[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21786-21789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 68, CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2006

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 469 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 469

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) 
     making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2006, 
     and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative 
     day of Thursday, October 6, 2005, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 
     Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this resolution.
       Sec. 3. A motion to proceed pursuant to section 2908 of the 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 shall be in 
     order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee.

  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 California (Ms. Matsui), 
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. Speaker, House Resolution 469 is a rule that provides for 
consideration of House Joint Resolution 68, making continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2006. This rule provides for 1 hour 
of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The 
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint 
resolution. The rule provides one motion to recommit the joint 
resolution.
  Additionally, the resolution provides that suspensions will be in 
order at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, October 6, 2005, 
and the Speaker or his designee shall consult the Minority Leader or 
her designee on any suspension considered under the rule.
  Lastly, the rule provides that a motion to proceed pursuant to 
section 2908 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 
shall be in order only if offered by the majority leader or his 
designee.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Lewis) and the entire House Committee on Appropriations on 
both sides of the aisle for sticking to the timetable they laid out at 
the start of this legislative session. In an impressive display of 
bipartisanship and just sheer hard work, the House passed all 11 
appropriations bills prior to the July 4 District Work Period. Since 
July, the Senate has returned to us only the interior and legislative 
branch appropriations bills, which have each been signed into law by 
the President. Additionally, the Senate has passed six of its remaining 
10 appropriations bills. These six are awaiting closure in conference. 
We are now just anticipating action from the Senate on those last four 
appropriations bills so we can move forward, finish the appropriations 
process, and avoid a cumbersome omnibus funding bill.
  Unfortunately, the appropriations process within the two bodies has 
not been completed prior to the start of the new fiscal year which, of 
course, begins this October 1. We must institute a continuing 
resolution in order to allow the government to function through 
November 18, 2005, while we complete consideration of the remaining 
appropriations bills, waiting on the Senate to complete their final 
actions, and for the conference committees to do their work. This rule 
allows consideration of the imperative funding measure.
  I am most impressed with the work of the Committee on Appropriations 
on this continuing resolution. Throughout the appropriations process, 
the committee has shown its commitment to the budget resolution and to 
fiscal responsibility. The committee has funded programs and activities 
at the lowest level of the House-passed level, the Senate-passed level, 
or the fiscal year 2005 current rate. For agencies for which the Senate 
has not passed a bill by the start of a new fiscal year, the funding 
rate is at the lower of the House-passed level, or the fiscal year 2005 
current rate.
  The legislation includes language prohibiting agencies from 
initiating or resuming programs or procurements not funded in the 
fiscal year 2005, and prohibits agencies from awarding new grants and 
certain other forms of assistance during the period of the CR, which, 
of course, is through November 18 of this year.
  I again congratulate the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) and the entire 
committee for their hard work this year. I urge Members to support this 
rule and the underlying CR so that we can finish the appropriations 
process, move down the road to responsible funding for the needs of 
this Nation, and avoid a cumbersome omnibus funding bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to debate H.J. Res. 68, a 
continuing resolution that will fund the Federal Government past 
September 30. While this is an essential procedural measure, it also 
represents an opportunity. Between now and November 18, when the 
resolution expires, Congress has a responsibility to step back and 
consider its priorities. The facts on the ground have changed, and our 
agenda here in the House must change accordingly.
  I am confident that we will do right by those affected by the 
hurricanes, but we still need to ask ourselves where our financial and 
legislative duties are in response to Katrina construction, continued 
funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, and increasing fiscal deficit. Are we 
looking at the big picture? Are our priorities in line with our 
financial obligations? We know that because of Katrina, the victims, 
those displaced from their homes, are more likely to rely on medicaid. 
With that known expense, can we honestly reduce the funding for this 
responsibility and still extend tax cuts?
  Mr. Speaker, we need to take care of our fellow citizens, but what we 
do now should not mean we pass on an unsustainable debt to future 
generations, especially when we know there is a way we can offset these 
costs. For the costs of this year's installments of the tax cuts 
enacted in 2001 and 2003, $225 billion this year alone, we could pay 
for the gulf States' recovery from Katrina. We know that we need some 
of these cuts, such as AMT relief, but let us at least be reasonable 
and put them on the table.
  We must have an honest discussion about our fiscal situation. I urge 
my colleagues to step back and take a hard look at how we will move 
forward, not just this fall, but next year and the decades after that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of my colleagues have heard me talk 
about my granddaughter Anna, and we all have someone like her, someone 
we see as our future, someone that means the world to us. I believe 
that she will grow up to a better future. But, to do right by them, we 
must all step up to the plate, not as Members of one party or another, 
but as leaders and statesmen

[[Page 21787]]

willing to accept the reality of our fiscal situation and make the 
difficult decisions.
  Our priorities in the coming months should not waver from the 
ultimate goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I certainly agree that this 
debate about the budget and the appropriations process is always a 
debate about our future, and it is a debate about priorities. Clearly, 
we have had a shift in priorities since that budget resolution passed. 
As a State that was hit by four hurricanes last year and had the 
beginnings of Katrina come across our State this year, our hearts go 
out to our brothers and sisters on the gulf coast, and we recognize 
that this government has a commitment to help lift up those citizens on 
the gulf coast and, where appropriate, we have a Federal responsibility 
in the rebuilding and reconstruction process in Louisiana and 
Mississippi and Alabama, and a lot of other places.
  So I think that that reinforces the need for us to move ahead with 
this continuing resolution and allow our appropriations process to 
work, instead of positioning ourselves to a situation where we end up 
with an omnibus bill that I do not think either one of us thinks is the 
appropriate way to go.
  There is an opportunity here for us to reprioritize, using regular 
order, using the strength and talent that sits on our committees, and 
bringing about a measured approach to doing that. It is going to 
require offsets. The numbers that are coming out of there fluctuate 
wildly, and it is important that we have a handle on what those needs 
truly are. It is important that we recognize that had we not taken some 
of the steps that we have taken in the past, we would not have 
eliminated $100 billion off of the deficit in the last year. We would 
not have been in a position where revenues to the government would have 
actually been higher than they were as a result of the lower taxes and 
the growth in the economy that has come about as a result of that.
  But that is a debate for another day. This is a debate about the 
continuing resolution and the need for us to make sure that the 
government does not shut down.
  The House has done its work. I think we can all be very proud of our 
appropriators finishing their schedule before July 4, and now we are in 
a position, unfortunately, of being in a bit of a holding pattern, 
waiting on the Senate and our conference committees to do their work. 
But it is important for us to pass this rule and allow the CR to move 
ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a 
closed rule, although I do understand the need for prompt action on the 
continuing resolution. As my good friend from Florida has pointed out, 
the Senate's slowness in acting on appropriations bills means that the 
continuing resolution that we are discussing here today is necessary.
  However, as we prepare to provide the funds to keep the government 
running, I think we need to consider the larger budgetary picture. It 
is essential for us to respond to the devastation brought by hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita but, as we do, we should consider and respond to the 
fiscal and economic risks we have been running.
  I think there is an urgent need for both the administration and the 
Congress to face hard reality and not continue with budget policies 
based on laws that defy the laws of fiscal gravity. For too long, there 
has been a dearth of both presidential leadership and accountability in 
this area.
  That is why later today, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and perhaps the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), I will introduce a bill that I 
think could promote both. The bill is called the Stimulating Leadership 
in Cutting Expenditures Act, or the SLICE Act for short. It would do 
two things: First, it would authorize the President to identify 
specific items in Federal spending that he thinks should be cut; and 
second, require Congress to vote on each of those items.
  The bill would apply both to appropriations and to spending items in 
the recently signed transportation bill. It would set deadlines for the 
President to propose cuts and for Congress to act on them.
  Under the bill, Congress would have to vote on each proposed cut. We 
could not ignore those proposals, as can be done under current law, and 
if a majority approved the cut, it would take effect.
  The President has said we should pay for responding to Katrina and 
Rita through spending cuts alone, but the President's own party and the 
majority in this House are divided on what to cut.
  We may disagree on budget and tax priorities, Mr. Speaker, but one 
thing is certain. It is past time for a serious debate about specific 
proposals for ways to dig ourselves out of the deficit hole. This bill 
is intended to jump-start that debate.
  I hope all of our colleagues will join us in this crucial effort to 
restore fiscal sanity to our Nation's Capital.
  Mr. Speaker, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita not only brought death and 
destruction across a wide swath of the Gulf coast. They also delivered 
a blow to the Federal budget and sounded a wakeup call about the fiscal 
and economic risks we have been running.
  A full response to these natural disasters must include more than 
emergency repairs, humanitarian relief, and community rebuilding. We 
also need to consider serious questions about the limits of government, 
the wisdom of wartime tax cuts, and our national capacity to look 
beyond short-term political priorities.
  If anything good can come from these terrible storms, maybe it will 
be recognition by both the Bush administration and Congress that now we 
need to face hard reality and not continue with budget policies based 
on defying the laws of fiscal gravity. It's about time.
  Even if Katrina and Rita had taken less destructive paths and the New 
Orleans levees had held, the problems would have been serious because 
the Federal budget was already on a dangerous course marked by tidal 
waves of red ink and towering piles of debt. Since 2001, the budget 
surplus that President Clinton and a Republican Congress bequeathed 
President Bush has been erased and our country is now in debt to the 
tune of $8 trillion, or $25,000 for every American man, woman and 
child.
  This was the result of several factors, of course, but the size and 
scope of the Bush tax cuts must bear a large part of the blame.
  Several parts of those tax cuts--for example, eliminating the 
marriage penalty, fixing the 10 percent bracket and extending child 
care tax credits--were good. They gave a reasonable boost for the 
economy and increased the fairness of the tax laws. But having 
campaigned on giving back most of the budget surplus in tax cuts, 
President Bush insisted on much more, and Congress went along.
  Many of us warned against reducing the surplus so recklessly, and 
urged the administration and Congress to remember the need to be ready 
for future emergencies. Our pleas for restraint were ignored. And then 
came the attacks of 9/11 and with them the need for increased spending 
on homeland security, a military response in Afghanistan, and a war in 
Iraq. The budget nosedived from surplus into deep deficit.
  Even in the face of national emergency, neither the President nor 
Congress has seen fit to call on Americans for any sacrifice, and 
instead of temporarily scaling back tax cuts, the President has 
insisted on making them permanent even as Federal spending has 
skyrocketed.
  So now we are putting the costs of war and everything else the 
government does on the national credit card--but the debt is owed not 
just to ourselves (as in the past), but to China, Japan and India.
  Why have we allowed things to get so far out of hand?
  Part of the answer is that budget and tax policy in Washington has 
been so captive to very partisan and extreme ideological voices that it 
has been hard to find common ground and moderate consensus.
  Even in this time of war, extremists in the Republican Party view tax 
cuts as almost a religious calling, while some in my party reject

[[Page 21788]]

any spending cuts except in defense. And the Vice President dismisses 
complaints by saying ``deficits don't matter.''
  So, it not surprising that the appropriations process has not been 
marked by fiscal discipline. Unless the President or Congressional 
leaders proclaim a need for restraint, let alone sacrifice, why would 
Members of Congress not work to meet the transportation and 
infrastructure needs of their districts and seek funding for other 
valued purposes?
  But all this cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has to 
give. And, if the result is a new sense of responsibility, sooner is 
better--because there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our 
budget policies, including both taxes and spending.
  It could be that, just as they revealed the problem, Katrina and Rita 
can provide a catalyst to beginning that overdue job.
  The President has said the Federal Government will undertake to help 
rebuild the communities left devastated by the storms--and has said 
that spending for other purposes should be reduced to offset the costs.
  I have serious doubts about the adequacy of that approach, about the 
desirability of whatever spending cuts the President may propose, and 
about the readiness of Congress to seriously consider any cuts at all.
  But I am hopeful that maybe at last the time has come for a serious 
debate about specific proposals for ways to dig ourselves out of the 
deficit hole.
  To help begin such a serious debate, earlier this year I introduced 
legislation that would give the President authority to require Congress 
to vote, up or down, on specific appropriations items the President 
deemed unworthy of funding--a workable and Constitutional alternative 
to the line item-veto legislation that the Supreme Court struck down in 
1998.
  Now, I am introducing an updated version of this bill that focuses 
directly on the President's suggestion that disaster response costs be 
offset with spending cuts.
  The bill is called the Stimulating Leadership In Cutting Expenditures 
or, ``SLICE'' Act.
  That name fits because the bill would promote Presidential leadership 
and Congressional accountability on proposals to reduce other spending 
in order to offset the costs of responding to the recent natural 
disasters.
  Toward that end, it would authorize the President to identify 
specific items of Federal spending that he thinks should be cut and 
would require Congress to vote on each of those items.
  The bill would apply not only to regular appropriations, but also to 
the transportation bill that was passed and signed into law earlier 
this year.
  The bill would establish a two-phase process: the President would 
have until November 1st to tell Congress which, if any, of the spending 
in the transportation bill should be cancelled. And he would have until 
the end of this year to identify any items in fiscal year 2006 
appropriations bills we wants to eliminate.
  In each case, if the President proposes a cut, Congress would have to 
vote on it--we could not ignore the proposal, as can be done under 
current law--and if a majority approved the cut, it would take effect.
  Mr. Speaker, as our budget situation has grown worse, there has been 
a lot of talk about ``earmarks,'' meaning funding allocations initially 
proposed by Members of Congress rather than by the Administration.
  Some people are opposed to all earmarks. I am not one of them. I 
think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and that 
Congress as a whole can and should exercise its judgment on how tax 
dollars are to be spent. So, I have sought earmarks for various items 
that have benefited Colorado and I will continue to do so.
  At the same time, I know--everyone knows--that sometimes a large bill 
includes some earmarked items that might not be approved if they were 
considered separately, because they would be seen as unnecessary, 
inappropriate, or excessive.
  Dealing with that problem requires leadership and accountability. My 
bill would promote both.
  Presidents are elected to lead, and only they represent the entire 
Nation. The bill recognizes this by giving the President the leadership 
role of identifying just which other spending he thinks should be cut 
in order to offset some of the amounts the Federal Government will be 
spending in response to recent natural disasters.
  And, under the Constitution, it is the Congress that is primarily 
accountable to the American people for how their tax dollars will be 
spent. The bill respects and emphasizes that Congressional role by 
requiring a vote on each spending cut proposed by the President.
  I do not know exactly which spending the President might propose to 
cut, so I do not know whether I would support some, all, or any of 
those proposals.
  But I do know that we should stop wasting time in theoretical debates 
about whether we should make spending cuts and start debating specific 
proposals.
  My bill is intended to get that debate started now.
  For the benefit of our colleagues, here is an outline of the bill:

       Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (SLICE) Act

       The purpose of the bill is to facilitate Presidential 
     leadership and Congressional accountability regarding 
     reduction of other spending to offset the costs of responding 
     to recent natural disasters.
       The bill would amend the Budget Act to provide as follows:
       The President could propose rescission of any budget 
     authority provided in the recently passed transportation bill 
     or an appropriations Act through special messages including 
     draft bills to make those rescissions.
       The President would have until November 1, 2005 to propose 
     canceling spending items in the new Transportation Act and 
     until January 1, 2006 to propose rescissions from FY 06 
     appropriations bills.
       The House's majority leader or minority leader would be 
     required to introduce a bill proposed by the President within 
     two legislative days. If neither did so, any Member could 
     then introduce the bill.
       The relevant Committee would be required to report the bill 
     within seven days after introduction. The report could be 
     made with or without recommendation regarding its passage. If 
     the Committee did not meet that deadline, it would be 
     discharged and the bill would go to the House floor.
       The House would debate and vote on each proposed rescission 
     within 10 legislative days after the bill's introduction. 
     Debate would be limited to no more than four hours and no 
     amendment, motion to recommit, or motion to reconsider would 
     be allowed.
       If passed by the House, the bill would go promptly to the 
     Senate, which would have no more than 10 more days to 
     consider and vote on it. Debate in the Senate would be 
     limited to 10 hours and no amendment or motion to recommit 
     would be allowed.

                              {time}  1145

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I applaud the gentleman's bipartisan effort to find ways to pay for 
these unanticipated expenses that we have come across, and I wish him 
the best in that effort. I think it is important that we all recognize 
on both sides of the aisle that offsets are going to be necessary and 
that we do have to repri-
oritize.
  As the gentleman knows, the President submitted a list through the 
regular budget process of 150 programs to cut or eliminate earlier this 
year, and some of them received some attention and others received more 
attention than others. It is certainly a difficult proposition in this 
town to eliminate any program, but the President led early this year 
with that thought in mind and he had mixed success.
  Again, recognizing the importance of your bipartisan effort and 
recognizing the facts that we are going to have to have these offsets, 
this bill, this rule that we are here to consider essentially keeps the 
government from shutting down while we have that debate. It appears 
that there is genuine broad support for the CR and for the rule, and I 
appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for 
her work on the Rules Committee and what is essentially a broad 
commitment that we have to have this CR through November 18. Frankly, 
it is not for lack of effort on the House side. Both parties have a lot 
of reasons to be proud of the efforts of our appropriators and the 
entire House. We had a Herculean effort this summer to move these bills 
on schedule, move them out before July 4th, and because of Supreme 
Court nominations and everything else obviously the Senate has had 
other issues on their agenda, and we are in a holding pattern on the 
appropriations. Nobody wants to see the government shut down after 
Saturday, so it is important that we move this rule, move the 
underlying CR, and allow the regular order, the talent and skills that 
exist within this House, to work their magic as we deal with these 
unanticipated effects from two gulf storms, and we are not even 
finished with hurricane season yet.

[[Page 21789]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________