcement tool, allowing 
Congress to clearly identify its priorities, to lay out that fiscal 
blueprint and vision for the coming fiscal year. It lays out the plan 
for how America's tax dollars will be spent. It allows us at a time of 
war to ensure that our Nation's soldiers, Guardsmen, Reservists, 
sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen are equipped and trained and 
supported, prioritizing guarantees that our economy continues to 
expand, providing jobs and opportunities for more Americans to achieve 
their piece of the American Dream each and every day. It is a tool that 
allows us to make certain that our government acts in a fiscally 
responsible manner to ensure opportunities and safety for future 
generations of Americans.
  This added point of order gives one more enforcement mechanism to 
ensure that Congress spends responsibly and follows the priorities set 
forth in the congressional budget. Just as small businesses and large 
businesses, families and individuals sit down on a regular basis and 
review their budget and, despite the pressure, have to stick to it, so 
should Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the Committee on the Budget 
that this year reported out a historic blueprint that sets in motion a 
path to cutting the deficit both in dollars and as a percentage of our 
gross domestic product, a percentage of our economy. This budget wisely 
targets both discretionary and mandatory spending in an effort to do 
that and in establishing priorities.

                              {time}  1700

  The Committee on the Budget calls for a reduction in total 
nondefense, non-homeland security discretionary spending. That has not 
been done since President Reagan was in the White House. And for the 
first time since 1997, the budget includes reconciliation instructions 
to authorizing committees calling for a reduction in the rate of growth 
in mandatory programs.
  Mandatory spending is the guaranteed spending, the entitlement 
spending, if you will, that grows each and every year, largely without 
congressional reform or review. Today it consumes 55 percent of the 
budget, and if

[[Page H2694]]

it continues unchecked, it will reach nearly two-thirds of the entire 
Federal budget by 2015.
  It is unacceptable that more than half of the government's spending 
today is largely on automatic pilot. This is neither sound policy nor 
sustainable fiscal policy, and Congress is on its way to losing control 
over spending priorities as entitlements squeeze the budget more and 
more.
  These reconciliation instructions embodied in this conference report 
are the vital step to begin the process of getting mandatory spending 
back to growth at a sustainable rate and continuing to lead us on that 
path toward cutting the deficit in half in 5 years.
  I am hopeful that while the authorizing committees are reviewing 
their programs, they would also conclude that a number of these 
mandatory programs would be better suited as discretionary, and 
therefore subject to continued oversight by the Congress.
  I am proud of the work the Committee on the Budget has done this 
year. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for his tremendous, 
steadfast, fair, balanced and honorable leadership of that committee 
and for driving us forward with a fiscal discipline that brings us to 
this point of consideration of the conference report on the budget.
  I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, every Republican Congress has its winners and its 
losers, and no where is that more apparent than in the budget. Looking 
at this budget, we could clearly see that those losing far outnumber 
those winning. The winners are millionaires and billionaires who will 
benefit from repeal of the estate tax, the credit card companies who 
make billions off of bankruptcy legislation, and oil and gas companies 
given subsidies by the energy bill while oil is at $55 a barrel.
  The losers in the budget are anyone who relies on Medicare, Medicaid 
or Social Security, and our Nation's veterans desperately needing 
health care funding, families with seniors who depend on Social 
Security, and any family that might have a child in need of a student 
loan.
  Those are the winners and losers chosen by this budget, and each and 
every one of America's hardworking men and women are in one of these 
two categories.
  I would ask my fellow Americans, which category do you fall into? If 
you are a millionaire, a billionaire or a senior executive at a major 
credit card company, insurance company or pharmaceutical company, 
chances are very high you are a winner. Likewise, if you are a foreign 
financial institution, you are likely a winner, because you will be 
granted even more opportunities to buy your own piece of America's 
skyrocketing debt.
  On the other hand, if you are part of the hardworking American 
middle- class, you are likely one of the many who will lose out. The 
debt your children will have to pay likely exceeds the amount of money 
you have saved for their college education. Gas prices will continue to 
rise as your tax dollars go to fund incentives for oil companies. And 
the benefits and programs that your parents and relatives depend on to 
make ends meet, as well as the resources that your children will depend 
on to get funding for a college education, are being slashed in order 
to give more of your money to the winners, a group which should be easy 
to recognize at this point.
  Now, if you are a member of the working class or the working poor, or 
if you are a single mother, there should be no doubt in your mind; of 
course, you are a loser in this budget. And, likewise, if you are a 
senior citizen, you depend on Social Security, middle aged, a young 
person counting on Social Security to be there when you retire, you 
lose out more than anyone in this budget.
  In fact, just as Republicans scheme to privatize Social Security and 
decry that financial crisis with the right hand, they have been raiding 
the Social Security surplus since Bush took office with the left. I 
believe that as of this budget, all of the Social Security surplus will 
be gone.
  Remember all that talk about the lockbox? Well, I guess the lock has 
been broken. We do not need a security camera to see who has been 
getting away with all the loot. On this President's watch, fiscal year 
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, every penny of the Social Security trust fund 
has been spent to finance deficits for a 4-year total of $635 billion. 
That is billion with a B. That is a staggering betrayal of the trust 
given by the American people.
  And what about the new budget resolution that we consider today? It 
spends 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. This budget, when 
projected over the next 10 years, spends a total of $2.6 trillion from 
the Social Security surplus. That is the retirement security of 
America's middle class. And they have the gall to wonder why so many 
fiscally responsible Democrats have objected to these irresponsible tax 
cuts that benefit the rich.
  I think it is time that we slowed things down and explain to our 
friends across the aisle what fiscal responsibility is and what it is 
not. Fiscal responsibility does not include giving away the store, 
regardless of whether the consequences will be in 5 years or 10 years 
or 20 years. It means to look and plan for the future so there is an 
opportunity available for generations yet to come.
  Being fiscally responsible does not mean mortgaging the future of 
this country on the backs of our children and grandchildren. It means 
providing adequate funding for schools and health care and retirement 
security.
  It does not include asking the American people to pay for the tax 
cuts given to the millionaires and billionaires. It means giving a 
break to folks who work hard day in and day out to put food on the 
table for themselves and their children.
  And, most of all, being fiscally responsible does not include robbing 
the Social Security trust fund blind.
  So, as I am sure everyone can see with this budget, the people who 
need our help the most lose out.
  It does not have to be this way. There was a choice. The Democratic 
alternative offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
would have made us proud and protected the core principles that we say 
we fight for in this institution, such as great schools, good jobs, 
secure retirements and quality health care.
  It would have brought the budget back into balance by 2012 and 
reinstated the budget enforcement rules to protect Social Security and 
increased our commitment to education, protected our Nation's veterans 
and eliminated the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. That is the kind of 
budget I wish we were considering. That is the kind of budget that the 
hardworking men and women of America want from their Congress. They 
want a fair approach that gets us back to fiscal sanity.
  Much like the President's Social Security proposal, this budget is 
the wrong bill at the wrong time and will hurt a vast majority of our 
Americans, and I urge all my colleagues to defeat this conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a 
distinguished physician, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal 2006 budget 
conference report. I would also like to take this opportunity to 
express my support for permanent budget reform that will enable us to 
further restrain the growth of the Federal Government and Federal 
spending.
  Like many of my colleagues, I believe that streamlining the budget 
and eliminating the deficit are absolutely necessary and essential to 
the continued growth of our economy. While I might not agree with every 
detail of this conference report, and I even believe that a few more 
dollars could be saved, we must accept this compromise between the 
House and the Senate as a solid step in the right direction.
  Failure to pass a budget should not and cannot be an option. Only 
with the passage of this budget can we move forward with a blueprint to 
advance further fundamental reforms and save

[[Page H2695]]

more of the people's money. Therefore, this budgetary blueprint will 
enable us to strengthen fiscal discipline, without endangering the 
current opportunity for budget reconciliation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am amazed by some of my colleagues who continue their 
steady drumbeat of support for increased taxes and increased spending. 
This is a dangerous philosophy, and will only destroy jobs and 
opportunities for working Americans. We cannot tax and spend the 
deficit away, Mr. Speaker. We cannot strengthen the economy with a tax-
and-spend mentality.
  Mr. Speaker, we in the majority will never, let me repeat, never 
accept tax-and-spend policies as fiscally sound and fundamentally fair 
for the American taxpayer.
  The other side tries to hide their intentions for increased taxes by 
using phrases like ``rolling back the tax cuts.'' But, Mr. Speaker, 
they cannot fool the American people, because when they say ``rolling 
back,'' they mean increasing taxes for working Americans and small 
businesses.
  ``Rolling back'' means killing the almost 2.5 million jobs created 
over the past year. ``Rolling back'' means reversing the economic 
growth that has helped improve the lives of all Americans. ``Rolling 
back'' the tax cuts means rolling over the American taxpayer, and, Mr. 
Speaker, that would be simply unacceptable.
  Like the President, I reject any attempt to raise taxes. This budget 
does not raise taxes. It does, however, provide for continued tax 
relief. From tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, to relief to the 
alternative minimum tax, this budget puts money back into the pockets 
of American workers while funding our Nation's priorities and cutting 
the budget deficit.
  This budget also ensures the continued strength of our Armed Forces 
and homeland security through providing an increase in defense and 
homeland spending.
  Mr. Speaker, for the first time since 1997, this budget will include 
instructions for the Congress to find savings and mandatory spending 
this year, and additional savings over the next 5 years.
  This budget makes dramatic strides to reduce spending, and it forces 
Congress to tighten its belt and to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support and encourage my 
colleagues to support this budget conference report.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee, or should I say the 
Break-the-Rules Committee, is at it again. Here we are taking up a bill 
that adds to the deficit and cuts billions of dollars from the safety 
net that protects the most vulnerable people in our country. We are 
considering this bill under a martial-law rule and without the 3 days 
required by the House rules so that Members can actually read and 
analyze this bill for themselves.
  What is the big hurry, Mr. Speaker? The House is in session all next 
week. We do not need to ram this important bill through like this.
  I have an idea. Let us take the weekend and actually read the budget. 
Let us figure out what it really means. Let us listen to our 
constituents before we vote on this conference report.
  Perhaps the Republican leadership is concerned that the more the 
American people learn about what is in this budget, the less they will 
like it. We know that this budget resolution includes upwards of $40 
billion, maybe more, worth of budget cuts, and we know that the people 
affected by these cuts are those who can least afford it.
  With passage of this budget, the Republican leadership will deny 
school breakfasts and school lunches to hungry children. They will deny 
health care to people who cannot afford health insurance. They will 
deny poor, pregnant women and infant children food and nutrition advice 
through the WIC program. Of course, they will deny the wealthiest few 
in this country their huge tax cuts.
  To make matters worse, this is not a balanced budget. It is not even 
close. It continues to burden our children and grandchildren with 
record debt.
  Mr. Speaker, the Reverend Jim Wallis recently issued a statement in 
reaction to this budget entitled ``Budgets Are Moral Documents . . . 
and There is Still Time to Speak.''
  He writes, ``Poverty reduction should be a moral imperative in 
politics. A budget that scapegoats the poor, fattens the rich and asks 
for sacrifice mostly from those who can least afford it, is a moral 
outrage. These budget priorities would cause the prophets to rise up in 
righteous indignation, as should we. Our Nation deserves better 
vision.''
  Mr. Speaker, this budget creates a government without a conscience, 
and we must do better. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule and 
reject this budget conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I include Reverend Wallis' article for the Record.

           [From Convener of Call to Renewal, Apr. 27, 2005]

   Budgets Are Moral Documents . . . and There Is Still Time to Speak

                            (By Jim Wallis)

       The biblical prophets frequently spoke to rulers and kings, 
     and usually spoke for the dispossessed, widows and orphans, 
     the hungry, the homeless, the helpless, the least, last, and 
     lost. People of faith are called to speak in the same ways.
       Budgets are moral documents that reflect the values and 
     priorities of a family, church, organization, city, state, or 
     nation. Examining budget priorities is a moral and religious 
     concern. According to press accounts, the final budget 
     resolution could include cuts to Medicaid of $10 billion; 
     cuts of $6 billion to programs that empower the poor, 
     disabled, abused and neglected--the least, last and lost; and 
     billions in cuts to food stamps. These are misguided 
     priorities. Cutting pro-work and pro-family supports for the 
     less fortunate jeopardizes the common good. This approach is 
     not value-based and does not square with our moral and 
     religious convictions.
       To add what some reports say could be $70 billion more in 
     tax cuts for the wealthy at the same time shows that this 
     budget has not received enough moral scrutiny. Our political 
     leadership's tax cut mentality ignores ``the least of 
     these''--leaving them with crumbs from the feast of the 
     comfortable. And it does nothing to help our deficit 
     problems. Religious communities spoke clearly in the past 
     years about the perils of a domestic policy based primarily 
     on tax cuts for the rich, program cuts for low-income people, 
     and an expectation of faith-based charity. We speak clearly 
     now against budget proposals asking that the cost of the 
     deficit be borne by the poor, who are not to blame and can 
     least afford it.
       Poverty reduction should be a moral imperative in politics. 
     A budget that scapegoats the poor, fattens the rich, and asks 
     for sacrifice mostly from those who can least afford it is a 
     moral outrage. These budget priorities would cause the 
     prophets to rise up in righteous indignation, as should we. 
     Our nation deserves better vision.
       People of faith will continue to speak for the least, the 
     last and the lost. We urge congressional leaders to join us 
     by opposing budget resolutions that place basic human needs 
     at risk. Will leaders who can positively impact the budget 
     debate do so? It's not too late to ``Speak out for those who 
     cannot speak, for the rights of all the destitute. Speak out, 
     judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.'' 
     (Proverbs 31:8-9).

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Florida for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the budget for fiscal 
year 2006 and stand firmly behind our effort to exercise fiscal 
responsibility when it comes to spending taxpayers' hard-earned 
dollars.
  I came to Congress in part because I believed Federal spending had 
gotten out of hand. The Federal Government was growing by leaps and 
bounds, and as government grew larger, it was crowding out the private 
sector, the engine that drives our Nation's growth and prosperity. I 
was concerned about that, and I still am.
  We have done a lot of good things since the American people put a new 
majority in charge in 1994. We have repeatedly reduced the tax burden 
on families and entrepreneurs, we have reformed the welfare system, we 
have reformed elementary and secondary education. The government has 
continued to grow, and this budget is a chance for us to renew 
America's confidence and prove that we still have the courage to lead.

                              {time}  1715

  I want to recognize my colleague, the chairman of the House Committee 
on

[[Page H2696]]

the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for taking a firm 
stand against out-of-control Federal spending by crafting the 
resolution we have before us. He and the leadership on both sides have 
worked hard to bring us to this point.
  There is no question that this budget is going to require us to make 
some difficult choices. We are going to look closely at how we are 
spending taxpayers' money and how we can do better. I applaud the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for putting us on this path. It is 
time for us to get serious about fiscal discipline.
  Under this budget resolution, my committee is being asked to play a 
large role in reining in spending; and my response is that we want to 
be a part of the solution, and we will be part of the solution. The 
time has come to make the tough choices, because there is a bigger 
picture that we cannot afford to ignore. We are going to look at each 
program in our jurisdiction with a skeptical eye. Instead of asking why 
should we not spend more on this program, I think we are going to ask, 
why should we not spend less.
  Our committee has undertaken a bold agenda for reform in the last 4 
years, and we will continue down that path into the future. We will be 
working to improve education from early childhood programs under Head 
Start, to helping students pursue a college education under the Higher 
Education Act, and we will continue to fight for secure access to 
health care and retirement security in a changing economy.
  However, we cannot allow ourselves to believe that our commitment to 
reform is measured by how much money we throw at the problems facing 
our Nation. Instead, we will judge our success by what we demand in 
return for our investment, which has always been about achieving 
results for American taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support a responsible budget that shows 
our resolve to rein in Federal spending. The budget is about setting 
priorities, and it is about showing leadership. I support this bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding me this time; 
and before the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
leaves, when he says that his committee is being asked to play a large 
role, the amount of that large role over the next 6 years is $12.7 
billion. Now, that has to come out of the education budget somewhere. I 
cannot identify where it may come from, but the fact of the matter is 
it is going to be a cut.
  Expressing their concern that the other body is not in session next 
week, our colleagues on the other side are forcing Members to consider 
a budget that was just filed at 2:45 this afternoon. I am curious how 
my colleagues expect the Members to educate themselves on this budget, 
and do not tell me, well, it has been in conference, because all of us 
know the mishmash that takes place there. Are they supposed to educate 
themselves by reading the titles and the tables of contents? If that is 
how I lived my life, then I would still think that J.D. Salinger's 
``Catcher in the Rye'' is about a baseball player who loves to eat 
deli.
  The truth of the matter is, our colleagues may not want us to know 
all that is in this particular budget.
  Typically, the Committee on Rules reports a closed rule for 
conference reports, but the House and Senate Republicans have settled 
on a $2.6 trillion budget that increases the deficit, includes spending 
cuts that fall the hardest on those with the least in our society, and 
provides for more tax cuts that this country cannot afford. I do not 
know what part of not having guns and butter all of us do not 
understand in this body.
  Regarding the deficit, the fiscal year 2006 Republican budget makes 
no attempt to rein in the nearly $400 billion projected deficit for 
this year. I maintain that the deficit is exactingly the largest 
problem that this Nation has and is the most difficult for Republicans 
and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, to explain to the American 
people. But without PAYGO in this budget, without some consideration 
being given in a serious way to the deficit, we can all expect that 
there are going to be real problems.
  I believe this budget neglects America's children, neglects our 
seniors and veterans. I believe it underfunds our domestic priorities 
by billions, including veterans benefits; our education system; and 
perhaps most importantly during this dangerous time in history, 
homeland security.
  Finally, the process by which we are bringing this to the floor is 
skewered in favor of Members not having sufficient time. America's 
budget problems are not going to go away, no matter how quickly we ram 
budgets through here in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me this time.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support the budget because it is good for our 
country. I also rise to commend the hard work, the determination, the 
integrity of our chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle); 
and I also want to salute the fine work and the honesty and the 
integrity of the Senate budget Chair, the Senator from my State, 
Senator Gregg.
  Why is this budget so important to our Nation? We need to reduce our 
budget deficit; and our budget, this budget, puts us on a path to do 
that. We need to establish fiscal restraint, and this budget actually 
cuts nondefense discretionary spending for the first time in years. It 
also slows the rate of growth of entitlement spending. Let me repeat 
this, because it is being portrayed as a cut. It is not a cut. It is 
slowing the rate of growth of entitlement spending, and allowing us, 
through the Commission on Medicaid, to do a better job of delivering 
services, better health care to those people who need it the most.
  Very importantly, this budget allows our economy to grow. Since we 
instituted the tax cuts in this very Chamber, 3 million new jobs have 
been created in our country. We need to continue down this path of 
growing jobs.
  Perhaps most importantly, this budget provides for our national 
security. It increases defense spending; it honors our troops and the 
commitments of our Nation's veterans by spending nearly $1 billion more 
on veterans benefits, without a copayment and without an enrollment 
fee.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent job. I commend it to my colleagues, 
and I urge their support for this budget.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the 
underlying budget conference agreement.
  More than a month ago, the House passed a concurrent budget 
resolution that left average Americans out in the cold. The budget 
slashed domestic programs for education, health care, and veterans 
health benefits in order to make room for more tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans. I voted against it because I thought it left out 
the needs of the middle class and working families and would hurt my 
constituents in my hometown of Sacramento.
  Today we are considering the conference agreement to that budget 
which has been negotiated in secret over the past several weeks and 
rushed to the floor without time for Members to even read through it. 
But it appears that these several weeks have not yielded many 
improvements. The cuts to the most vulnerable are still there. The cuts 
to education are still there. And it still favors big oil companies at 
the expense of our natural treasures by allowing drilling in ANWR.
  More fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget agreement without 
courage. During President Clinton's administration, Congress took up 
the hard work involved in weighing our Nation's competing priorities, 
and it meant that we were able to create a Social Security surplus for 
future generations in a very responsible manner. But it has been just 
the opposite under this Republican majority. They are spending every 
dollar of the Social Security surplus in order to finance their

[[Page H2697]]

deficits and their tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans.
  Just as irresponsibly, this budget is trying to hide the President's 
plan to privatize Social Security. The President wants to divert Social 
Security payroll taxes out of the Social Security system and into 
private accounts. Replacing a guaranteed benefit with the risks of Wall 
Street is bad public policy. It would mean an average benefit reduction 
of $152,000. It is not surprising that the American people have 
rejected it. We should be strengthening Social Security's fundamental 
commitment made from one generation to another instead of weakening it.
  Conveniently, the budget agreement before us ducks responsibility for 
this reckless plan. We know that privatizing Social Security would 
require borrowing $2 trillion over the next 10 years, debt borrowed 
against our children and our grandchildren. Not surprisingly, this 
inconvenient reality is left out of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget is our Federal Government's statement of 
priorities. Crafting it involves tough choices among many competing and 
worthwhile programs. Nonetheless, Democratic priorities are clear: 
making health care more affordable, strengthening Social Security, 
investing in our local communities. I do not believe this budget has 
these priorities in mind, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
misguided agreement.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another 
aged and crusty Member of the House, a leader on fiscal policy, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the elderly gentleman 
from Florida for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in favor of this rule and in favor of 
this budget. It all comes down to priorities, Mr. Speaker: how are we 
going to balance the budget. There are different ways of doing it. We 
believe the way to balance the budget is grow the economy and create 
more jobs and control spending. What the other side has said they want 
to do is raise taxes. You can raise taxes, but you will hurt jobs.
  What we have done in the last year is remarkable, Mr. Speaker. The 
budget deficit has gone down from a projected $521 billion, down by 20 
percent over the last year, to $412 billion, largely because of 
increased jobs and economic activity.
  Now, what we want to do to ensure that we cut the deficit in half 
over 5 years and, hopefully, exceed that goal is control spending. For 
the first time since the Reagan administration, we are actually going 
to reduce nonsecurity discretionary spending, an actual reduction in 
expenditures on nonsecurity discretionary spending. That is a great 
step in the right direction.
  For the first time since 1997, we are actually going to address 
entitlement reform. Fifty-four percent of the Federal budget, Mr. 
Speaker, is on auto pilot, our entitlements. We are finally going to be 
trying to control the growth of entitlements. Is it Draconian? Hardly. 
We are growing entitlements at 5.6 percent instead of 5.7 percent over 
the next 10 years. In fact, those who say that this bill cuts Medicaid 
are simply missing the mark. Medicaid is going to grow at 7.3 percent 
instead of 7.6 percent. So for the next 5 years, Medicaid will spend 
$1,112,808,000,000. That is $1,112,800,000. Instead, Medicaid will now 
spend $1,102,800,000,000. We are talking about growing Medicaid at 7.3 
percent instead of 7.6 percent. We are talking about getting a handle 
on out-of-control spending so we can control spending to reduce the 
deficit.
  It is all about priorities, Mr. Speaker. We believe that the money 
that is made in America, the money that comes to the Federal Government 
through revenues is not our money, it is our constituents' money, it is 
the taxpayers' money. We believe we have an obligation to be good 
stewards of taxpayers' dollars. We believe that there is waste, fraud, 
and abuse in the Federal Government; and we believe that everything the 
Federal Government is doing is not being done exactly right, that we 
can reform, get better use of our tax dollars, and get better savings 
so that we can get rid of this budget deficit. We have already reduced 
the deficit by 20 percent.
  We need to keep good jobs, keep the economy growing, and control 
spending. That is exactly what this budget does. It has unprecedented 
advances. The first time we are actually getting some spending control 
on mandatory spending since 1997; the first time we are actually 
reducing nonsecurity spending and discretionary since the Reagan 
administration.
  It is a good budget, and I urge its support.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been more than a month since the House and Senate 
both passed budget resolutions on a fast track, but it was only Tuesday 
of this week that the House finally got around to appointing conferees. 
We had the first and only meeting of the conference yesterday amid 
reports that a conference report was almost a done deal.

                              {time}  1730

  The meeting was a formality, to give some semblance of collaboration 
to the budget process. But there has been no collaboration. There has 
been no transparency. This conference report was prepared by 
Republicans and their staff behind closed doors, at times and places 
unknown to me, even though I am a conferee. So not surprisingly, this 
conference report does not reflect the resolution that we would have 
passed had we been full partners in this process.
  Let me tell you what this conference report is not. This is not a 
budget that follows the will of the House as expressed 2 days ago in 
the motion to instruct conferees. Two days ago, 348 Members of the 
House voted emphatically against Medicaid cuts. The conferees disdained 
the instruction and whacked Medicaid anyway for $10 billion.
  So this is a budget with spending cuts, and the Republicans will tell 
you that these are necessary to reduce the deficit. But in this budget, 
the spending cuts do not go to the bottom line and reduce the deficit 
dollar for dollar. They will be used to offset tax cuts so that they 
will at least partially offset their impact on the bottom line of the 
budget, because, you see, this budget does not make the bottom line 
better. It does not make the deficit better. It makes it worse.
  The government faces a deficit this year of $427 billion. Now, you 
would think that with deficits of this size, that the budget would be 
used to make the bottom line smaller not larger, but not this budget. 
It does just the opposite. This will make the budget $167 billion worse 
on the bottom line over the next 5 years than the CBO baseline budget.
  I have right here what we could put together as quickly as possible, 
given the short amount of time we have had, a back-of-the-envelope 
analysis. Let me go through it bullet by bullet. The House-passed 
budget produced deficits of $127 billion above the deficit in CBO's 
current services baseline forecast.
  This report, this conference report produces deficits that are $40 
billion greater than the House-passed budget; $167 billion above the 
CBO baseline. This does not improve the deficit problem. It makes it 
worse.
  The conference report calls for $35 billion in reconciled spending 
cuts, compared with $69 billion in reconciled spending cuts in the 
House budget resolution. That $35 billion difference accounts for most 
of the $40 billion difference in total deficits.
  In the conference report, there are cuts in nondiscretionary 
spending, big cuts, $150 billion over 5 years. But they are virtually 
offset with defense discretionary spending increases, so these two 
accounts in discretionary spending are basically a wash. And as for the 
tax cuts, they remain at $106 billion.
  So what we have here is a budget that does not help the situation. 
This is a budget that hurts the situation. And let me mention one 
particular aspect where harm is done that is wholly unnecessary.
  Everybody knows that we have a problem with Social Security, looming 
insolvency. Call it a crisis, call it a problem. You would think that a 
budget of this kind would at least, if it did not have a grand 
solution, would at

[[Page H2698]]

least do no further harm. But instead, this budget, in order to pay for 
the reduction in income taxes, reaches into the Social Security trust 
fund, takes out $160 billion and spends that entire trust fund surplus 
for the operation of the government, not for Social Security benefits.
  This is not a step forward for Social Security. This is a step 
backward. And it is just another reason that we should all, all of us, 
oppose this bill. It is bad in substance. It's bad process.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who has been a leader in budget 
process reform and in fiscal discipline.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of 
this conference report. And I also want to congratulate the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Budget Committee, who I 
know is on the floor now.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe he probably has the most difficult job that 
one has in the United States House of Representatives; and that is, 
each one of us, 435 of us, have opinions about how much money we should 
take from American families and spend in government, and once we get 
that money what should we spend it on.
  And certainly I have my opinions. I believe we need to do more to 
protect the family budget from the Federal budget. And at the same time 
there are some categories of government I wish we could spend more 
money on. I believe that there is still more we could do in policing 
our border, more we can do in veterans health care.
  But I strongly support this budget for several reasons. Number one, a 
budget is a whole lot more than just numbers. It is more than just an 
accounting green eye-shade function. It is about priorities. It is 
about vision.
  This is a budget that provides for the common defense. This is a 
budget that helps us fight and win this war on terror. It is a budget 
that promotes economic growth.
  Under this Republican administration's economic policies, we have 
come out of the recession. We have created 3 million jobs. We are 
giving Americans jobs and growth and hope and opportunity. And this 
budget protects that.
  And perhaps also, very important and very historic, this budget 
provides for something we call reconciliation. Now, in Washington 
terms, that is kind of an insider baseball term. But what it means is 
we start the process to reform our entitlement spending.
  Now, why is that important?
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle are always talking about 
how, for some reason, their budget is fiscally responsible and ours is 
not. But right now we have Medicare; over the next decade it is growing 
to grow at 9 percent a year. Medicaid is going to grow at almost 8 
percent a year. Social Security is growing at 5\1/2\ percent a year. 
The General Accounting Office tells us that if we do not reform these 
programs, that we are on a glide path to where our children and our 
grandchildren will have to see their taxes increased 2\1/2\ times. This 
is fiscally responsible?
  Sure. We can balance the budget in 2040. All we do is we leave 
spending on automatic pilot, and we raise taxes on our children and 
grandchildren 2\1/2\ times.
  Mr. Speaker, I see nothing fiscally responsible in that approach. And 
this is why I am a strong supporter of this. And I believe we must 
start the process of reform. Our children and grandchildren are facing 
this legacy, this sea, this tsunami of red ink. There is a question of 
generational fairness here.
  And Mr. Speaker, many of us in this Chamber know that we can get 
better retirement security at a lesser cost. We can get better health 
care at a lesser cost if we just have different policies. I mean, right 
now we know, we know that if we will embrace real Social Security 
personal accounts with real assets that owners can work and have a nest 
egg, that they can get more, greater retirement security than what 
present Social Security is promising and cannot deliver.
  Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle will find fault in 
this budget in a couple of ways. And I have been listening to the 
debate. They say tax relief is why we have these massive budget 
deficits.
  Well, unfortunately, they have not looked at the latest Treasury 
reports. We have actually cut marginal rates. And guess what? We have 
more tax revenue because people have incentives to go opt and create 
new small businesses and to expand and to hire new people. Again, look 
at the facts. The facts are indisputable. We have cut marginal tax 
rates, and we increase more tax revenue.
  But say that we believe in their theory, that tax relief is actually 
part of the problem. Say tax relief was just a line item that said the 
office of widget control.
  Well, if you look very closely at what this budget does, it provides 
$16.6 billion in tax relief versus $2.5 trillion in spending. That is 
less than 1 percent. So somehow less than 1 percent of the Federal 
budget supposed to cause all these problems? I do not think so. In this 
case, tax relief has proven to be part of the deficit solution, not the 
deficit problem.
  And when it comes to the deficit, the deficit is really a symptom. It 
is spending that is the disease. And without real reform, without real 
reconciliation, we do not get it, Mr. Speaker, and this is why I am so 
strongly in favor of this budget resolution.
  And once again I congratulate our great chairman, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for the work he has done.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for a response.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the gentleman's contention 
about taxes. When the Bush administration presented its tax package, 
they told us that the revenues produced by the individual income tax in 
2004 would be $1,118,000,000,000. In fact, in 2004 revenues produced by 
the individual income tax were just over $810 billion. There was a $300 
billion shortfall in revenues beneath the projection of the Bush 
administration, which accounts for three-fourths of the deficit, $412 
billion deficit in 2004.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican majority has 
written a budget that uses every penny, every penny of the Social 
Security surplus. I went back and read what the President said March 
22, 2001. ``The budget I set up says the payroll taxes are only going 
to be spent on one thing, and that is Social Security.'' Once again, 
the President is not keeping that commitment.
  The budget, this budget of yours, raids Social Security in 2006, 
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. That is reform? That is regression. And for 
every year covered by this budget, every penny comes out of the Social 
Security surplus, every penny.
  Now, it was not many weeks ago the President went to West Virginia. 
And we all read about it. He went to the bureau that holds the trust 
fund documents of the Social Security, and he said, ``There is no trust 
fund, just IOUs.''
  I could not disagree with the President more. Those bonds held by the 
trust fund are backed by the full faith and credit of the United 
States. So the problem is not with Social Security or the trust fund, 
it is with the fiscal irresponsibility of this administration.
  I remember 1993, when many of us joined to put this country on the 
path of fiscal responsibility. And we faced not deficits, but 
surpluses, not using Social Security.
  But then the Republican majority comes here, and the Bush 
administration, and they push through a number of measures, including 
the irresponsible tax cuts, with the results that the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has just indicated. And we warned you, more 
red ink. And you did not listen.
  So last year, we have a deficit of $412 billion. But if you do not 
include Social Security, it is $567 billion. That is reform?
  This same lack of fiscal discipline will result in an even larger 
deficit this year. This has to stop. It has to stop. And we can do that 
tonight.
  I urge the House to reject this irresponsible budget, defeat the 
previous question and demand a budget that does not raid the Social 
Security trust fund.

[[Page H2699]]

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would remind the gentleman that the Social Security bonds are still 
backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. And unlike 
the other side of the aisle, this side of the aisle is concerned not 
just about Social Security for today's seniors, who are perfectly cared 
for if you are 50 and older, but for tomorrow's seniors as well, those 
students who are graduating from college today who will retire 15 years 
after the system has gone bust if action is not taken.
  One side has plans, competing plans even, a variety of plans. The 
other side is in denial.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the full faith and credit of the 
United States Government. Of course the question is, who is the 
government? Well, the government would be the taxpayers of the United 
States. They are the ones who have to back up all the spending that 
goes on here in Washington, D.C.
  For 40 years the Democrats controlled Congress. They did not mind 
spending Social Security, every dime of it, in any way they wanted to. 
In fact, the Democrats, for 40 years, set us on a path of an unlimited 
credit card without the assets to back it up.
  Just recently, before the Ways and Means Committee, we had the 
Comptroller General of the General Accountability Office, David Walker. 
And David Walker testified that right now the United States needs $43 
trillion to meet the unfunded liabilities and debt. That is four times 
the size of the American economy. That is scary.

                              {time}  1745

  Now, David Walker was appointed by Bill Clinton. David Walker is a 
nonpartisan independent, and he says that we have got to get control of 
mandated spending, entitlements. This budget is starting to get real. 
Because if we do not face this challenge, then our children and our 
grandchildren are going to face, as was described a little earlier, an 
economic tsunami. I can see the ocean going out now if we are talking 
about $43 trillion of unfunded liabilities and debts. The question is 
when will the wave come back in.
  We have got to get serious. We have got to be nonpartisan and work 
together to solve some of these issues, or we are going to have a 
terrible, terrible tragedy in this country. So it is time to get real. 
We have to get control of spending in this country. And by the year 
2020, Mr. Walker says that all the funds coming into the general 
Treasury will be consumed by entitlements and interest on the debt. 
There will be nothing left over for discretionary spending and for 
Congress to make decisions.
  By the year 2040 all the money coming into the Federal Treasury will 
be consumed by the interest. We will lose Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security, period, if we do not get real and reform the process.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time.
  It is curious to me, each speaker that has come to the Republican 
side in the last half hour since we have debated the rule is introduced 
as an expert on fiscal policy, an expert on fiscal policy.
  Look at the deficit that they have run up. Look at where we find 
ourselves today, two wars and five tax cuts; and they present 
themselves to the people as an expert on fiscal policy.
  Mr. Speaker, in the election of the year 2000, there was a lot of 
mocking about the term the ``lockbox.'' It made great play even on 
``Saturday Night Live.''
  Let me tell you what they have done. Over the next 10 years Social 
Security will raise $2.6 trillion for the trust fund. This Republican 
budget spends every cent of that surplus. That means that we need this 
money to provide benefits to retirees, and guess how we are going to do 
it? We are going to borrow the money. And we are going to do just what 
we have been doing since they have been in charge, and then we are 
going to increase our indebtedness to the Chinese and to the Japanese.
  Everybody knows this for what it is. It is unsound policy. The first 
Bush budget promised that ``none of the Social Security surpluses will 
be used to fund other spending initiatives or tax relief.''
  That is what they said. Let us give you the record. It is the polar 
opposite. After acknowledging the importance of keeping the trust fund 
secure, they have raided every single cent of the trust fund in the 
fiscal year 2002 budget to pay for their tax cuts that, by the way, 
went to the top 1 percent of wage earners in America.
  Well, let us have another refresher here in recent history. In fiscal 
year 2003 the same thing happened. The Republicans spent every cent of 
the Social Security trust fund surplus. In 2004 they spent every cent 
of the Social Security trust fund surplus. And in 2005 they intend to 
spend every cent of the Social Security trust fund surplus. So over 
these last 4 years the Republicans' budgets have spent $635 billion of 
the Social Security trust fund on huge tax cuts for the wealthiest 
among us.
  Only in Washington could you lop $2 trillion off the Federal budget 
with tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and then in the next breath 
say Social Security is in danger.
  We have got to do something to fix Social Security after they have 
raided the trust fund. Now, after draining the Social Security trust 
fund, the President then says, Social Security is going bankrupt. His 
strategy is failing on every front. It is failing his fiscal policy 
with record deficits. By the way, this is from a Republican Party that 
at one time spoke to fiscal rectitude.
  It is failing politically because the American people who are paying 
attention, and they all are, are rejecting the Social Security trust 
fund because they know the trust fund account has been raided by the 
majority party.
  We know we will have to do some adjustments to Social Security to 
strengthen it, but look what their answer is: raid the trust fund. We 
have offered a budget alternative that would begin to shore up Social 
Security. Our plan offers tough budget rules that would force Congress 
to pay for new spending or tax cuts that would pull money out of the 
Social Security trust funds.
  I want to say something, Mr. Speaker. In the 17 years that I have 
been in this House, this is absolutely the worst budget that has been 
presented. There is not even competition for how bad this budget 
proposal is, and they do it on the backs of the Social Security trust 
fund.
  So let me close on the basis on which I began, and I would like to 
have them answer this question: two wars, and five tax cuts.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House of what this budget is since we 
have heard what it is not. It accommodates the tax relief that was 
passed by this House on a bipartisan basis. It fully supports national 
defense with an increase of nearly 5 percent. Homeland security 
expenses are dealt with with an increase of 2.3 percent, and an overall 
nonsecurity, nondefense discretionary spending reduction of less than 1 
point, something that, if you only heard the other side, you would 
believe would lead to massive chaos in the streets, the sky falling and 
ruin of biblical proportions.
  I only wonder what will be said next year. What type of analogy or 
metaphor will top that of this year? This is a budget that is 
responsible, that lays out priorities for a Nation and is one that 
gives a vision, a direction for the country towards cutting the deficit 
in half in 5 years, by dealing not just with discretionary spending but 
with mandatory as well, and in doing so by reducing the rate of growth.
  Something that is lost in this debate is that it is not even a net 
cut. It is only a Washington, D.C. cut when you are going up 7.3 
percent instead of 7.5 percent and accused of making cuts. This is a 
budget that meets the needs of our national defense. It creates a 
climate of opportunity and growth for small businesses and individuals 
who are working every day to be a part of the American Dream and to 
achieve their goals that they have set out to achieve and take risks 
and seek capital and take on new employees and buy

[[Page H2700]]

equipment. It allows them to continue to do that.
  It has an eye towards future generations. It is not a budget about 
today or about the selfishness of one generation over another, but 
looking ahead multiple generations and saying, how do we deal with 
problems that we know nonpartisan experts in these areas, the 
comptroller general, think tanks of all shapes and sizes and stripes 
say in 2040, you have a major problem in Social Security. What are you 
going to do for that first year, teacher? What are you going to do for 
that student who is graduating from high school this year who will 
retire years after the system has become insolvent if we fail to act?
  On this side you see a variety of opinions, in fact, even clashing 
ideas about ways to address the problem. And on the other side there is 
silence. The party that gave us a pillar of domestic policy is in 
denial about a problem that will affect future generations, and I 
believe that is a tragedy.
  This budget is a budget for today, tomorrow, and decades to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  What our friends on the majority side are doing would be downright 
funny if it were not so downright tragic. The motion that we are here 
taking a $2.6 trillion budget with less than 3 hours to look at it is 
not laughable. It is disgusting.
  We tried at the beginning of this year to enforce the 3-day rule 
except for cases where a supermajority could be obtained. You denied 
that. I challenge you to go home to your rotary clubs, your town halls, 
your citizens groups and say, friends, the United States Congress led 
by the Republican majority passed a $2.6 trillion budget and the 
Members had 3 hours to look at it. Be honest with your constituents. 
Say, I read that entire budget in those 3 hours we had. Be honest with 
your constituents and tell them how much of that Social Security trust 
fund you are borrowing to disguise your spending and to disguise the 
cost of your deficit.
  You folks ran on a platform back in 1993 where you said if 
legislation cannot pass 3 days of scrutiny, it should not be enacted 
into law. That is the case today with this budget.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me time.
  The Republicans have a view that is unstated, if you repeat something 
that is untrue over and over again, people will believe it to be true.
  And take the signature line of my friends on the majority, this 
budget will cut the deficit in half in 5 years. It is not true. There 
is no year-to-year deficit that ever gets to that point, and this 
budget does not do it. What they did is they puffed up the deficit 
number, the projection, a year and a half ago. They puffed up that 
number and now they are talking about a reduction from that puffed up 
number. It simply is not true.
  But what I really want to talk about is Medicaid, what you are doing 
to Medicaid with this budget. We now know that the Medicaid cuts in 
this House reconciliation bill could be as high as the entire Energy 
and Commerce instruction to reduce $14.7 billion over 5 years.
  Two days ago this body passed a motion to protect Medicaid by an 
overwhelming vote of 348 to 72, 152 Republicans joined all Democrats to 
oppose cuts to Medicaid. And so what do we get? We get a budget that is 
going to reduce Medicaid by a substantial amount of money, $10 billion, 
$14 billion, we do not know. Any cut to Medicaid is a significant hit 
on our States.
  But the bottom line is Republicans today with no notice, with a few 
hours notice of this budget, will troop down here and they will vote 
for a budget resolution that cuts Medicaid, and two days ago they all 
stood up and said, oh, no, no, no, we are opposed to Medicaid cuts. 
That is what we have got here.
  If this budget could stand the light of day, an extended light of 
day, frankly, we would see more time than 3 hours to review it. But the 
bottom line is cuts to Medicaid will have a devastating effect on our 
society. They will make the system less viable for health care 
providers. They will have an impact on seniors and impoverished 
children.
  This budget is an outrage and should be rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close this debate by urging Members to vote 
``no'' on the previous question so I can modify the rule to allow the 
House to reject this flawed budget conference report and require the 
House Committee on the Budget to produce a new Federal budget that does 
not raid the Social Security trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, since President Bush took office, Republican budgets 
have spent every penny of Social Security trust surplus in order to 
finance the deficits and pay for their tax cuts.
  While the President travels the country trying and failing to 
convince Americans that privatizing Social Security is a good idea, his 
tax cuts continue to pile up the IOUs in the Social Security trust 
fund.
  We need a budget that will bring back budget enforcement, to protect 
the Social Security surplus and return the budget to balance by 2012.
  The Spratt budget would put us back on the path to fiscal solvency 
and that is the kind of budget America needs and deserves, not the 
budget before us today.
  Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can protect Social 
Security and begin restoring some fiscal sanity to the Nation.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), my distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and 
congratulate him on the fine job that he has done on this and as a 
member of the Committee on the Budget, as well as the Committee on 
Rules.
  This a great day, Mr. Speaker. We are at the point where, once again, 
we are continuing to do the work of the American people. We have spent 
weeks and months focused on this very important budget issue. We have 
now seen both houses of Congress address these questions, and we have 
come together with a conference agreement.
  It is a conference agreement which is going to allow us to focus on a 
number of priorities of the Federal Government, that is, our national 
defense and our homeland security, but at the same time we are focused 
on very important societal needs that are out there, as well as the 
fiscal responsibility.
  We know that economic growth is a very important part of that, and as 
I listen to my colleagues decry this issue of spending and deficits and 
all, we know that the single most important thing we can do to deal 
with this deficit issue is to continue to see the economy grow, and 
that is exactly what the tax cuts in this measure will do, as they have 
done. In fact, in last year's budget, we saw the deficit $109 billion 
lower than anticipated. Why? Because of the economic growth that 
followed our tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair rule allowing a conference 
agreement. Members have had a great deal of time over the past several 
weeks and months to focus on this issue. Let us continue to do what we 
have done throughout this great 109th Congress: Get the work of the 
American people done.

[[Page H2701]]

  I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Con. Res. 95--Conference Report on the FY2006 
                      Concurrent Budget Resolution

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That the House finds the following:
       (1) From 2002 through 2005, the Republicans in Congress 
     have spent every dollar of the $637 billion of Social 
     Security trust fund surpluses on tax cuts and other purposes 
     unrelated to Social Security.
       (2) The 2006 Republican Congressional budget resolution 
     conference agreement spends every dollar of the projected 
     $1.1 trillion Social Security surpluses over the next five 
     years on tax cuts and other purposes unrelated to Social 
     Security.
       Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the 
     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 is hereby rejected.
       Sec. 3. The Committee on the Budget is directed to report a 
     new concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 
     301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that does not 
     raid Social Security surpluses by diverting these funds for 
     purposes other than Social Security, and stipulates that 
     Social Security payroll contributions will be used solely for 
     the purpose of providing retirement, disability and survivor 
     benefits.

  I want to close this debate by urging members to vote no on the 
previous question so I can will modify this rule to allow the House to 
reject this flawed budget conference report and at the same time 
require the House Budget Committee to produce a new federal budget that 
does not raid the Social Security trust funds.
  Mr. Speaker, since President Bush took office, Republican budgets 
have spent every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus in 
order to finance their deficits and pay for their tax cuts. While the 
President travels the country trying, and failing, to convince 
Americans that privatizing Social Security is a good idea, his tax cuts 
continue to pile up the IOU's in the Social Security trust funds.
  We need a budget that will bring back budget enforcement to protect 
the Social Security surplus and return the federal budget to balance by 
2012. Mr. Spratt's budget would put us back on the path to fiscal 
solvency, and that is the kind of budget America needs, not the budget 
that is before us today.
  Vote ``no'' the previous question so that we can protect Social 
Security and begin restoring some fiscal sanity to this nation.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the previous question 
immediately prior to the vote.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, all time on our side having expired, I move 
the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 248 will be followed by 5-
minute votes, as ordered, on adopting the resolution and approving the 
Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 196, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 147]

                               YEAS--228

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     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)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     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--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     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)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     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
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clyburn
     Cunningham
     Doggett
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Meeks (NY)
     Moran (VA)
     Paul
     Rothman

                              {time}  1827

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 147, I was in my 
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I 
would voted ``nay.''
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 147, I was 
detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay.''

[[Page H2702]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________