[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.
____________________