[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4889-4930]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 154 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 95.

                              {time}  1652


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
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, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) had 1 hour and 7 minutes remaining and 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) had 1 hour and 26 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget is a reflection of our values and priorities 
as a Nation. Congress should support a Federal budget that will make us 
more competitive in the global economy, spread prosperity to more 
Americans and reestablish fiscal discipline to ensure a better future 
for our children. This budget resolution takes us in the wrong 
direction. In order to cover up the President's mismanagement of the 
economy and the resulting mountains of debt, the Republican budget 
sacrifices important domestic priorities like Medicaid. This budget 
resolution cuts Medicaid more deeply than the President's proposal, as 
much as $20 billion over 5 years. Slashing Medicaid will have a 
devastating impact on the most vulnerable in our society. Medicaid is 
the health care safety net for impoverished children, elderly and the 
disabled. Reductions to Medicaid will cause lasting harm to current 
Medicaid beneficiaries and make the system less viable for health care 
providers.
  Exactly who will be affected by cuts to Medicaid? Thirty-nine million 
low-income children and parents, including one in every five American 
children; 13 million elderly and disabled individuals who are receiving 
acute and long-term care coverage.
  This budget would set back the quality of nursing home care. With 
Medicaid funding half of the Nation's nursing home care, cutting or 
block granting the program would set back efforts at improving the 
quality of care provided to seniors and people with disabilities in the 
Nation's nursing homes. This budget would unravel an already fraying 
health safety net, jeopardizing support for providers like hospitals, 
clinics, doctors and health plans that serve low-income people.
  This budget would increase the number of uninsured which has already 
risen to 45 million people under the President's watch. Sick people 
cost more when they are uninsured and receiving care in emergency rooms 
than when they are covered by Medicaid.
  This budget would put children at risk. If children have less health 
coverage, they are more likely to compromise their ability to learn in 
school and to grow into healthy, contributing members of society.
  Cuts to Medicaid will shift costs to States, increasing their already 
significant fiscal burdens. Cuts in block grants do not address the 
real challenges States are facing, Medicaid enrollment increases which 
have occurred as a result of more people losing their health care 
coverage. Shifting additional costs to the States will likely drive 
them to cut Medicaid coverage and services.
  This administration has provided huge tax cuts to the highest earning 
households in the Nation over the last few years. Now we see the rest 
of the plan. To reduce or eliminate health care coverage for poor, 
elderly and disabled people in order to finance tax cuts for the 
wealthy is inequitable and not in line with our Nation's values.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from South Carolina for 
yielding me this time, and I also want to thank him and commend him for 
the leadership that he has shown during the course of the Budget 
Committee work and for the alternative Democratic substitute which we 
will talk about a little bit later today.
  Mr. Chairman, there are few moments during the legislative year here 
in Congress which really defines who we are as a Congress, who we are 
as a Nation and where we are going with our priorities. It is one of 
these moments today when we have a discussion about our budgets and the 
priorities that we place in the budget.
  For some reason, the Republican budget that we have before us only is 
budgeted for 5 years rather than the typical 10 years. I submit that 
one of the reasons I think they are doing a 5-year budget instead of a 
10-year budget is because of the complete breakdown in fiscal 
responsibility and what the costs of their budget will entail and the 
explosion of budget deficits in the second 5 years that they do not 
want to talk about during the course of these next couple of days 
during the budget. We, on the other hand, will be presenting a 
Democratic alternative, one that does, I believe, reflect the values 
and the priorities that we share as Americans in this Nation.
  Our budget will reinstate the pay-as-you-go rules to instill budget 
discipline

[[Page 4890]]

again in the decisions that we are making in these budgets. We achieve 
a balanced budget under our plan by 2012, just when the massive baby 
boom retirement wave really starts to hit, and we protect important 
investments, in defense, in veterans' programs, education and health 
care to keep America strong and to help us grow the economy and create 
jobs. By reinstating the pay-as-you-go rules, we will be in a better 
fiscal position to better preserve and protect the long-term solvency 
of the Social Security program.
  What this chart demonstrates next to me is the result of budget 
decisions over the last 14 to 15 years. This green line which shows an 
upward trend that resulted in 4 consecutive years of budget surpluses 
is Congress operating under pay-as-you-go rules. The red lines that 
show the plummeting of the surpluses into historically large budget 
deficits shows Congress without pay-as-you-go rules. What is hard to 
understand about reinstituting pay-as-you-go rules as part of budget 
discipline and decisions that we have to make to right the fiscal ship 
again?
  With pay-as-you-go rules, it gave us 4 years of budget surpluses, 2 
in which the Congress was not raiding the Social Security Trust Fund 
and using that money for large tax cuts or other spending priorities 
and enabled us to start reducing the national debt which was an 
incredible economic dynamic at the end of the 1990s.
  This chart demonstrates the current raid on the Social Security Trust 
Fund under the Bush administration. Every dime in surplus that is being 
run in the Social Security account right now is being diverted, to help 
finance large cuts for the most wealthy or to help finance large new 
spending programs, a 30 percent increase in Federal spending over the 
last few years alone. That will continue throughout the duration when 
we are running surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund under their 
budget proposal. What this has meant was increased borrowing cost, year 
after year after year having to raise the debt ceiling in order to 
finance the breakdown in fiscal discipline in this place.
  Why is this important today? It is important because we do not owe 
this debt to ourselves anymore. Ninety percent of the new debt that was 
purchased this last year alone is being purchased by foreign countries, 
Japan, the number one purchaser, soon to be surpassed by China as the 
number one holder of our debt.

                              {time}  1700

  I do not believe, and Democrats do not believe, it is in our best 
long-term economic interest to be so dependent on foreign interests to 
be financing these deficits.
  The President has been out campaigning on a new Social Security plan 
lately. It is kind of tough to engage in a meaningful discussion since 
he has not offered a detailed proposal; but from what we understand, he 
is calling for massive new borrowing in order to set up these 
privatized accounts that he is fond of. In fact, Social Security runs a 
deficit of $3.7 trillion over the next 75 years. What the President is 
proposing to do is to borrow $5 trillion for these transition costs to 
set up private accounts over the first 20 years alone in order to fix a 
$3.7 trillion problem. And that is probably one of the reasons why he 
is having such a hard time selling his plan out in Middle America. 
People know intuitively with this massive new borrowing that it is 
going to hurt economic growth prospects for our Nation; it is going to 
jeopardize our children and grandchildren's future by leaving a large 
legacy of debt for them. That is why, once we can get past the whole 
idea of privatizing the Social Security system, we can try to get 
together as Americans and work on a bipartisan solution that will be 
fiscally responsible and that will keep the promise to future 
generations.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, the budget declares our Nation's 
priorities in black and white, and this budget makes America black and 
blue.
  Republicans have squandered the surplus, forcing America to go 
country to country in search of money to prop up what cannot stand on 
its own fiscal integrity. They present charts and graphs. They talk 
about acting in America's best interest when, in fact, we have before 
us a budget that rewards America's special interests. We are deep in 
debt and growing deeper because Republicans have so many special 
interests to thank with your money.
  The price tag is mind-boggling, but that is outdone by the people 
Republicans have targeted to bear the burden of their fiscal 
recklessness. The rich get the gain; America's most vulnerable get the 
pain.
  As ranking Democrat on the Human Resources Subcommittee, I asked my 
staff to examine where past Republican practices might be in this 
politically engineered budget crisis. $18.7 billion is coming out of 
the Committee on Ways and Means. None of it out of Social Security. 
None out of Medicare. What is left? Poor people and children.
  Two million of our Nation's poorest families will see Draconian cuts 
in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Child care assistance for 
low-income working families could be eliminated. Social service block 
grants could be cut 60 percent, and Federal assistance for foster care 
could be slashed by 80 percent. And if that is not enough, let us take 
$5 billion worth of food stamps out of children's mouths. It is 
America's most vulnerable who will pay for the Republican intention to 
extend tax breaks for capital gains, with 75 percent of the benefit 
going to people earning over $200,000 a year.
  What in the world is going on? Do Republicans intend to starve the 
poor so they can feed the rich?
  Budgets reflect values. We heard a lot about values, family values, 
all this stuff. I guess feeding kids is not a value. And I suppose this 
budget reflects the Republican majority. Those values can be summed up 
in one word, bankrupt, just like this budget.
  I urge a ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member 
for yielding me this time.
  This is a bad budget. The very safety net that we hoped to help 
American families is being shredded. The Republican budget is wrong; 
and the prescription is wrong for Medicaid, over 52 million children, 
women, elderly, seniors, disabled individuals, 52 million in America. 
The largest health care program and the only health care program for 
many.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce has been instructed to cut $20 
billion from the Medicaid health care program for so many vulnerable 
citizens. Medicaid pays for 70 percent of nursing home care in 
Michigan. Sixty-four percent of the costs are spent on the elderly and 
disabled. Do we really want to hurt the least of these who have built 
this country?
  This Republican budget cuts Medicaid even more than what the 
President sent to Congress. We can do better.
  I just left a meeting with my Governor in our Michigan delegation, 
both Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republicans wanted 
to blame our Governor for Medicaid, and they said cut Medicaid back. 
When one is unemployed, when they have no health care, when jobs are 
being lost, unfortunately they need Medicaid. And it is unfortunate 
that this budget does not restore Medicaid, help the most vulnerable, 
and not ask for $20 billion cut for the elderly, for seniors, for the 
disabled.
  The budget is bad. It kills Medicaid. We can do better.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, to talk about the importance of our 
communities and our cities, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  As a member of the Save Our Cities Caucus, which is chaired by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), I rise in strong support of full 
funding of the

[[Page 4891]]

Community Development Block Grant and Community Services Block Grant.
  Our cities are hardest hit by the tough social problems of this age: 
poverty, drug abuse, underachievement. And I am proud that Republicans 
have long understood that the Federal Government has a responsibility 
to support our cities. They are the life blood of our commerce, but 
locally controlled Federal dollars are far more powerful than arbitrary 
Federal programs.
  It is extremely important that we fully fund these critical programs 
because they preserve the local power of local governments to fix holes 
in the safety net, to assure the services that people need. In New 
Britain, my hometown; in Meridien or Danbury, Connecticut; or in 
Waterbury, the largest city in my district, Community Development Block 
Grant funds and Community Service Block Grant funds leverage several 
times their value to provide child care, elder care, literacy programs, 
substance abuse treatment programs, after-school programs. They help 
those cities demolish buildings that are a blight or that harbor drug 
dealers. They help clean up brownfields. They improve fire stations. 
They improve parks. They rebuild sidewalks. They reconstruct streets. 
They work to make our cities able to attract the economic development 
that provides jobs and a healthy urban environment.
  So between the Community Development Block Grant and the Community 
Services Block Grant, the Federal Government has traditionally 
contributed, and under Republican leadership, generously, to assure the 
safety net in the cities and the economic strength of our urban 
communities.
  So I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for recognizing, as 
the majority of Republicans do, the importance of these flexible block 
grant programs to our urban communities.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Turner), the chairman of that coalition, to talk about the 
same subject, the importance of our communities and the Community 
Development Block Grant.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman indicated, I chair a 
working group appointed by the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker 
Hastert) called Save America's Cities. This working group has 24 
members of the Republican conference who have backgrounds in urban 
issues, either having served as mayors or members of city councils or 
otherwise in local government, or who by their districts have a natural 
affinity for urban issues by working closely with their communities and 
seeing the difficulty of urban revitalization and redevelopment and the 
commitment to bringing jobs back to our cities.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Committee on the Budget in adding $1.140 
billion to the administration's request for programs under the 
community and regional development function in the budget, which 
includes the Community Development Block Grant. The budget document 
itself specifically lays out that the funds are being restored with the 
clear intention of supporting the Community Development Block Grant 
program, or CDBG.
  It goes on to state that the resolution makes no assumption regarding 
implementation of the President's proposed Strengthening America's 
Communities Block Grant or transferring the Community Development Block 
Grant program from the Department of HUD to the Department of Commerce. 
This is an important notation because it is very important for national 
associations that support urban issues, like the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, the National League of Cities, that have had a great deal of 
concern about the consolidation of 18 programs, some of which are 
currently located in HUD, to Commerce and the reduction in overall 
spending, which was proposed of 30 percent.
  This House, in taking the action of supporting the Committee on the 
Budget's resolution, does not accept the President's level of funding 
and looks to restore functions for CDBG that go to important issues in 
our community such as taking abandoned houses and refurbishing them, 
demolishing abandoned buildings where they cannot be rehabilitated, 
taking abandoned lots that might have been strewn with broken grass or 
be places where criminals congregate and turning them into community 
parking lots that can help support areas of local community business 
districts.
  Looking, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) was 
saying, to the area of brownfields, we have abandoned factory sites 
throughout our urban core which make it more difficult for us to bring 
jobs to those areas of our cities, to find ways to environmentally 
clean up those sites, and to demolish the buildings, bringing jobs back 
into them. The Community Development Block Grant program supports those 
functions.
  I also serve as chairman of the Federalism and the Census 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform, and we recently 
held a subcommittee hearing on the administration's proposal to 
consolidate existing direct grant economic and community development 
programs within the Department of Commerce. We heard information from 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities where 
they told of the success of these programs.
  I want to thank the chairman for listening to the great degree of 
success that they have had in the past and looking to ways that we can 
continue to support this program.
  So I appreciate the addition of the $1.140 billion and the notation 
of the support for the Community Development Block Grant program.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Just to punctuate what the gentleman from Ohio and the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut said, we believe in local control; and we want to be 
partners with these communities in solving problems. We disagreed with 
the President in his budget with the changes that were made to the 
Community Development Block Grant; so we made that value judgment and 
change in this budget. We are supporting our mayors. We are supporting 
our communities. We want to be good partners, and we believe in local 
control in solving those problems. The big Federal Government cannot 
solve all these problems that these local folks are dealing with. We 
want to give them the opportunity to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Before us today is an excellent budget, the result of an excellent 
process, and the product of an excellent chairman, the gentleman from 
Iowa.
  Despite some occasional overheated rhetoric, the fiscal year 2006 
budget resolution is, in fact, a modest attempt by a reasonable 
majority to hold down the growth of government spending. This is one of 
the strongest budgets I have seen since coming to Congress.
  True, it makes tough choices. Imagine, it prioritizes spending, and 
it starts the long process of modernizing the Federal Government while 
rooting out waste, fraud, and inefficiency. But, Mr. Chairman, American 
taxpayers deserve no less, especially today. We are at war with an 
enemy who threatens us here at home and on the other side of the world.

                              {time}  1715

  Our security spending must therefore take priority, and in turn we 
must make difficult but necessary choices about non-security spending.
  That is exactly what this budget does. It meets our needs at home and 
abroad without raising taxes, which would stifle our economy, or 
wasting money, which undermines the hard work the American people did 
to earn those tax dollars in the first place.
  Of course, for some people, regardless of the fiscal and 
international circumstances, taxes and spending are never high enough. 
This year, as every year, they have warned us about the dire 
consequences of trusting the American people with their own money.
  Last year, the same critics made the same criticism of our efforts, 
which we

[[Page 4892]]

now know ultimately slowed the growth of non-security discretionary 
spending to about 1 percent. These critics assured us that our budget 
would bust a hole in the deficit. And yet last year, the deficit came 
in $109 billion smaller than experts originally thought it would, 
specifically because of the increased economic growth directly 
attributed to Republican tax relief passed since 2001.
  Millions of jobs were created last year. Indeed, more than 3 million 
of them have been created since the House took up President Bush's 
similarly criticized Jobs and Growth tax relief package 21 months ago.
  So, in short, Mr. Chairman, the economic data coming in every month 
speaks to the wisdom of the fiscal policies of the Republican majority. 
The critics were just wrong, and they are wrong again this year.
  The principal mantra against this budget is that it will explode the 
deficit, despite the evidence of last year's shrinking deficit 
projections. What, one wonders, do they think that the $67.1 billion in 
additional spending that they propose at the Committee on the Budget 
markup would do?
  The balanced budgets of the late 1990s should serve as our model, 
they say. Well, I agree. And I would remind them that the balanced 
budgets of the late 1990s were passed by Republican Congresses, without 
much help from our friends on the other side of the aisle. Hardly any 
of them voted for it.
  How anyone takes credit for policies they opposed is beyond me, but I 
guess that is politics. But, again, so is the idea that raising $392.4 
billion in new taxes, as Committee on the Budget Democrats proposed 
just last week, would somehow help the economy to create jobs.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, the facts are indisputable: Democracy is on the 
march around the world; the war on terror is being won; the economy is 
growing; jobs are being created; deficit projections are shrinking; and 
the looming demographic crises facing Social Security and Medicare are 
being addressed, all thanks to the courage, the policies and the 
leadership of President Bush and this Republican Congress.
  That the same people who have criticized us all along are criticizing 
our budget today, Mr. Chairman, only suggests we must be doing 
something right.
  So I urge all my colleagues to give more momentum to our success and 
support the budget resolution before us.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to the gentleman.
  I would point out that when the Bush budget summit agreement came to 
the floor of this House in the fall of 1990, after many arduous months 
of negotiation with the Bush administration and the Democratic 
leadership and the Republican leadership in the House, only 88 
Republicans supported the passage of that bill, which had the 
President's support behind it.
  In 1993, when we passed the Clinton Budget Act and began the 
unprecedented march towards lower and lower deficits, eventuating in a 
surplus of $236 billion in the year 2000, not a single Republican in 
either House voted for that deficit reduction effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
South Carolina, our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish I had enough time to respond to the Majority 
Leader's problems with this budget, but, in all honesty, the War on 
Terror, we just passed the supplemental that was not part of this 
budget, and most of us, in fact I voted for that supplemental because 
it was the War on Terror.
  But I rise to oppose the drastic cuts in Medicaid in this budget 
resolution. Medicaid is not the problem child of our health care system 
and should not take the fall for this administration's inability to 
balance the budget.
  Medicaid's cost per capita growth is lower than Medicare or even 
private insurance, despite the fact that Medicaid has absorbed an 
increased beneficiary population due to gaps in Medicare coverage, an 
economic downturn and the decline of employer-sponsored health 
insurance. Medicaid is a success story in this country, not a program 
that belongs on the Federal chopping block.
  As a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I cannot support 
this budget resolution instruction to my committee to cut $20 billion 
outs of Medicaid.
  The robust Medicaid program is critical for the health care delivery 
in my home State of Texas. Forty-five percent of all infants born in 
Texas are covered by Medicaid, 45 percent. Nearly 50 percent of all 
children receiving care in our children's hospitals are Medicaid 
beneficiaries. Medicaid is the single-largest health insurer for our 
Nation's children. How can we cut the most vulnerable in our society, 
our children, and still consider ourselves looking out for the least of 
this society?
  To paraphrase the Bible, let us not suffer the little children. That 
is not our job here in this Congress. If Congress goes forward with 
these ill-advised Medicaid cuts, the States will be left holding the 
bag and their only option is to further cut the benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, 45 million Americans currently are uninsured. It makes 
no sense to slash Medicaid spending, which will virtually guarantee an 
increase in the number of uninsured in our country. Medicaid cuts will 
not better our bottom line. It will only make our problems worse.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak very briefly about an aspect of fiscal 
responsibility, the rule called pay-as-you-go, because there is a 
connection between our lack of fiscal responsibility and these 
draconian cuts we are seeing in vital services, like the $20 billion 
that people who are poor and dependent on Medicaid will be forced to 
endure.
  Our colleagues in the majority have consistently opposed Democratic 
efforts to reinstall pay-as-you-go rules for both entitlement spending 
and new tax cuts. In fact, they just denied the House the ability to 
vote on such a proposal offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cooper) and the Blue Dogs.
  These PAYGO reforms were put in place in the 1990s and were essential 
to the successful effort achieved then to balance the budget. PAYGO 
reforms have been endorsed in their entirety by Alan Greenspan, but the 
Republicans do not want them applied to tax cuts. Why? Because doing so 
would require that they identify specific revenue measures, most likely 
spending cuts, which would provide the offsets, vital spend services 
being cut, such as Medicaid.
  So we should reinstate PAYGO. We should not support this budget, that 
destroys so much which is a part of our health care delivery, Medicaid.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the alternative budget resolution 
that will soon be offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). I do so in light of the fact that the 
Republican budget resolution mirrors the President's request for 
defense and the Spratt alternative matches this funding dollar-for-
dollar, but the Spratt budget is better because section 401 of his 
resolution calls on the Congress to address serious shortcomings in 
both the President's budget and the House Republican budget resolution.
  Let me explain why I favor the Spratt alternative budget. The 
Republican budget only temporarily increases the death gratuity and the 
Service Members Group Life Insurance coverage. The Spratt budget would 
make these increases permanent. That is important.
  The Republican budget omits targeted pay raises and reenlistment 
bonuses for enlisted personnel. We know

[[Page 4893]]

right now we are having a great deal of trouble in enlisting young 
people, reenlisting some of the troops. As you know, you enlist a 
soldier, but you retain families. These issues are critical to 
retaining experienced troops and maintaining readiness. The Spratt 
budget makes it a priority.
  The Republican budget fails to increase funds for Family Service 
Centers to support the families of deploying troops. The Spratt budget 
takes care of that, and takes care of our military families.
  The Republican budget shortchanges community-based health care 
organizations that care for the injured servicemen and women. The 
Spratt budget takes care of that. It pluses up the program.
  The Republican budget does not aggressively fund nuclear 
nonproliferation programs. Both sides of the aisle, and as a matter of 
fact during the last campaign both the candidates for President, said 
that stopping a nuclear weapon from getting in the hands of terrorists 
is our top national security priority. The Spratt budget backs that up 
with dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the budget to be 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, a budget says a lot about our values. What 
this budget says to America's veterans is that Congress does not value 
your service to country. It makes a mockery of the American value of 
shared sacrifice in time of war. How does it do that? Let me explain.
  This budget says to the person sitting here safely at home who makes 
$1 million in dividend income this year that you can keep every penny 
of your $220,000 tax break that the House Republican leadership has 
given you recently, every penny of that tax break. But, on the other 
hand, it says to millions of America's veterans that we are going to 
direct a $14 billion cut in veterans' programs over the next 5 years.
  This budget even goes so far as to say they have to cut $798 billion 
out of disabled veterans' monthly pensions, low-income veterans 
compensation checks and veterans GI benefits, their education benefits, 
unless of course they want to go raise fees or, perhaps most likely, do 
all of those things.
  Where is the American value, the American family value, in those 
priorities? To a millionaire, making every dime on dividend income, you 
can keep your $220,000 tax cut; but to a veteran who may be coming back 
from Iraq, in fact a soldier today who may be tomorrow's veteran or 
next year's veteran, we are going to make you wait longer for health 
care in our VA hospitals; you are not going to get the care you deserve 
and you earned by risking your life for your country.
  I hear a lot from my Republican colleagues about family values. This 
budget does not reflect the family values of the American family, 
because the American family respects the service and sacrifice of our 
veterans, not just with speeches on Veterans Day. We are awfully good 
about that. But they expect us to respect veterans every day, and this 
bill does not even come close to maintaining present services for 
health care for our veterans.
  They can show their charts, how they have increased veterans funding, 
but the reality is it does not keep up with present services. So, in 
effect, every Member of this House who votes for this bill is voting 
for a real cut in health care services, education services and monthly 
disability pension checks for America's veterans.
  I think the American people, and I know America's veterans, are going 
to be offended by the values and priorities of this bill. Let us not 
just say yes to veterans on Veterans Day and turn our backs on them on 
budget day. Sadly that is what this budget does.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
reject the values of this budget; reject the slap in the face of 
millions of American veterans while coddling the wealthiest in our 
society, who are going to enjoy that $220,000 tax break they are making 
by their riskless dividend income of $1 million this year.
  Let us stand up for America's veterans today when it counts. They may 
appreciate our speeches on Veterans Day, but today they need our vote. 
That is the value that counts. Vote no on this unfair slap in the face 
to America's veterans.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a veteran and the chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you on this budget. I 
think the American people are smart enough to recognize truth and 
demagoguery. That is what you hear on this House floor is demagoguery, 
and that is completely unfortunate.
  I believe that ensuring that the disabled, the injured, the low-
income and special needs veterans are given the highest attention. That 
is the priority of our Nation.
  In establishing priorities of care for veterans health care, this 
Congress also believes that the same military values that guided 
servicemembers on active duty should define how services and assistance 
are provided to them as veterans. It is why we established the 
priorities of care, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
  This budget takes into consideration the present budgetary 
constraints, the aging veteran population, as well as the influx of 
veterans into the system as the Nation continues to fight the war on 
terror throughout the world.
  As chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I seek an increase 
in $12.6 million for the medical and prosthetic research projects above 
the President's budget request. We also increased by $293 million for 
State nursing home partnership. We increase about $300 million 
discretionary funding for veterans health care, despite the demagoguery 
you will hear from some Members on this floor.
  To ensure that our national cemeteries are maintained as the shrines 
that they are, my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Miller), and I recommended an additional $45.6 million in 
construction to begin a 5-year $300 million national shrine commitment 
project to repair and restore the existing national cemeteries. But 
while our greatest attention should be focused on those who have served 
us and can no longer fend for themselves, there is another group of 
veterans that needs our help: our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines 
who need assistance in returning to the workforce or entering the 
workforce for the first time after serving their country.
  This budget will also ensure that the VA benefits take care of the 
young solder coming home, as well as the older soldier who may already 
have a family. We need to make sure that the VA is flexible and 
personal in its delivery of health care and benefits, such as training 
and education.
  This is a wise investment, harnessing the same spirit and drive that 
has won our Nation's battles, to contribute to our Nation's workforce 
and to sustain our national competitive edge. To facilitate this 
investment, I created a new subcommittee solely devoted to this effort 
chaired by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), as chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget, has done an outstanding job. He has led Congress through 
some challenging budgetary times as chairman. Some may forget the 
meaning of the attacks upon our country on September 11. It was an 
attack upon our freedom, upon our way of life. It was devastating to 
our economy. That economic growth has returned, but we also now need to 
manage that economic growth smartly.
  There is a lot of rhetoric, but let me return to some facts. Under 
this President, spending for veterans has increased by 47 percent in 5 
years versus 32 percent in the 8 years under the Clinton 
administration.
  If I turn to the chart to my left, as the chart shows, over the last 
7 years discretionary spending has grown 39.5 percent under the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill. That is a 4.9 percent average

[[Page 4894]]

increase for every year from 1998 all the way to present. So despite 
all the rhetoric that America and my colleagues will hear, the reality 
is this chart. The spending on veterans continues to increase, 
maintaining our commitment to veterans in America.
  I also would like to turn to a second chart I think is very 
interesting. On this chart it shows what happened under the Democrat 
control of Congress. Congressional spending per veteran was flat. For 
10 years a meager $400 increase for 10 years from 1984 to 1994.
  Can everybody see this? It was flat. To my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle, do you see this? It was flat for 10 years. You did not hear 
demagoguery on the House floor. What you had at the time were 
individuals on both sides of the aisle working together in a bipartisan 
fashion with regard to how we deal with veterans.
  So what we have under the Republican control the last 10 years is 
from 1995 to 2005 Congress increased spending by $1,400 per veteran, 
that is from $1,368 to $2,773 per veteran. I think this chart is very 
clear.
  What has occurred under Democrat control is flat-lined budget for 
veterans. I am not going to demagogue. It is just a reality.
  Now with regard to what has happened under Republican control, the 
increase and the maintaining of our commitment to veterans programs and 
causes across the board. This is the reality.
  I want to say to the budget chairman, I want to thank him. He has 
given me a task, and the task is that with regard to all of these 
programs in discretionary and mandatory, are there savings out there? 
Are these systems being run smartly and effectively and efficiently?
  He has challenged those of us who serve on the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs. And you know what? We will accept the challenge, and we will 
go and work together in a bipartisan fashion and see if we can find 
those savings. He has not dictated to us. He has challenged us and we 
accept the challenge.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's budget 
allows our country to meet our most important values, a strong defense, 
a strong economy, while reducing our Nation's deficit.
  Let me, if I might, focus on another area of concern that the prior 
speaker just talked about and that is commitment to our Nation's 
veterans. We do value our veterans' service. And if you look at this 
chart that I have here that talks about overall spending in the VA, Mr. 
Chairman, you will see a strong commitment to honoring the commitment 
of our Nation's veterans.
  The second chart that I have specifically talks to veterans medical 
care which has increased from 1995 to 2005, over a 10-year period, 
nearly 85 percent. And in the last 5 years, medical spending has 
increased by 68 percent. That is a commitment to our Nation's veterans.
  Let me talk about some other specific areas of improvement that we 
have made. We have allowed Guard and Reserve units to enroll in medical 
benefits. We have increased the GI benefit. We have funded finally for 
the first time concurrent receipts so that the practice of disallowing 
veterans who had disabilities as a result of their service from 
collecting both their retirement pay and disability pay is finally 
being addressed with a $22 billion commitment over the next 10 years.
  We have reduced the wait times at our VA hospitals, and the VA 
continues to give our Nation's veterans excellent care.
  Let me touch on, Mr. Chairman, what we have done under the 
gentleman's leadership this year in the veterans line items of the 
budget. The discretionary baseline under the President's submission was 
$30.8 billion. Under the gentleman's mark and allowing me to work 
together with him and propose an amendment, we increase that by $877 
million, which means in these tough fiscal times that our Nation is 
experiencing a 2.8 percent increase for veterans health care numbers.
  Yes, there is a reconciliation number; but when we started with the 
President's submission, it was $424 million. The reconciliation, Mr. 
Chairman, under the gentleman's mark is $155 million. I believe that we 
can find that reconciliation number without enrollment fees, without 
drug co-pays because we will have the flexibility to look for waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the veterans numbers and be able to reduce and meet 
a goal in that fashion.
  Let me repeat: we do not have to establish either drug co-pays or 
enrollment fees. We can achieve this reconciliation in other ways.
  Mr. Chairman, in summary, I congratulate the gentleman again for a 
fiscally prudent budget that meets our Nation's needs, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with him to honor the commitment to our 
Nation's veterans.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman of the House who has probably 
some of the heaviest lifting to do with regard to controlling spending, 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
chairman yielding me time.
  I really come today to express my very sincere and deep appreciation 
to both the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the fabulous job they do of working 
together on behalf of all of us to try to make sense out of our budget 
process.
  To say the least, the world on both sides of the aisle and across the 
country would love to suggest that we provide for them every program at 
a maximum level that they might have on their wish list. And in turn, 
that same world wants us to make sense out of balancing our budget. 
These gentlemen are faced with that horrendous and impossible task, and 
to them we owe a great debt of gratitude.
  As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) suggested, I have now the 
responsibility of chairing the Committee on Appropriations where, as 
they help us struggle with the budget, we spend money that has a 
propensity to violate that which is their guidelines for sensible 
budgeting. But in turn, over the years as I have observed this process 
there has been far too little communication, that is meaningful 
communication, between those on the staff level but also the 
professional level within the committee itself, between the 
appropriations process and the budgeteers.
  I must say that in the time I have had this job, the short time, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has gone out of his way to say time 
and time again, we want to work with you.
  I have committed myself to trying to have the Committee on 
Appropriations once again be a committee designed to preserve dollars, 
not just spend dollars; and, indeed, if we are successful in that 
effort, we will be in partnership with our budgeteers, attempting to 
make sense out of the budget and eventually balance that budget.
  We are not in this alone. And the issues that flow around stabilizing 
our economy know nothing about partisan politics. And I must say that 
the Committee on the Budget has provided guidelines; in the past we 
have not always followed those guidelines. It is my intention to work 
as partners in this business so we can all be successful. And I can say 
without any reservation, if we are successful, moving our bills this 
year very rapidly so they are ready for conference in the early spring, 
it will be in no small part a success of the work you all have done.
  I appreciate that very much and look forward to continuing this 
relationship.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for his kind 
remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I yielded to myself to clarify what is in the budget 
proposal we are proposing versus the budget resolution reported by the 
committee and sponsored by the Republicans.

[[Page 4895]]

  Our budget, let me make this clear, matches dollar for dollar their 
budget on national defense and international affairs, there is not a 
dime's worth of difference over a 5-year period of time. But our budget 
does single out veterans as one group deserving of more spending, more 
than just a current services budget, because the demands are clearly 
there. So our budget provides $1.6 billion more than theirs, than the 
Republican resolution, for veterans health care in 2006. And between 
2006 and 2010 we provide $17 billion more for veterans health care.
  Our budget resolution contains no reconciliation instructions to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. What does that mean? Their resolution 
calls upon the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to report savings out of 
mandatory programs that will save $798 million. There are only two 
places those savings can come from: either cutting disability benefits 
or raising the fees that veterans must pay to use veterans facilities.
  Our budget resolution contains special provisions for our troops to 
make sure that the increases in life insurance to $400,000 for combat 
fatalities voted up in the supplemental for 1 year will be extended for 
future years, and that the death gratuity raised to $100,000 will also 
be continued for future years. And we will provide more funding for 
family separation centers, for deployed troops, and more community-
based health care for returning troops and their families, two things 
that have been critically noted.
  Our resolution recommends that the funds be taken from the Missile 
Defense Agency and advanced satellite programs to pay for these 
personnel benefits. We think it is a good trade-off.
  Our resolution also contains more in the four functions that fund 
homeland security and make special provisions for increasing the budget 
for cooperative threat reduction, so-called nonproliferation, by $200 
million.
  So in summary, for our veterans, for our troops and for the emerging 
threats facing us, terrorists armed with WMDs, our budget is not only 
better funded, but better focused than theirs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) for a response.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Buyer), may want to hide behind a fig leaf of charging 
demagoguery, but let us review the facts he did not refute.
  Fact number one, this budget will cut veterans pensions compensation 
and education benefits by nearly $800 million.

                              {time}  1745

  Fact number two, over 5 years it will cut veterans health care by 
nearly $14 billion. Fact number three, in this same budget someone 
making a million dollars a year in dividend income will get to keep 
every penny of his $220,000 tax break. They may call it demagoguery. I 
think America's veterans will call it wrong, wrong what they are doing 
to our service men, women and our veterans.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership on this budget 
matter.
  Shame, shame, shame. I cannot believe the Republican budget. Our men 
and women that serve this country are putting their lives on the line, 
and what are we doing? Cutting benefits and refusing service. I am 
reminded of the words of the first President of the United States, 
George Washington, whose words are worth repeating over and over again.
  ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in 
any war, no matter how justified, should be directly proportional as to 
how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars are treated and 
appreciated.''
  The independent budget puts support by the veterans community as $300 
billion short. I say that President Bush's budget and the House 
Republican Bush budget should be dead on arrival. Let me repeat that. I 
said that Bush's budget and the House Republican budget as it relates 
to veterans should be dead on arrival.
  On top of all of this, this budget tells the Veteran's Affairs 
Committee, which I am on, to find $800 million in cuts over the next 5 
years for savings.
  You know, the Republicans practice what I call reverse Robin Hood, 
robbing from the veterans to give tax cuts to the rich. The President 
keeps telling us we are at war. Well, put your money where your mouth 
is.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the House Democratic Caucus Chairman.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time and for his work in developing a 
budget for all Americans. Every year the administration and Congress 
are taxed with developing a budget that reflects our Nation's 
priorities in spending, priorities that reflect our country's values.
  Unfortunately, the budget resolution we have before us, and the 
values it represents insults the true values of the American people, 
given the extensive cuts to first responders, community policing, 
veterans benefits, health care, and education funding.
  Under the Republican leadership the entire budget process has become 
a complete fraud on the American people. This budget adds more than $4 
trillion to the deficit in the next 10 years, without even including 
the enormous costs that have been left out of the budget. It is past 
time for this House to be honest and restore fiscal responsibility to 
this process and to the Nation, the same fiscal responsibility that 
each of our constituents face when they try to balance their household 
and business budgets.
  Unfortunately, this budget shows that the Republican Congress does 
not share the values of the American people. What type of values would 
cut funding to the Fire Act Grant Program which helps meet the basic 
needs of firefighters by 30 percent? Firefighters on the front lines of 
the war on terror in New Jersey stand to lose $4 million under this 
resolution, which means they will have less protective clothing, fewer 
portable radios than they need to protect our citizens.
  What type of values would slash funding to the COP program by 95 
percent, a program that has put over 4,800 police officers on the 
street in New Jersey? In doing so, this budget dismantles a critical 
instrument in New Jersey's fight against crime.
  What type of values would raise health costs for many of the over 
620,000 veterans in New Jersey, increasing drug copayments and imposing 
new enrollment fees that will cost veterans more than $2 billion over 5 
years and drive more than 200,000 veterans out of the system entirely?
  What type of values would cut discretionary health programs by 6 
percent and slash Medicaid by billions of dollars?
  New Jersey would lose more than $100 million per year in Federal 
Medicaid funding, enough funding to provide health coverage to 6,400 
seniors or 34,000 children. And what type of values would underfund 
education and, specifically, the No Child Left Behind Act by over $12 
billion, creating a 4-year deficit between what was promised and what 
was actually delivered of $39 billion?
  If this budget passes, over 53,000 children in New Jersey will go 
without promised help in reading and math and 34,000 will no longer be 
able to enroll in the afterschool programs that not only keep kids safe 
but also boost academic achievement. That is why the Democratic 
substitute will restore fiscal responsibility to secure our homeland, 
provide for America's seniors and veterans, fund education initiatives 
to guarantee our children's future success in an ever increasingly 
competitive world and lay the foundation for a society that truly 
reflects our values and our commitment to a better more prosperous and 
stronger America.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and vote 
down the woefully inadequate Republican budget.

[[Page 4896]]


  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Evans), a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, 
the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 95 and 
in support of both the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the amendment of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The GOP budget resolution will put the 
Department of Veterans Affairs programs at least $3.2 billion short to 
meet the current level of needs to our veterans.
  It is not just a matter that VA will not be able to make critical 
program enhancements for servicemen and women returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan. It is even short of meeting current services.
  The Bush administration's budget submission for 2006 requested less 
than half of a 1 percent increase for its health care services. The VA 
has testified that it requires a 13 to 14 percent increase to sustain 
services annually. Both the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) amendments will support 
increased amounts funding for our veterans.
  If we thought it was ridiculous to grant tax cuts to millionaires 
while the deficit soars, how about cutting veterans' programs in the 
middle of the war? Are we really going to promote a point of view that 
instead is deserving of our support by cutting benefits?
  Mr. Chairman, I hope not. If we do, we should be ashamed.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the resolution under consideration.
  As a former State legislator, I know how important Federal Government 
investments are. They allow State and local governments to meet our 
obligations without assuming the responsibility for Federal shortfalls 
or passing those costs along to local taxpayers. Federal investments 
acknowledge the shared responsibility for promoting economic growth, 
meeting health needs and ensuring educational opportunity.
  I strongly believe that the Federal Government must recognize its 
obligations, work within budgetary limits to meet them and to make 
smart investments focused on the Nation's current and future fiscal 
well-being. Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us does not 
meet these simple tests. Instead, it prioritizes tax cuts to the 
wealthiest Americans and largest corporations over meeting our 
obligations to average Americans. It fails to live within available 
revenues and increases future deficits.
  I fought for a seat on the Committee on the Budget because my 
constituents want me to be an advocate for strong fiscal discipline and 
wise Federal spending. During Committee on the Budget consideration of 
this budget resolution, I was proud to join my Democratic colleagues in 
putting forward amendments aimed at refocusing our spending and 
investments on the priorities that matter to the everyday lives of all 
Americans: creating and keeping jobs, supporting community development 
and providing for a safe and secure homeland. Specifically, I led the 
effort to better ensure adequate funding for police, first responders 
and security at our ports.
  Democrats and Republicans alike agree that our Nation's top priority 
is keeping Americans and this Nation safe. After all, nothing else will 
matter if we cannot protect the people of this country right here at 
home.
  Yet, at the same time, fire departments, police forces, ports and 
rail stations across the Nation are ramping up efforts to implement 
safety measures and better prepare for any kind of terrorist incident 
or extreme emergency. This budget proposes cutting the very programs 
that will help them meet these responsibilities.
  Despite these dire warnings of security at our ports in particular, 
this budget falls $4.7 billion short of what the Coast Guard estimates 
it would cost to secure our ports.
  Despite the fact that we cannot afford our first responders to be 
unprepared, this resolution recommends a reduction of $560 million in 
first responder funding.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that we must do better, that we have to 
make sure that our first responders at our ports meet the obligations 
to all Americans, that we do all that we can to make sure that our 
government, the Federal Government, helps our local communities be 
strong and be safe.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about who wins and who 
loses in the Bush Republican budget.
  Three hundred thousand working poor who have children will be cut 
from the Food Stamp Program. I received a call today from a constituent 
from Lithonia, Georgia, complaining that her children depend on the 
food stamps she gets to stretch the family food budget.
  LIHEAP is the Low Income Heating Assistance Program that makes sure 
our working families do not freeze during the winter, and the 
Republicans propose to cut that program even as heating costs rise.
  While the Republicans want us to believe that they really care about 
our children, the proof is in where they choose to put taxpayers' 
money.
  The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 trillion. Halliburton walks away 
with over $100 million undeserved dollars. Secretary Rumsfeld says the 
U.S. can afford record defense expenditures, while the President 
proposes to cut all vocational education at the high school level, the 
Safe and Drug Free Schools program, the Upward Bound program and even 
dropout prevention. What could be more important to the Education 
President than to make sure that our young people graduate from high 
school with an education that has prepared them for life.
  Well, I know the answer to that question. Not the mom and pop 
businesses on Main Street and their families, but the wealthy scions of 
industry on Wall Street.
  Even chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, lamented 
before our committee the growing wealth and education disparities in 
our country. The Republicans will talk about growth, but they will not 
talk about how our country is growing apart.
  They tell us that homeownership is on the rise, but they will not 
tell us that three-quarters of white families in this country own their 
homes while the majority of Asian Americans, Native Americans, Latinos 
and African Americans remain renters.
  According to just about every reputable study, the disparity between 
black quality of life and white quality of life is not narrowing nearly 
as fast as we would like it to. In the last 6 years, wealth for white 
families grew by 37 percent while wealth for families of color fell by 
7 percent. These numbers represent real people who have not felt one 
bit of Republican growth.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Chairman, too many Americans, especially African Americans and 
Latinos, cannot afford health care, housing and even a college 
education.
  We have two choices: we can grow together, or we can grow apart. When 
we invested it in our people like Social Security, the GI bill, civil 
rights laws, affirmative action, America grew and we all grew together. 
But now because of the policies coming out of Washington, D.C., today's 
wealthiest 10 percent own 70 percent of America's wealth. It is clear 
that Americans are growing apart. The Republican budget ought to 
provide opportunity for all to experience America's coming prosperity, 
but it is also clear it does not.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to 
the debate with great interest, and I keep hearing about cuts in the 
budget. They are not there. All of the specific cuts are just not 
there. They do not exist in this budget.
  What this budget does do, however, is it fulfills our Federal 
obligations while

[[Page 4897]]

at the same time it reduces the deficit in half by the year 2009. We 
all know why we have a deficit. We have a deficit because when 
President Bush got elected, he inherited a recession. He inherited the 
burst of the Internet bubble, he inherited Wall Street scandals, and 
the mother of all economic and all other problems, which is 9/11.
  Despite that, because of the Bush policies and economic policies of 
this House, the economy is doing well again. If it was up to the 
Democrats, they would have raised taxes massively and destroyed the 
economy. Luckily we prevailed; the Democrats did not. And, therefore, 
we reduced taxes and the economy is once again doing well.
  But I just heard again tonight the Democrats all concerned about the 
deficit. Yet let me show Members what the Democrats, who tonight have 
been talking about how concerned they are about the size of the deficit 
and spending, what they proposed just a few days ago.
  They proposed in committee amendments that would have again increased 
spending by $67.1 billion, and yet they give us lip service tonight and 
continuously state they are concerned about the deficit. To borrow a 
phrase from a very well-known Democratic leader, Democrats are 
concerned about the deficit, they support reducing the deficit before 
they are against reducing the deficit. They cannot have it both ways.
  We have a deficit that is caused by too much spending. We have to 
reduce the deficit, so lip service and lip balm is fine; but when push 
comes to shove, they cannot complain about the deficit and then try to 
increase spending.
  What the budget that the chairman is proposing does, it does address 
our responsibilities while reducing the deficit and while responsibly 
spending the taxpayers' money.
  I also heard, Mr. President, put your money where your mouth is. It 
is not our money, it is the taxpayers' money.
  That is the big difference. We remember it is not our money. That is 
why we are not willing to throw it away. It is the taxpayers' money. 
This budget spends it responsibly. I thank the chairman for this very 
responsible budget and urge adoption of the budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for presenting a budget that has a better vision 
for the American people, and for the gentleman's hard work that he does 
for the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the third year that I have been in the 
Congress. There has been a similar routine every year I have been here. 
We debate the budget and our side says it is a statement of our values, 
and we say it is a statement of who we are. I would add one observation 
to that. This is a process that tells us a great deal about whether we 
are who we say we are, because there is an irony that I see with my 
friends from the other side of the aisle.
  As we move into the year and move into the holiday season, we spend a 
lot of time talking about shared benevolence, but they will pass a 
budget tomorrow that will cut $5 billion from food stamps, and only 2 
percent of people who are eligible receive food stamps. It is not a 
program filled with waste and fraud.
  A lot of our friends on the other side of the aisle will talk about 
benevolence and their belief in families and families having strong 
values, and yet they will vote tomorrow night to cut child care 
assistance. A lot of our friends on the other side of the aisle will 
talk about cutting taxes, and yet they will vote tomorrow night to 
raise taxes on people receiving the earned income tax credit.
  And the other side of the aisle will talk about their belief in 
Social Security and their faith in that program and their refusal to 
touch it, and then they will cut SSI payments which are a major part of 
Social Security. A lot of our friends on the other side of the aisle 
will talk about their commitment to housing, and then they will vote to 
eliminate one of the most effective housing programs in this country.
  And finally, a lot of our friends on the other side of the aisle will 
talk about their commitment to children and helping families raise 
their children with the right values, and then they will vote to freeze 
or leave virtually frozen child care services and day care services.
  I am not one who likes to call names, but the word ``hypocrisy'' 
means you say one thing and you blatantly endorse another set of 
practices.
  This is a debate about exactly who we will ask to sacrifice in this 
country. There is no question we have asked our veterans to sacrifice 
an enormous amount, and they belong in a category of their own; but 
there is another class of Americans who we also ask to sacrifice in 
this budget. We ask the most vulnerable people, the people in our 
society who are working and living by the sweat of their brow every 
day. We ask them to give up so much in this budget, and there is an 
irony because we have heard it said by the chairman and various other 
Members on the other side of the aisle, we have heard it said that 
people want these tax cuts and they will trade these programs off for 
the prevalence and the prevailing of these tax cuts.
  But here is the problem. The average people that will receive the 
cuts that I described got a tax cut of $28 to $35 a month. That is not 
an equitable trade-off; that is not a fair trade-off.
  I simply end by saying the Spratt budget presents a better vision for 
the American people and introduces a six-letter word into this debate 
that we have not heard all day, a word called ``equity.'' That is what 
separates our approach from theirs.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, colleagues will remember 
the Biblical story of the prophet Nathan coming to the mighty King 
David. Nathan told David a story about a rich man who had many sheep 
but took the one little ewe lamb of a poor man to feed a visiting 
friend. David flew into a rage at the rich man and proclaimed that 
anyone who should do such a thing deserved to be put to death for 
abusing his power and showing so little compassion. Then Nathan turned 
to David and said, ``You are that man.''
  This story should lead us to look into the mirror. Are we in danger 
of becoming ``that man''? The Republican budget removes support for 
housing, education, Medicaid, community development, and small business 
lending. It raises taxes on the poor. And it does all this so the 
Republicans can afford new tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. If 
ever there were a moral issue before this Congress, surely it is this 
one.
  One might expect that these cuts would at least result in significant 
decreases in our deficits, but this is not the case. We continue to 
face the worst-of-both-worlds scenario in which we suffer both 
devastating cuts and dangerous increases in the deficit. We continue to 
borrow from our children to pay for tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and the President's Social Security privatization.
  As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to be good stewards 
of the resources of our government, not simply to look at our immediate 
desires, but also to the needs of our children and our children's 
children, including their need to be free of a crippling debt.
  Republicans claim to be the party of moral values, but their budget 
belies that claim. The Democratic alternative maintains current funding 
levels for our country's critical domestic and security programs while 
also providing meaningful tax relief for middle-class Americans. 
Furthermore, the Democratic budget recognizes that fiscal 
responsibility is also a moral value by reinstating a real pay-as-you-
go rule and by balancing our budget within 7 years. The Republican 
budget, on the other hand, continues to run up record deficits for as 
far as the eye can see.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget process provides each party with a chance to 
put its money where its mouth is, to

[[Page 4898]]

act on the rhetoric we all hear around here year round. A budget is a 
statement of moral priorities. May we do justice to those imperatives 
in the vote we cast tomorrow.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for an opportunity to speak this evening, and I 
appreciate the work the gentleman has done to provide a balanced 
approach to meet our requirements in a fiscally responsible manner. I 
particularly appreciate the work done by the Democrats on the committee 
to deal with the environmental priorities of America.
  I am saddened by a party-line vote that these proposals were rejected 
to be a part of the proposal brought forward by the majority. This 
budget is stunningly out of sync with where the typical American is in 
terms of protecting our environment and our natural resources. From 
oceans to brownfields, we have found environmental quality to be victim 
of the obsession of misplaced budget priorities and an obsession with 
more tax cuts.
  In areas of clean water, every independent outside organization, and 
most of them within government, have identified that we have a serious 
problem with the Nation's aging water systems required to ensure safe 
drinking water; yet the President's budget and what we have here today 
reduces almost $700 million for water quality responsibilities.
  In the land and water conservation fund, we are breaking the promise 
that was negotiated here in the year 2000 where the conservation trust 
fund was established that should by now by rights, as a result of this 
bipartisan, bicameral agreement be moving funds in the neighborhood of 
$2 billion for this fiscal year. But, unfortunately, this budget would 
turn its back on that responsibility.
  Another important element is the land and water conservation fund 
authorized at almost $1 billion; yet this budget includes only $147 
million for actual programs to help preserve parks, forests, wildlife 
refuges and open space, things that touch people where they live at 
home, garnering broad bipartisan support. This year the President and 
the Republicans go even further by eliminating the land and water 
conservation State grants programs which have provided critical funding 
to States and local communities to preserve open space and develop 
recreation facilities.
  And one of the most significant broken promises is in the area of 
conservation in the agriculture sector. One of the elements that was 
negotiated as part of the farm bill, there were going to be investments 
in farm conservation; and yet this budget takes something that is so 
critical to America's farmers, particularly small and medium-sized 
operations, and cuts more than a half billion dollars from these vital 
farm bill conservation programs that unite rural America, conservation 
interests, people who care about natural resources.
  There is currently over a $4 billion backlog of producers waiting to 
participate in these critical farm conservation programs. It is a 
travesty as far as the environment is concerned; and it is a sad, sad 
story for America's farmers who deserve better. I strongly urge the 
rejection of the majority proposal.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to amplify on what the gentleman from Oregon has stated.
  Our budget would be $2.9 billion above theirs for the year 2006 for 
resources and the environment. That makes a big difference when it 
comes to EPA, safe drinking water, the Land and Water Conservation Act; 
and over 5 years, our budget is $23 billion in resources and 
environment better than their budget.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the shameful Republican 
budget. Yet again the Republican leadership neglects the needs of low 
and middle income families in order to provide hundreds of billions of 
dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans. We should not be 
supporting this unfair budget that leaves people without adequate 
housing, without opportunities for a decent education or job training, 
and which passes billions of dollars of debt to our children.
  I am especially concerned about the Community Development Block 
Grant. Mr. Chairman, the Community Development Block Grant is something 
that should have the support of both Democrats and Republicans. This 
Community Development Block Grant is the only source of funds that some 
of our small towns and cities have to deal with housing, to deal with 
programs for senior citizens, at-risk youth or to deal with the 
infrastructure. Many of the small cities just do not have the money to 
deal with some of the problems of the sewer systems and roads and other 
kinds of things. But with the Community Development Block Grant, they 
have the flexibility. This is a very, very respected program. They have 
the kind of extensive community planning that brings in all of the 
community groups and organizations, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit 
organizations, and they actually go through all of the programs and 
they decide which of these programs will be funded. To talk about 
cutting this is very, very cruel. I have received just hundreds of 
calls from mayors and city council members who say, ``Please, whatever 
you do, don't cut CDBG.''
  Since the President initially proposed consolidating CDBG and other 
development programs into one grant program, not only have I received 
all of these letters from members of city councils and mayors, they 
have basically said without this program, many of their cities will 
simply collapse.
  In addition to these cuts, the President has already proposed to cut 
public housing by 10 percent, section 811 disabled housing by 50 
percent, housing opportunities for persons with AIDS by 14 percent, and 
other HUD programs. Yet the Republican budget resolution proposed to 
make even more draconian cuts to this function. We simply cannot afford 
to do that.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and to support a 
budget that invests in the future of our country. This is shameful and 
unconscionable that they can even bring this budget to the floor. I ask 
for a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget and an ``aye'' vote on the 
Democratic budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the budget brought forth by 
the gentleman from Iowa and the Committee on the Budget. We have not 
only, I think, the right but the duty as the legislative branch of 
government to perform the oversight function of the executive branch. 
As the gentleman from Iowa pointed out before the Committee on Rules 
yesterday, we really have not done that since 1997. The reality of the 
matter is that everything has been on automatic pilot basically since 
1997 and we not only should, we must perform our oversight duty.
  We have heard the word ``draconian'' with regard to supposed cuts 
being proposed in this budget. I think it is important to look at the 
facts. What the budget proposed by the Committee on the Budget calls 
for with regard to what constitutes the most dangerous threat on the 
horizon to our economic well-being, strength in this country, the 
great, extraordinary growth in what is referred to as mandatory 
spending, spending that is built into the law, that the appropriators 
do not have anything to do with because it is built into the law, this 
budget initiates a process of review and of study, oversight, so that 
the growth in what is almost 60 percent of the budget and projected to 
continue to grow and continue to grow, the growth in the mandatory 
spending will be reduced from

[[Page 4899]]

6.4 percent to 6.3 percent, one-tenth of 1 percent. Not a cut, a 
reduction in the growth.
  We have an obligation to perform oversight, Mr. Chairman. I commend 
the gentleman from Iowa and the Committee on the Budget as I strongly 
support this budget. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative 
and Budget Process of the Committee on Rules, along with our full 
committee chairman the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the 
rest of the House leadership and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), 
we will be doing our part to carry forth what we consider our legal 
obligation, oversight. We will be studying the budget process and 
seeing how it can better be enforced.
  This is a responsible budget, it is a reasonable budget, it is one 
meant to contribute to the continued economic health of the United 
States. I strongly support it and urge all of my colleagues to do so as 
well.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Cuellar), I yield myself such time as I may consume because he is 
going to address education. I would like to make it clear that 
education is one of those areas in our budget where we have made a 
decided improvement and have a notable advantage over the Republican 
resolution.
  Our budget resolution rejects their education cuts. Our budget 
resolution provides $4.5 billion more for next year, 2006, and over the 
next 5 years $41 billion more than their budget resolution. This kind 
of funding, this level of funding, cannot only preserve current 
education programs such as vocational education, funded at $1.3 billion 
which the President and their resolution would simply exterminate, wipe 
out, it can also support increases in priority programs like special 
education. The additional funding we are providing can also help close 
the gap in funding for No Child Left Behind, $12 billion below this 
year and next year below where it was authorized to be when the act was 
passed.
  Our budget rejects the reconciliation instructions to the Education 
Committee calling for $21 billion in savings over 5 years. We do not 
know where that is coming from. We do not include the President's 
student loan proposals that would raise loan fees. We do not end the 
students' ability to consolidate their student loans at fixed interest 
rates. We do not eliminate Perkins loans, for goodness sake, and we do 
not force colleges to repay prior Perkins contributions. We do provide 
the funding to raise the Pell grant, not just $100 every year for 5 
years but $100 every year for 10 years. The Bush administration and the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the Republicans claim that is 
provided for, but that can only be funded in their budget through 
reconciliation; that is, through taking it out of other student loan 
programs.
  We have a decidedly different approach to education, a much greater 
emphasis on education. It is one of those things in our budget which we 
have singled out as deserving of additional funding. Even though we 
keep everything at the level of current services, a few things we plus-
up to the detriment of other things, but education is one of those 
things we emphasize and plus-up.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I believe very strongly in balancing our 
budget and reducing the deficit, but I think we need to set certain 
priorities that are important to our families. My hope is that we do 
this in a bipartisan approach, that we develop a consensus, and I do 
want to thank the gentleman from Iowa and the committee for allowing us 
to put some committee report language dealing with education in the 
budget and with results-oriented budgeting which I believe we need here 
at this House.
  We need to balance the budget, but I think we need to protect our 
families and we need to make sure that we ensure that we are not trying 
to fix the deficit on the backs of the country's working class.
  The budget includes the termination of 150 programs. Nearly one in 
three of them are in education. It eliminates programs essential to our 
children's futures, such as Even Start, Upward Bound, Talent Search, 
Gear Up, Perkins loans, Pell grants and LEAP programs. It also does not 
allow us to give the full funding for special education. It also 
eliminates certain programs, such as the vocational education, nearly 
$1.3 billion in cuts. The safe and drug-free schools State programs 
which are so vital to our communities is eliminated.
  Again, I believe in education. In my life, education has been one of 
the most invaluable tools that has made it possible for me to open up 
doors, move forward to attain higher goals and make my dreams a 
possibility. I feel very strongly about financial aid. In fact, I think 
we need to restore the funding to these vital education programs, 
especially increasing the $100 maximum Pell grant award. This fulfills 
the President's request of increasing the maximum Pell grant by $100 
without paying for it by taking from other parts of the education 
budget.
  As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I think we should ensure 
that the Federal Government investment is available to fulfill our 
commitment to helping low income students get into and graduate from 
college. College enrollment is slated to grow by almost 19 percent 
between now and 2015. This group increasingly will be comprised of 
full-time, nontraditional students, college age, first generation, low 
income and minority students. Most of these will likely need and will 
qualify for student financial aid.
  My test for considering any budget proposal is whether it will make 
our families stronger. This budget proposal in my opinion does not make 
our families stronger. I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of 
strengthening and protecting our young children by protecting 
education.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I hope we do this in a bipartisan approach and 
find a consensus.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  First let me compliment my friend from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a new 
member of the committee. I appreciate his service. We have worked 
together on a number of issues. But let me give a slightly different 
tack from what he was suggesting with regard to our record on education 
because I think it is important for us to see what has come before.
  First, with regard to education totals, as you can see, we have grown 
on an average of 9 percent a year for the last 5 years. There are not 
many programs around Washington that have grown that fast. Homeland 
security is the only other department that has grown at that rate. Nine 
percent. This is the total we have spent for education.
  Again, is it enough? You might say no. Could we always spend more? Of 
course. But I want to put it in perspective. Nine percent annual growth 
over the last 5 years.
  Title I, the main program that affects No Child Left Behind, has 
grown 10 percent per year since 2000 and was funded at $12 billion for 
fiscal year 2005. That annual growth, again, every year has gone up. 
Pell grants has grown 10 percent per year since 2000 and $12.4 billion 
in this fiscal year. No Child Left Behind has grown at 40 percent under 
President Bush. I understand there will always be this debate that 
programs are authorized at one level and then they are appropriated at 
yet another level. Everyone around here knows this, but it is a game 
that we play with our constituents. There is almost no program that is 
funded at its authorized level. That is not a floor. It is a ceiling. 
That is always the way it has been approached in Congress.
  Special education, a program that I feel a personal affinity toward 
and it was a personal goal and leadership that I took with regard to 
special education to our States and to our schools and to our 
classrooms and for our kids with special needs, I am proud of what we 
have done. These green charts do not mean anything compared to what it 
has meant in the lives of the kids that are receiving a quality 
education and it has unlocked opportunity for them

[[Page 4900]]

that is boundless. That is because we have invested some resources 
there.
  I just want to end with this. It is not only about the money. We come 
down here with these green bar charts as if to say, if I spend this 
much it means that I don't care and if I spend this much it means that 
I care a little more, or here I am caring a little bit more now. Watch 
out, here I am caring some more. It is getting higher. I am caring even 
more.

                              {time}  1830

  And the more we spend, the more we care. And the more we invest, the 
more we care. And we measure by green charts the compassion, the 
caring, the value, as if money alone is the only measure.
  I have got to tell my colleagues something. Take special education. 
Go talk to any one of their teachers back home in the special education 
classroom and ask them whether they have seen these increases in their 
classrooms. Do the Members know what is going on, Mr. Chairman? The 
States are taking that money, and it is not getting through their 
bureaucracy. We are getting this money out of Washington, but it is not 
getting to the classroom teacher teaching our child.
  So their chart may look a little bit bigger; our chart may look a 
little bit bigger, and our charts look great, and if I care at $5 and 
they care at $6, maybe they care $1 more, and we get into all of this. 
And we are not looking at the results. We need to look at the results 
of these programs and find out whether they are getting to the kids in 
the classrooms. And I have got to tell my colleagues right now it is 
not. So we have got to provide the oversight. It cannot just be about 
the money.
  And that is the last chart I want to show. For all of the chest 
beating about education and the priority, see that little red line of 
the total amount spent on education in our country? That is what the 
Federal Government kicks in. We are talking, on any given day, like 
about 6 percent. The people who are really doing the work here are our 
local school boards, our local State legislators, our local parents and 
community leaders. They are kicking in all this amount right here. That 
is what is being kicked in. It is this little red part that we all of a 
sudden think is so important and that we beat our chests about.
  The Federal Government is not going to solve education, Mr. Chairman. 
Not with a big red line or a little red line or with this money or that 
amount of money. It is not about the money. It is about results. We 
have got to focus on results in education, and this budget accomplishes 
that.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget. He is a friend of mine. He has got a tough job, trying to 
bring forth a budget priority that reflects his caucus's wishes in 
that.
  But let us set the facts straight here. The Democratic alternative 
does a lot better when it comes to support of the education programs 
than our Republican counterpart. We also in our budget proposal 
reinstitute the pay-as-you-go rules so that if we are proposing a 
spending increase or a tax cut in one area, we are going to find an 
offset in the budget to pay for it. Their budget does not do it.
  Our budget is also out for 10 years that shows that we come to 
balance by 2012. Their budget is a 5-year proposal. And the reason they 
do not do it at 10 years is because their deficits explode in the 
second 5 years. But their budget has also hidden the true and real cuts 
that are occurring in their education programs, ones that affect real 
people, real students in real-life conditions and will not help improve 
the condition of education or access to higher education, which we 
desperately need in this country.
  Their budget proposal actually calls for eliminating $4.3 billion 
worth of education programs in the next fiscal year alone. They 
completely wipe out vocational education, the Federal commitment to 
that. They completely wipe out all the Federal education technology 
programs that exist. They wipe out the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Grant 
program. They also get rid of TRIO and GEAR UP, targeting low-income 
students who want to go on to post-secondary education opportunities. 
They wipe out Even Start Family Literacy programs. And their proposals 
also hurt students by raising fees for student loans for higher 
education, ending students' ability to consolidate those loans at a 
lower fixed rate interest, and not only eliminating the Perkins loan 
program, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) indicated, 
but also forcing colleges to repay prior Federal Perkins contributions.
  The Democratic alternative is better than that. We restore these 
funding cuts as well as $4.5 billion in the next fiscal year alone. 
Talk to any administrator, any teacher throughout the country wrestling 
with implementing the unfunded Federal mandate called No Child Left 
Behind, and they will say what these requirements are doing to their 
school districts with the lack of funding to back up those 
requirements. Talk to special education teachers, and they will say how 
the lack of education commitment at the Federal level, only 18.6 
percent of the 40 percent cost share that we promised for special 
education funding is pitting student against student in our public 
classrooms throughout the country.
  We can do a better job. The Democratic alternative does do a better 
job, while staying true to fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility 
by reinstituting the pay-as-you-go rules that worked very well in the 
1990s and led us to 4 years of budget surpluses, while also maintaining 
a crucial investment in education programs.
  As a Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am 
heading to China in a couple of days in order to visit their colleges 
and universities. Guess what? China and India are making a major 
education investment in the future of their countries. They are 
graduating more engineering students than we are today. They are 
emphasizing the math and science and engineering programs while we are 
starting to cut back in these crucial education areas. Do people want a 
recipe for economic disaster? The Republican budget and their lack of 
commitment for education is a sure way of getting us there.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For the purposes of entering into a colloquy, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding to me.
  Over the past decade, funding for NASA's Aeronautics Research has 
declined by more than half, to about $900 million. The President's 
budget proposes to cut aeronautics research by 20 percent over the next 
5 years.
  I am concerned that the United States is losing critical expertise in 
aeronautics research and development. This degradation will have a 
tragic impact on military and civilian aviation, which contributes 
significantly to our national defense and our economy. I believe that 
the President's funding levels for aeronautics programs should be 
reassessed and that the House should give priority to restoring these 
vital programs.
  Will the gentleman commit to bring to the conference report language 
that will clarify that the resolution makes no assumption regarding the 
President's proposed funding level for NASA's Aeronautics Research 
programs?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the answer is yes to 
start with. First and foremost, I appreciate her leadership and concern 
about the research programs that we have for NASA. She does an 
excellent job there, and we really appreciate the leadership she takes 
in that.
  The gentlewoman knows that the resolution, while it tracks the 
President's overall number, it does not make any specific decisions 
about the different funding levels that we have in some of these major 
categories. It goes actually back to what the gentleman was saying on 
education. We cannot

[[Page 4901]]

find in the budget any of what the gentleman from Wisconsin just talked 
about in education. It is a great speech, but we cannot find it in the 
budget. And the same is true with so much of this.
  So the Committee on Appropriations is the one that is going to make 
these determinations. The same is true for NASA. And we appreciate that 
her advocacy and mine is going to have to be brought to bear as we work 
on that.
  So that being the case, I do commit to the gentlewoman to bring back 
from the conference language clarifying that the budget does not make 
these specific assumptions regarding the President's proposed level for 
these programs and urging that the levels for NASA should be 
reassessed. There is no question that R&D is important, and I know the 
appropriators agree with that. I know the gentlewoman from Virginia 
agrees with that. I agree with that, and I have no doubt that they will 
bring back a bill with that in mind.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
for his answer.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a former mayor, to talk about community 
development programs in our budget resolution versus theirs.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Members on the Republican side of the 
aisle this evening to find one Republican mayor in America, one, who 
favors what they are about to do to the Community Development Block 
Grant program.
  The Community Development Block Grant program has been 
extraordinarily successful. It has had broad bipartisan support for as 
long as I can remember. And we ask, how did that come about? It came 
about because there was a Republican President named Richard Nixon who 
created what he believed to be the new federalism, and there were 
overwhelming majorities of Democrats in the Congress who accepted that 
leadership with this simple idea, that, yes, Washington, because from 
time to time they exacerbate problems at the local level, and if that 
was to be the case, how would we funnel some resources to the local 
government but allow, and listen to this because it is a critical 
aspect of the Community Development Block Grant program, local 
decision-making, meaning that the problems that confront Seattle, 
Washington might be different from those that confront Birmingham, 
Alabama, that might be different from those that confront Portland, 
Maine, from those that might confront Dallas, Texas. An extraordinary 
principle, the national principle.
  So what does this Congress decide to do with this extraordinarily 
popular and successful initiative? They are going to cut it. They are 
going to cut it back. I do not think we can find a Republican Governor 
in America who supports what they are about to do with the Community 
Development Block Grant program.
  And what is it used for? Overwhelmingly, it is used for housing. The 
number of substandard units of housing in America that have been 
brought back to life because of CDBG allocations is most impressive. 
And then let us throw in the next part of what CDBG does. It provides 
ample opportunity for economic development. They might expedite the 
paving of a roadway to an industrial park so that there can be new 
business growth and new job opportunities in cities and towns across 
America.
  And what else might they do with it? There are all kinds of public 
parks across this country that have succeeded because of Community 
Development Block Grant programs. Some of them in the lowest income 
neighborhoods of America. And do my colleagues know what else? Some of 
them in great middle-income neighborhoods across this Nation as well.
  As a member of the alumni association that is exceedingly small in 
this Congress, called Former Mayors, I might point out that if we 
assembled mayors across America, the United States Conference of 
Mayors, we would be hard pressed to go into that room and find one 
mayor who supports what they are about to do to the most popular 
domestic urban program called Community Development Block Grant money.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  In response to my friend from Massachusetts, he is right and I agree 
with him. Let us get that in the Record right now. There are those 
moments in time. In fact, he was not here for our colloquy earlier; so 
let me just report to him. I am sure I am not going to get his vote, 
but I will report to him anyway. We agree with the local control 
aspects of CDBG. There are so many on our side, including myself and so 
many others, who agree that this is local control, local decision-
making, getting this back to communities.
  In the budget that we have, we did not take the President's 
assumption with regard to CDBG. We do not necessarily foreclose the 
ability to look at the program and make improvements. But we plussed-up 
the function for CDBG by $1.1 billion, and we increased it for that 
purpose; and we also did not make any assumption with regard to the 
President's new proposal of the Strengthening America's Communities 
Block Grant or transferring the program from HUD, Housing and Urban 
Development, to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The bottom line is there are many things that we will disagree with 
on budgets, and like I said, I doubt I am going to get the gentleman's 
vote, but I do think we have a bipartisan commitment to this. It is one 
area that I know we will continue to work on. And there may be other 
disagreements, but this is an area that we have worked on together.
  I commend the gentleman for his leadership, and we are providing that 
leadership as well. And we hope the President can come forward with a 
little better rationale as to why this program, in particular, needed 
the changes that he proposed in his budget. If there are reforms that 
are needed, then let us reform the program. We will work together. If 
there are bad apples spoiling it for the rest of the bunch, then let us 
get rid of those bad apples. Let us figure that out. But let us not 
throw the baby out with the bath water. I agree with the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I take the chairman of the committee, my good friend, at his word; 
but I have to point out the language of the resolution does increase 
the allocation for Community Development and Regional Development 
programs by $1.1 billion more than the President requests. But it is 
still $1.5 billion below this year's level adjusted for inflation.
  What we have done in our resolution is to make amply clear that the 
CDBG will survive intact and will be fully funded, not suffer some 
crippling cut, as we have provided $9 billion more than their 
resolution for Community Development programs over 5 years. That will 
guarantee, virtually, if the committees are willing, that the CDBG and 
other important Regional Development and Community Development programs 
will not have to be cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel).

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution and in 
support of the Democratic substitute. In the last 3 years, the 
Republican Congress has enacted three tax cuts, resulting in the three 
largest deficits in history, all the while on top of the record $400-
plus billion deficits and $2.4 trillion of additional debt. This budget 
does not account for the $300 billion of the Iraqi-Afghanistan war, the 
$800 billion for the prescription drug benefit they

[[Page 4902]]

passed, and the $1.9 trillion needed to privatize Social Security.
  If this is an example of what a conservative philosophy is, we cannot 
afford this fiscal mess any more, and the one thing we can always say 
about the Republican budget is we will be forever in your debt.
  The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has attested to all of 
these figures, but none of them are honestly reflected in this 
resolution.
  But while leaving a sea of red ink for future generations, what does 
this budget do to the middle class, who are facing rises costs in 
health care and college tuition? This budget makes it all the more 
difficult for the middle class to afford their health care and college 
education. This budget cuts the health care professional training by 
$300 million, it cuts community health by $289 million, it cuts 
extended health care facilities for veterans by $105 million, and it 
eliminates the Preventive Health Care Block Grants. It also underfunds 
the National Institutes of Health and Maternal and Child Health Care 
Block Grants.
  It is a fascinating approach to investing in America's future. Who 
knew when George Bush declared he was against nation building, it was 
America he was talking about?
  We need a new direction and a new set of economic policies to put the 
middle class families and their economic interests at the heart of our 
economic policies. To think that the policies or the stewardship of the 
Republican Congress over the last 4 years has led to $2.4 trillion in 
additional debt, three consecutive years of the largest deficits in the 
history of the country, and all under the rubric of being a 
conservative, it is a fascinating approach, and all the while we are 
cutting health care, investments in America, cutting college tuition 
assistance to middle class families, opening doors to their future, it 
is a fascinating approach nobody has ever really thought of as a way to 
build America's future as one that is brighter.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to just respond and say it is fascinating. It is fascinating how we got 
into this situation. And if you heard the gentleman who just spoke, if 
you wondered whether or not he maybe had been reading the newspaper and 
may be forgetting all of the things that have been happening to our 
country over the last going on 4 years, you might wonder if anyone has 
been paying attention, because he is correct.
  On September 10, 2001, we were running a surplus. There is no 
question that that was a good thing, something was very positive about 
that. But, unfortunately, we learned the very next morning that we had 
a homeland security deficit, that we had a national defense deficit. 
Our economy was already in a recession, and we found out we had an 
economic growth deficit. So even though there was more cash in the 
Federal Treasury than we were using, and you can call that a surplus, 
that did not mean we were meeting the needs of our country. There were 
many other challenges that we had to meet, and that next morning we 
found out.
  And all of the votes, all of the spending votes, I will go back to 
the record, all of the spending votes that the gentleman was just 
talking about under our management, the gentleman from Illinois voted 
for; voting for our troops, voting for homeland security, voting for 
education. I will go back to each one of those appropriations bills and 
the gentleman from Illinois voted for each one of those. The only one 
he does not like, if you take away all of the clutter, is he wants to 
increase taxes. He did not like that part. But all of the spending he 
voted for.
  So, let us just boil it down: There are people who want to increase 
taxes, and that is fine, and there are people who want to control 
spending, and that is also fine. But it is not all of this 
mismanagement.
  People say Republicans did all of this mismanagement. I think Osama 
bin Laden had a lot more to do with where we are today with the deficit 
than anybody else, than anybody else.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of me taking this time was just to remind 
everybody that it was not just Republicans that were here voting for 
those things, and there were probably a lot of reasons why we got into 
this situation that had nothing to do with Jim Nussle or the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). It probably had more to do with Osama bin 
Laden than just about anybody else.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, democracy is sweeping the world and we should 
be proud that our country has become the greatest force for dignity of 
men and women in history. But if you look back at history, at past 
democracies, you will see that many collapsed because they voted by 
majority to go into debt. Athenians and the French republics, the 
budding democracies in Latin America, all collapsed in debt, which led 
to dictatorship. But that should never happen here. This is a hard line 
budget, because the threat to freedom is also overspending, debt and 
instability.
  In America, the Federal Government made a basic promise in the 19th 
century to provide for the common defense. In an age including the War 
on Terror, this promise to defend America is very expensive. It is 
expensive to send armies to Afghanistan or to stand watch across the 
demilitarized zone in Korea. But we must do this, and we must fully 
support Americans in uniform.
  In the 20th century, the Federal Government made a second promise, to 
ensure retirement security for Americans who worked hard and played by 
the rules. The Social Security and Medicare programs face real 
challenges as the baby-boom generation retires. We are now expecting 
the number of people under Social Security and Medicare to rise from 40 
million to 90 million.
  Social Security recipients used to live, when Roosevelt created the 
program, an average of only 11 months, but now people are on Social 
Security on average 22 years. So the size of meeting the retirement 
security promise is extremely large, in fact beyond the current means 
of this government.
  We are commanded to be fiscal conservatives to meet the needs of our 
common defense and the 20th century's promise of retirement security. 
We cannot start new programs, because we should honor these promises 
first.
  Some say we should borrow more, but we already borrow too much and we 
have seen past democracies drown in debt. Some would like us to raise 
taxes, killing economic growth, but we cannot kill economic growth. Our 
growing economy right now is already yielding more tax revenue to meet 
the Nation's needs, but for the foreseeable future those new dollars 
should be used to support Americans in uniform and to already honor the 
retirement security promises that the Federal Government has made.
  Our chairman has done a good job, a budget that stands for restraint, 
that continues the course of a free people being free, that grows our 
economy. We could say yes to everyone. We could say yes, and then we 
would be much more popular in the short run. But in the long run there 
would be more debt, a smaller economy, a smaller future for our 
children.
  I am for less debt, rather than more. I am for more economic growth, 
rather than less. I am for honoring the basic promises the Federal 
Government has made to provide for the common defense and the 
retirement security of older Americans.
  That should not be done on borrowed money, on borrowed time. It 
should be done with a growing economy. It is under this restraint, with 
this discipline, that this budget comes before the House, and we should 
honor that work.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget that we are considering assumes 
funding for the Community Development Block Grant Programs that for 
this coming year is $1.5 billion below last year's level adjusted for 
inflation. And while it may be reassuring to some to

[[Page 4903]]

hear the words of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget tell us 
that they like local control of Community Development Block Grants, 
they seem to like it $1.5 billion less than they did last year. And 
when they tell us that they like Community Development Block Grants so 
much that they are funding it more than President Bush proposes, that 
just means they are poking it with one fist instead of with two, 
because his is a really draconian cut, and they have made it just a 
little less painful than what he proposes to do.
  Community Development Block Grant is a mouthful, but in a little town 
like Freer, Texas, it is concerned with holes, the holes of abandoned 
septic systems where several children have drowned, and they do not 
have a reliable sewer system there, so they have used the Community 
Development Block Grant Program for the health and safety of that 
community.
  In McAllen, Texas, in Austin, Texas, it is the principal source of 
funding to help with affordable housing for seniors, for those with 
disabilities, for poor people, to have a chance to share in 
rehabilitated housing, some new housing.
  In many of these communities, the dollars are going to food banks, 
they are going to assist in a variety of social programs that are 
stretched and strained that municipalities could not do without 
Community Development Block Grant projects.
  The reason we are faced with this kind of challenge, as with the 
other challenges in this budget, it does not have anything to do with 
Osama bin Laden; it has to do with the decisions that were made down 
the street on Pennsylvania Avenue and that were implemented by this 
Republican Congress.
  Indeed, with the budget that we are considering tonight, this 
administration says to those who are poor, who are uninsured, 
essentially what Leona Helmsley said, that only the little people pay 
taxes. Well, this administration thinks that only the little people, 
like the folks in Freer, Texas, only the little people ought to bear 
the burden of its fiscal irresponsibility.
  We have never had a more fiscally irresponsible administration than 
the one we have in office today, that has driven the deficit to the 
highest level in American history and then turns to poor people in 
Freer, Texas, to kids that are trying to get a decent education, to our 
veterans, and says you bear the burden. You dig us out of this hole we 
dug into with your little shovels to make up for the big shovels where 
we shoveled out all the revenue to those at the top of the economic 
ladder.
  It is unfair, and that is why this budget ought to be rejected.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I found the rhetoric on the 
budget particularly interesting over the course of a wide variety of 
issues. One near and dear to my heart is the issue of veterans care. I 
can speak to this issue with a great deal of authority that very few of 
my colleagues in this body can as a member of the American Legion, a 
member of the 82nd Airborne Division Association, a member of the Army 
Ranger Association and a member of the Association of Graduates of the 
United States Military Academy.
  Being both a former enlisted solider and an officer who served here 
and abroad, I am concerned that we keep our commitment to our veterans, 
those who have laid their lives on the line and in many cases borne a 
great price to pay for the freedoms that we have here to have this 
dialogue.
  Unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of misinformation that is 
going around the public right now, I found this unfortunately being 
passed out to veterans in my own district, that completely disregards 
the facts in favor of what I would consider a shameless play at 
political power.
  The facts speak to themselves. As a former numbers person, I would 
like to point out that in the chart that we referenced, that spending 
per veteran has increased dramatically. Indeed, total veterans spending 
in the 2006 budget is $68.9 billion. There are considerable monthly 
payments for veterans, and the budget provides $31.7 billion, an 
increase of $877 million, for veterans' medical care and other 
discretionary spending.
  These increases in this budget carry on a commitment to our Nation's 
veterans that, over the past 11 years, has been reflected in veterans 
spending since 1995 when Republicans took control of Congress.
  We can see that the rhetoric from the past is hollow from when there 
was a Democratic majority in this body and also a Democratic 
administration.
  What we have seen since Republicans took control of the House is a 
steady increase, particularly after President Bush was elected, in 
making sure that our veterans' needs were cared for. Spending for 
veterans' medical care has increased 85 percent, from $16.2 billion to 
$29.9 billion. Indeed, the number of veterans receiving care has 
increased from 2.5 million veterans to 4.8 million, a 92 percent 
increase.

                              {time}  1900

  The facts speak for themselves. And, again, the shameless rhetoric is 
hollow. Education benefits, under the Montgomery GI bill, have more 
than doubled during this same period and total per veteran spending has 
increased by nearly 103 percent.
  I respect our national leadership. I respect the leadership of our 
party, the leadership in this Congress who has led the way, not with 
hollow words, but with straightforward actions to take care of the 
veterans in this United States who I am proud to represent.
  Since we took control of Congress in 1995, we have made tremendous 
strides in improving benefits for our Nation's 25 million veterans, and 
we will continue to do that into the future with new strides in 
technology, reaching out to cover those who have legitimate needs who 
have served our country and served in harm's way.
  Moreover, the Republican Congress has expanded eligibility for 
medical care in 1996 and 1999. That has increased the number 
significantly. In the end, this budget provides significant relief for 
veterans who have served. I am proud to support it. I stand with our 
leadership; I stand with the veterans in this Congress who are 
rightfully supporting this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, do I have 18\1/2\ minutes remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cole of Oklahoma). The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 15 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), chairman of the Congressional 
Black Caucus, for purposes of control.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair may not entertain that request in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman yields time, if I 
might yield 5 minutes to a Member, and then I would also be willing to 
contribute a little bit of time to the debate here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure 
to be here on the floor speaking on this subject since some may know I 
left this place for 16 years, and coming back to the floor of the House 
and having an opportunity to serve on the Budget Committee has given me 
a perspective that I did not have before. Being away from this place 
for 16 years gave me a little bit of a bird's eye view of how the rest 
of the public views what we do here. And I just must say that during 
the several years that I was embarking on my endeavor to return to this 
House, I was constantly reminded by the people that I came into contact 
with in my district as to the spending spree they believe the Congress 
has gone on and been involved in over the last number of years. The 
amount of discretionary spending that we have had in terms of its 
increase is remarkable.
  I wish they could go back 16 years from when I left this wonderful 
institution back in 1989 to show what we are talking about. This chart 
merely goes back to 1994, but it shows us spending $513 billion in 
1994, and we are talking about now stretching our way to $900 billion.

[[Page 4904]]

  I was in my office watching some of this debate, and I heard what 
appeared to me to be crocodile tears expressed by some on the other 
side about how much we are cutting. And I guess only in this 
institution is a little restraint in the amount that we are spending in 
addition to what we have spent in the past considered a cut. Where I 
come from, cut is not a four letter word. Most American citizens, most 
of the people in my district believe that if you spent too much, maybe 
you ought to look on the side of spending restraint.
  The response we got in committee time and time again from the other 
side was, why do we not just raise taxes? And I cannot even calculate 
the increase in taxes they suggested to cover all the programs they 
want.
  As part of the requirements under the budget act, the Budget 
Committee gives an opportunity for any Member in the House to appear 
for 10 minutes to talk about any particular matter within the province 
of the Budget Committee. And I was privileged to accept that duty for 
perhaps the last hour. And I remember those coming up to talk about the 
Community Development Block Grant program. They even were effective in 
citing a quotation from the mayor of the town in which I was born, 
someone whom I know.
  And in response to that, I said, I think it is a worthy program, but 
could you please tell me, if we do not cut this, where we should find 
the money to fund it? And the response I received was, that is not our 
job; that is somebody else's job. And that is the problem with the 
Congress, at least as I see it. It is always somebody else's job.
  But the job of the Budget Committee is to bring us, I think, some 
fiscal sanity by suggesting with some enforcement mechanisms, numbers 
within which we will live, which is no different than what we do in our 
daily lives and our family lives.
  And all I can say is, having been gone from this place for 16 years, 
the image that I obtained from people on the outside looking in is, 
frankly, not that we have been very restraining in terms of our 
spending. The average person would, I think, stand with their mouth 
agape at some of the conversation that has been on this floor. We are 
not really restraining ourselves very badly when you look at the 
numbers that we have seen here. Only in Washington, D.C. could a 
restraint on increased spending be considered a cut.
  That may be very simplistic, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry for being 
simplistic; but I have been away from this place for a long time, and 
where I come from, again, cut is not a four letter word. And I would 
just ask, if people could understand, if other Members could have the 
chance I had to leave this place for 16 years and come back and see the 
change, people coming to us asking for spending, no longer requesting 
it, but coming with the expectation that it is an entitlement in the 
area of discretionary spending. It is so different than what it was 16 
years ago. It is, as we used to say, the difference between night and 
day.
  I want to thank the gentleman, the chairman of this committee, for 
leading our committee and bringing forward a product which will put us 
on the path towards restraint, the type of restraint that not only is 
necessary but is expected by the folks back home.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the chairman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, so he can discuss the alternative that the CBC is offering.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time.
  At some point tomorrow, the Congressional Black Caucus will be 
introducing an alternative budget which we will discuss in detail. 
Unfortunately, we have been allotted only 20 minutes on our side to 
discuss the details of that proposed, budget and I am delighted that 
the Committee on the Budget has seen fit to provide us a little bit 
more time this evening to discuss some of the benefits we believe will 
enure if the Congressional Black Caucus Budget is adopted.
  We will be asking the Members of our House of Representatives to make 
some basic choices because we believe that a budget is about making 
choices. There are two choices in particular we will be asking them to 
consider: Would you rather provide a tax cut to people who make more 
than $200,000 per year, or would you rather spend approximately $30 
billion dollars that you would save if you did not provide that tax cut 
on a series of things that would benefit our community and have a 
substantial potential of closing some of the disparities and gaps that 
have existed for years and years between African American citizens and 
white citizens in this country?
  The second question we will be asking will be: Would you rather spend 
$7.9 billion on a ballistic missile defense program which has been 
tested time after time after time and has failed all of those tests, or 
would you rather spend that $7.8 billion on providing more security to 
our troops, body armor, personnel support equipment, and other 
protective gear for our troops, and providing more benefits to our 
veterans in this country?
  This is a basic choice that we at this point need to debate. Our 
budget that we will be submitting and detailing tomorrow morning when 
we offer the Congressional Black Caucus substitute budget will ask 
Congress, What are your priorities?
  That is what budget-making is about. And there is no trickery here. 
It is straightforward, and we will be asking our Members to make those 
choices.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and good friend for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to support the Congressional Black Caucus 
fiscal year 2006 budget substitute which has three main focuses.
  First and foremost, it restores fiscal responsibility to the Federal 
budget process. Secondly, it keeps our Nation's promises to our 
veterans and provides the equipment and materials needed to support our 
men and women on active duty. Thirdly, this budget funds efforts to 
close gaps and eliminate disparities in America's communities and among 
its citizens.
  We restore fiscal responsibility by closing tax loopholes and 
eliminating the repeal of the limitation on itemized deductions, the 
phase-out of personal exemptions scheduled to take place between 2006 
and 2010. We get rid of abusive shelters and tax incentives for 
offshoring jobs. This budget reduces the deficit by $167 billion over 
the House majority's budget over the next 5 years which reduces our 
interest payments by $27 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, our colleagues on the other side are fond of talking 
about supporting and respecting our troops, but they do not put their 
money where their mouths are. The Republican budget resolution mandates 
almost $800 million in cuts to veterans mandatory programs. These are 
reductions in disability compensation, pension benefits, education 
benefits, and death benefits.
  The President also proposes to increase fees and drug payments on 
veterans. The CBC budget increases funding for veterans by $4.65 
billion. We restore veterans health care, enhance survivor benefits, 
medical and prosthetic research, long term care, and mental health 
care.
  Mr. Chairman, under the issue of education, the President's budget 
eliminates 48 education programs that receive $4.3 billion this year. 
The CBC budget increases funding for education by $23.9 billion. It 
fully funds No Child Left Behind. It provides $2.5 billion for school 
construction, increases vocational educational job training, increases 
Pell grants by $450 million, increases Head Start by funding by $2 
billion.
  Mr. Chairman, unlike the President, we are not playing budgetary 
games. We increase funding for Pell grants by tapping into new revenue.

                              {time}  1915

  The President, on the other hand, has increased funding for Pell 
grants by taking needed funds from programs such as the school lunch 
program for low-income children.

[[Page 4905]]

  Mr. Chairman, there is no greater betrayal or broken promise to the 
American people than that which can be found in the President's budget 
for rural America.
  The President recommends cutting agricultural programs by $9 billion 
over 5 years, and the Republican budget has suggested cutting the 
program by only $5 billion.
  On the other hand, the CBC budget increases funding for programs that 
benefit rural communities by more than $3 billion. We increase funding 
for agricultural issues by more than $300 million; increase funding for 
community and resource development by more than $1.5 billion, Community 
Development Block Grants by $1.1 billion.
  In addition, the Republican budget cuts funding for 17 different 
community and economic development programs that provide housing, water 
and sewer improvements and small business loans.
  Mr. Chairman, in this budget we maintain tax cuts for wage earners 
making less than $200,000 a year, and we roll back cuts on the top 2 
percent of Americans, and by doing so, we have saved almost $47 billion 
that we have used to invest in the human assets of this country, the 
American people.
  I thank my colleague so much for yielding me the time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first, let me just thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time and for his leadership; also to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the chairman of our Congressional Black 
Caucus, and to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for their 
leadership in spearheading this very responsible alternative budget.
  The CBC budget is not only fiscally responsible but it also reduces 
our Federal deficit by $167 billion. It rescinds the 2001 and 2003 tax 
cuts for individuals making more than $200,000. It closes tax loopholes 
and it drastically reduces funding for the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Program by about $7.8 billion.
  The Republican budget, quite frankly, fails to live up to any 
standard of morality that requires us to care for the least of these. 
From port security to health care, the Republican budget falls short on 
every count. On the other hand, the Congressional Black Caucus budget 
shows how national security priorities must include the economic 
security of all Americans. A strong America cannot have desperate, 
vulnerable people.
  As a Member representing one of the largest ports in the country, it 
is clear to me that there needs to be significant increases in port 
security funding. The CBC budget provides $500 million more for port 
and container security. At a time when our ports remain one of our most 
vulnerable targets, allocating funds for container security is 
essential. Unfortunately, the Republican budget fails to adequately 
support homeland security priorities.
  Our budget strengthens economic security priorities by easing 
disparities in housing and health care for example.
  The President's budget eliminated the Community Development Block 
Grant program which provides financial assistance towards improving 
housing and economic conditions in low- and moderate-income 
neighborhoods. That is why I am very proud to support the CBC budget 
that provides $1.12 billion more than the Republican budget to the CDBG 
initiative. The President's budget also eliminated the Brownfields 
Redevelopment Program, but our budget adds $24 billion. The Brownfields 
Redevelopment Initiative provides important incentives for hazardous 
site cleanup and redevelopment. It is crucial to the health and safety 
of our communities, especially our children.
  The CBC budget also provides an additional $880 million for Section 8 
housing and $500 million more for HOPE VI. All of these programs are 
crucial to ensuring the economic security of the most vulnerable 
Americans. The CBC budget also restores approximately $50 million in 
funding to the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. It allocates 
$490 million to the Minority Health Initiative and $500 million for 
Community Health Centers. These programs are vital to providing primary 
health care for our minority communities.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget punishes people. It punishes them 
by making them choose between their health or their housing. The CBC 
budget allows people to have access to both.
  The Republican budget erodes our economic security. It weakens our 
community. It leaves our infrastructure crumbling. The Republican 
support of outdated weapons systems, wasteful defense programs, 
reckless tax cuts, and irresponsible deficit spending relegates 
economic security priorities to the back burner.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Congressional Black 
Caucus budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for the time. I thank the chairman for yielding the 
additional time, and I do rise as well to thank the ranking member for 
a very creative, a very important statement on the alternative budget 
offered by the Democrats, and I look forward to supporting that vision 
that really helps to balance the budget and bring us back on line and 
also keep us in line with Social Security, which I will discuss, does 
more for education, and of course we do not forget the veterans.
  Just as an anecdotal story, we were in the Committee on the Judiciary 
earlier today looking at the bankruptcy bill, and there were several 
amendments that had to do with veterans' catastrophic health 
conditions, and unfortunately, in the bankruptcy bill markup we did not 
succeed in supporting veterans, those of us who supported that, 
particularly Democrats. So I rise to as well support the Democratic 
alternative over the Republican budget--because both the CBC Budget and 
the Democratic Budget supports people.
  I want to spend some time on the Congressional Black Caucus budget 
and really focus on why this is so very important, what it means for us 
to rise on the floor of the House and to argue a certain focus, and I 
thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for leading us in 
this direction and, of course, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), 
who will offer this amendment tomorrow.
  Let me start out by saying something that I am not making up, but let 
me just hold up a sheet of paper that shows that the President's mark, 
the administration's mark, his first thought was to cut $60 billion out 
of Medicaid. There is some plussing up, $15 billion, and so someone 
said there is a net of $44 billion in cuts because we have got a little 
increase, but let me just say the intent of the administration was to 
cut $60 billion out of Medicaid. That goes to the very heart of health 
care for the uninsured, the disabled, those in nursing homes, and we 
are to pass a budget with that kind of insult, if you will, to the 
needs of Americans around this Nation?
  In addition, the budget that was offered cut the community block 
grants $1.5 billion, and here is where the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget comes into play.
  We understand the need to protect the troops. We have provided 
dollars for armor. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we have provided some $6.7 
billion, or $75 million for body armor, $10 million for ammunition for 
the Marine Corps and small arms for Army, $1 billion for building 
maintenance and $5 million for studying instances of waste, but at the 
same time we provide $1.12 billion back into the Community Block Grant 
Program which helped to reinvest in our local communities and helped to 
provide for affordable housing. We believe in investing in America. The 
community is the most important element of this budget process, the 
rural community, the urban community, and that is what the 
Congressional Black Caucus does.
  So we restore the Medicaid funds. We ensure that in restoring those 
Community Block Grant funds we answer the question.

[[Page 4906]]

  In the President's budget, child care funding, losses in purchasing 
power, billions of constant dollars, we will see in that budget the 
inability, up to 2010, to be able to provide real child care for those 
who need it, and if there is anything that I get asked about when I go 
home, it is the parents, single parents and young parents, with low 
income who cannot afford to provide child care, and as we can see the 
purchasing power will go down, down, down up to 2010, and we will not 
have the ability to purchase child care in America for those who 
actually need it.
  So the Congressional Black Caucus recognizes that and provides that 
funding. In addition we also, if you will, take care of Social 
Security.
  In the President's mark, there is a mention of a Social Security 
transition cost, but there is no accounting for it. There is no money 
for it. So the Congressional Black Caucus budget takes into account 
affordable housing, Medicaid, the needs of our troops, investment in 
security and as well a provision for the Border Patrol agents and the 
Customs agents.
  It is a comprehensive budget. It is a budget that should be passed. 
The Congressional Black Caucus budget is a budget for all of us to 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today being very disturbed with the direction 
that the Republican proposed budget and this administration is taking 
our great nation. The prime reason for my concern is the national 
budget which stands before this body today. The Nussle budget clearly 
does not improve upon the severely flawed Bush administration budget. 
The needs of average Americans are still ignored. The interests of a 
wealthy few outweigh the needs of an entire nation in this budget. I 
say this not out of partisanship, but from a statement of the facts. I 
want to highlight a few areas in this budget that are particularly 
egregious.
  This President and the majority party in this body have spent so much 
time talking about their record on education and as hard as I try I can 
not see what they have to be proud of. It is one thing to address areas 
of critical need with rhetoric, but to advocate a policy and then not 
fund it sufficiently is plain irresponsible. This budget eliminates 48 
education programs that receive $4.3 billion this year. These 
eliminations include wiping out $1.3 billion for all vocational 
education programs, $522 million for all education technology programs, 
and $29 million for all civic education programs. The budget eliminates 
other large programs including the Even Start family literacy program 
($225 million) and State grants for safe and drug-free schools and 
communities ($437 million). The President's budget cuts 2006 funding 
for the Department of Education by $1.3 billion below the amount needed 
to maintain purchasing power at the current level, and by $530 million 
below the 2005 enacted level of $56.6 billion. This is the first time 
since 1989 that an administration has submitted a budget that cuts the 
Department's funding. This administration and the majority in this 
Congress promised to leave no child behind, but clearly they have 
reneged on their promise.
  Our brave American veterans are another group who were outraged by 
the President's budget and will unfortunately be disappointed with the 
Republican House Budget. I hear so much in this body from the majority 
party about the greatness of our Armed Forces, and their right, but 
again its just empty rhetoric on their part. Those brave men and women 
fighting on the front lines in our war against terror will come back 
home and find that the Republican Party looks at them differently once 
they become veterans. Almost all veterans need some form of health 
care, some will need drastic care for the rest of their lives because 
of the sacrifice they made in war, but the Republican budget continues 
to turn a blind eye to their needs. The fact is that $3.2 billion more 
than the current budget proposal is needed just to maintain the current 
level of health care programs for veterans.
  The entire Department of Veterans Affairs is going to suffer because 
of the Republican agenda. I have heard from veterans groups throughout 
my district in Houston and I am sure each Member of this body has heard 
from groups in their own district because veterans are one group that 
come from all parts of this Nation. These brave veterans have told me 
their stories of how they are suffering now with the current state of 
Veterans Affairs, I am going to have trouble telling them that not only 
will things continue to stay bad but if this budget passes this body 
things will only continue to get worse. That is not what our returning 
soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan should have to look forward to, a 
future where their needs are not only unprovided for, but are in fact 
ignored.
  Education and Veterans Affairs are not the only two areas where 
Republican budget fails Americans. The truth is there are many other 
programs and services vital to our Nation that are at risk because of 
the Republican agenda. At this point, an average American may be asking 
why the Republican leadership finds it necessary to cut so many 
fundamental programs. The answer is simple, yet disturbing; the 
majority is cutting important programs in order to finance all their 
irresponsible tax cuts. They will continue to make the argument that 
tax cuts provide stimulus for our economy, but millions of unemployed 
Americans will tell you otherwise. In fact the Congressional Budget 
Office itself said ``tax legislation will probably have a net negative 
effect on saving, investment, and capital accumulation over the next 10 
years.''
  While the Republican leadership continues its offensive for 
irresponsible tax policies they allow our national deficit to grow 
increasingly larger. When President Bush came into office he inherited 
a budget surplus of $236 billion in 2000. Now, however, this 
administration has raided those surpluses and its fiscally 
irresponsible tax policies have driven the country ever deeper into 
debt. A $5.6 trillion 10-year projected surplus for the period 2002-
2011 has been converted into a projected deficit for the same period of 
$3.9 trillion--a reversal of $9.5 trillion. Much like the President's 
budget, the resolution before us omits the longer-term costs of either 
the war in Iraq or fixing the AMT, yet still tries to make claims of 
reducing the deficit. It's clear that the Republican Party is hiding 
from the American people. This President and this majority in Congress 
have yet to advocate a fiscal policy that helps average Americans. 
Special interests have become king in this budget at the price of sound 
fiscal policies.
  This body was made to stand for the will of all Americans; if we 
allow this budget proposal to take effect we will have failed our 
mandate. I for one will not stand by silently; I have a duty to my 
constituents and indeed to all Americans to work for their well being 
and I will continue to honor that duty.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume to just respond gently, firmly in some respects to some of the 
characterizations I disagree with of the budget that I am presenting 
and the Republicans are presenting.
  I definitely respect the Congressional Black Caucus in their effort 
to put together a budget. I admire anybody who tries to go through this 
process and comes out of the other end with an actual work product that 
they can come to the floor to defend.
  So, as a result of that, I am pleased to yield time so that they can 
present that budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Butterfield) so that we can continue this discussion.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the chairman 
for yielding these 4 minutes to me. One of the hazards of being one of 
the lowest in seniority on this side of the aisle is that we run out of 
time so quickly. So I thank the chairman for yielding this time. I want 
to thank the ranking member for the work he has done in the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent North Carolina's First District. We are the 
15th poorest district in America. We are working very hard to lift our 
communities in meaningful ways and it is difficult.
  The one area in which we are succeeding is in the area of making 
higher educational opportunities more available to minority and low-
income students. I am so proud of the fact that we are beginning to 
eliminate the educational disparity that exists between black, white 
and brown.
  One program, Mr. Chairman, that has significantly contributed to this 
success is the TRIO program. TRIO programs are working. This program is 
serving 6,200 young people in my district, a total of 17 projects. 
Across the country, more than 870,000 low-income Americans are being 
served.
  TRIO has a Talent Search Program which serves young people in grades 
6 through 12. In addition to counseling, participants receive 
information about college admissions requirements,

[[Page 4907]]

scholarships and various student financial aid programs. This early 
intervention program helps people from families with incomes under 
$24,000 to better understand their educational opportunities and 
options. Over 387,000 Americans are enrolled in 471 Talent Search 
programs. The President's budget and the Republican budget eliminates 
these programs entirely.
  TRIO has an Upward Bound Program which helps young students to 
prepare for higher education. Participants receive instruction in 
literature, composition, mathematics and science on college campuses 
after school, on Saturdays and during the summer. Currently, 770 
programs are in operation throughout the country. This program, Mr. 
Chairman, is scheduled for extinction.
  The alternative Congressional Black Caucus budget is a responsible 
document, and I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for the work that 
they have done in developing this great document. This budget restores 
funding for TRIO. It reduces spending while maintaining strong funding 
for national defense and homeland security.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget 
and to vote for the Congressional Black Caucus budget as this budget 
restores funding for the TRIO program which is a very, very deserving 
program.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) to close the debate.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for 
providing the Congressional Black Caucus a little extra time to talk 
about the CBC budget, and I want to summarize what our proposed budget 
which we will be introducing tomorrow will do.
  It will roll back the tax cuts on people with adjusted gross incomes 
that exceed $200,000 per year. Most of the revenue raised in the CBC 
budget will be used to address disparities in America's communities. A 
substantial portion is reserved to reduce the deficit.
  On the military side, we would roll back $7.8 billion in ballistic 
missile defense spending leaving using $1 billion for research to 
continue regarding the ballistic missile defense system. All of these 
funds are spent on other defense items to support our troops, homeland 
security needs, and veterans program and benefits. The total for 
defense, homeland security, and veterans is equal to the Republican 
budget.
  The bottom line is that the CBC budget addresses critical domestic 
challenges and supports our troops. The CBC budget reduces the deficit 
by $167 billion compared to the House majority's budget over the next 5 
years. This fiscal responsibility is rewarded by a reduction of $27 
billion in interest payments, compared to the House majority's budget 
over that 5-year period. We will have a responsible budget, and I look 
forward to having the support of our colleagues in this body and look 
forward to discussing the proposed CBC budget in more detail tomorrow 
when our substitute is presented to the House.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time for 
the purpose of closing general debate.
  Mr. Chairman, we have put before the House a substitute resolution as 
an alternative to the resolution supported by the Republicans and 
reported by the committee.
  What does our resolution do? First of all, in the realm of fiscal 
discipline, we would reimpose a rule found to work and work well during 
the 1990s, a rule that was first implemented by a bill signed into law 
by President Bush, the first President Bush, in 1990 as part of the 
Bush budget summit agreement, which laid the foundation for the 
phenomenal success in the 1990s when we finally moved the budget out of 
intractable deficits into a surplus in 1998 and into a monumental 
surplus of $236 billion in the year 2000.
  Part of the budget process changes that helped us achieve those 
impressive results was a rule called pay-as-you-go, which simply 
stipulates that before anyone can increase an entitlement or mandatory 
spending program, add to its benefits, they have to either pay for the 
benefits by an identified revenue source, or they have to offset the 
increased expenditure by decreasing expenditures elsewhere.
  In addition, it provides when anyone wants to cut taxes, when we have 
a deficit, must offset the tax cut so it will not contribute to the 
deficit; it will not further enlarge the problem on the bottom line. So 
we first of all would reinstate the PAYGO rule. As I said earlier, this 
is not just some notion we have concocted. Three times Chairman Alan 
Greenspan of the Federal Reserve has testified before the Committee on 
the Budget that he would reinstate the PAYGO rule and he would apply it 
to expiring tax cuts that are renewed.
  On the spending side of the ledger, we have brought spending back to 
current services, in many cases restoring deep cuts made by the 
Republicans. We have brought it back to current services, but we have 
held it at that level. Current services is basically today's spending 
level carried forward with inflation.
  What do we do by instituting those two practices? What do we 
accomplish? Well, our budget moves to balance in the year 2012, which 
the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) cannot say with respect to 
his budget resolution.
  Secondly, we incur less in deficits each year and over the 10-year 
period of time that we run out our numbers, even though we provide 
current services funding.
  Thirdly, we protect Medicare and Medicaid. The Republicans would cut 
Medicaid by $60 billion. I met with Governors, Republicans and 
Democrats, who have told us a cut of that magnitude would be 
devastating and we should not cut Medicaid by any significant amount so 
that when the program is revised, it has to be revised in pursuit of 
some arbitrary savings number.
  Finally, we match funding for defense, function 050, dollar for 
dollar the same as their resolution. We match funding for international 
affairs, function 150. There is no difference between us there, but we 
have made some changes in our budget resolution which recommends that 
resources within the defense budget be shifted to personnel benefits 
and in particular to see that the $400,000 life insurance increase just 
provided in the supplemental will be carried forward and that the 
$100,000 increase in death gratuities will also be carried forward and 
funded in the future.
  So we have a budget resolution with many positive features to it, but 
also with fiscal discipline. A signature element is that in the year 
2012 it gets to balance, but it gets there with balanced priorities.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me say to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt), there is absolutely no one on the Democratic side that I 
admire more than the gentleman and the partnership we have in working 
on these budgets. This is the culmination when we come to the floor and 
have these debates, and I really respect the way he handled the debate. 
We appreciate that.
  We disagree how we are going to accomplish the goals that our Nation 
needs to set, but we know the goals are pretty important. We have to 
keep the country strong. There is no question about that. It is really 
nonnegotiable. There is not a constituent I talk to that would suggest 
at this point in time in our history we do not want to protect the 
country. Our borders, everything from terrorism to illegals and drugs 
and all sorts of things coming into the country, we have to protect the 
country, number one.
  Number two, we have to make sure that the economy keeps growing. That 
should not be an item up for negotiation. It is so important that 
families have the resources to deal with the challenges that they face 
every single day.
  We come out here and talk about other people's money very easily on

[[Page 4908]]

the floor of the House, what the taxpayers send us in order to solve 
problems; but we really do need to be mindful of the fact that the most 
important budget that we ought to be focused on is the budget decided 
and discussed and sweated over and argued about around kitchen tables 
across the country. That is such an important budget.
  We worry about education here, but parents do that every night after 
their kids go to bed. We worry about health care here, but seniors do 
that every night when they are laying in a bed in a nursing home. We 
worry about creating jobs, but small business people do that every 
night in the quiet of their closed shop. They try and make sure their 
cash register all added up.
  It is funny, I have heard people say we should not worry about the 
error rate in the food stamp program, which is now 6 percent. Mr. 
Chairman, 6 cents on every dollar in this country in food stamps is 
wasted. We say that is an improvement because it is down from 19 
percent. The interesting and fascinating thing about that is if a small 
business person ended the night, closed that shop door and turned the 
open sign around to closed and rang up the cash register and they were 
missing six pennies, they would stay all night to find it, all night 
long to find those six pennies that did not add up in their cash 
register. But we say, oh, that is an improvement. Amazing. It really is 
amazing. That is what I turn to first.
  This is the record of Federal Government spending over the last 10 
years. In these numbers is what I was talking about, the concern of 
education, the concern of homeland security, the concern of national 
defense, the concern of job training, the concern of our environment, 
the concern of transportation, the concern of research and development. 
All of the concerns that we have talked about are embodied in numbers 
because in Washington we define compassion from one year to the next, 
solutions from one year to the next of spending more.
  We have all seen that. If I spend just a little bit more from one 
year to the next year, I must care, I must be solving problems, I must 
be dealing with real solutions. If I just spend a little bit more 
money, I will solve all of the problems in the country. Every problem 
that every family ever addressed around their kitchen table can be 
solved with just a little bit more Washington spending. That is the 
fallacy of what we are debating tonight, and that is that if we 
believe, truly believe that all we have to do is take more money to 
Washington in the form of taxes and define and design and develop just 
one or two more programs that hires a number of more bureaucrats, that 
builds maybe a few more office buildings to be filled with those 
bureaucrats, and they drive in from Virginia or Maryland or wherever 
they drive in from, so that they care more about what is going on than 
the families back home, if we really believe that is solving problems, 
then Members are going to have a budget to vote for.
  It spends more money, it increases taxes, and it purports to solve 
problems. Unfortunately, we are not solving those problems by doing 
that. My favorite saying that I heard on the floor, and I do not 
remember who said it, a long time ago, if you always do what you always 
did, you will always get what you always got.
  If Members think about it, we have been trying to solve problems in 
Washington with more spending for quite some time now, and those 
problems do not seem to go away. Last year we decided to put the brakes 
on spending. We said yes, we have had the excuse of September 11, of 
the war on terror, of needing to deal with homeland security and 
needing to deal with our economy; but it is time to be done with all of 
that. And so what we did was we said let us put the brakes on spending 
just a little bit.
  What happened? When the economy grows and when we control spending, 
just like the Republican budgets in the late 1990s when we got back to 
balance, and President Clinton can take credit for anything he wants, 
that is fine. But everyone who has studied government knows that the 
buck stops here when it comes to spending. When it comes to fiscal 
responsibility and article I of the Constitution, we are the ones in 
charge of the budget. Members know that.
  As a result, last year with fiscal discipline and a growing economy, 
we were able to reduce the deficit 20 percent in 1 year. That is good 
news, but we need to build on that.

                              {time}  1945

  What our budget does is it says, let us continue to build on that 
success every year with more and more deficit reduction. That is what 
we accomplish with the spending discipline within this budget. We say 
not only should we hold the line on discretionary spending, that is the 
spending we will argue about every day out here during the 
appropriations process. We want to actually reduce some spending there. 
We want to have the first reduction in non-security spending since 
Ronald Reagan was in town back in 1980. That is good news. We also know 
that we have to start tackling what we call the mandatory spending, or 
the automatic spending. And so we accomplish that because we know that 
mandatory spending, that is this yellow part, the part here that back 
in 1995 was half the budget and now is more than half the budget and is 
growing to even more than half the budget, almost two-thirds of the 
budget if we do not start controlling our spending in these accounts.
  I want to give you an example of what we would have to do. As much as 
there will be all sorts of discussion today, and there has been, and 
tomorrow about Medicaid, you cannot find the word Medicaid in the 
budget. The reason is because what we do is we say the committees of 
jurisdiction, in this instance the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
should be given responsibility to look through the programs and see if 
they cannot only find savings but reform the program, to do a better 
job of delivering the product to the people who need it. If it is true 
that people sit up at night worrying about how they are going to pay 
their bills, how they are going to meet their health care needs, then 
let us help them figure that out. But let us not continue to do a 
program that every single Governor would admit is unsustainable. We 
have got quotes from here to the end of the day from Governors who have 
written us that have said, This program cannot continue. It cannot 
continue.
  All right. So what do we have? We have one budget on the Democratic 
side. We actually, I think, will have two or three budgets on the 
Democratic side that do nothing with regard to Medicaid. No reforms. No 
changes. Let us continue to always do what we have always done, and 
that is continue what has been what some people say is fraudulent 
transfers that are going on at the State level, where Governors and 
State legislators are put in a position where they actually have to 
figure out how to game the system, how to manipulate the system so that 
they can get more money from the Federal Government. I have heard of 
situations that colleagues of mine have told me from around the country 
where we actually have a situation where kids, teenagers who are 
eligible for foster care, good kids, good teenagers, that are difficult 
to find families for so that they can integrate and become part of a 
family again, but the State, a couple of States in particular, what 
they have done is they have devised a way to lock those kids into 
mental health residential treatment centers. Why? So they can get more 
money from the Federal Government. If you are a foster parent or you 
are someone who is thinking about adopting, opening up your heart, your 
family, your home to a child, to a kid, to a teenager and giving them a 
life, try doing that with a stigma of having mental health problems, of 
having challenges in that regard, because of the stigma of being part 
of that State program, not because they were helping the kid but 
because they wanted more money. We are hurting people with some of 
these programs.
  I realize if you measure your compassion from one year to the next 
with spending, I cared at $92 billion this year. Oops, there I went and 
I cared a little bit more that year. Then I cared at $101 billion. Then 
I really cared at $108 billion. Boy, my caring and compassion is going 
up. That is not how we

[[Page 4909]]

should measure it. We should measure it on results. Are these programs 
working? Are they helping families? Are they helping kids? Are they 
helping communities? Are they solving the problem that Medicaid ought 
to be solving for people with long-term health care concerns, people 
with disabilities, people who require indigent care? That is what we 
ought to be asking.
  What do we do in this budget? We say, Commerce Committee, go to work. 
Invite the Governors to come to Washington to give us their proposal. 
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I sat in a room with 
Governors where they said, ``Don't arbitrarily let the number drive the 
policy.'' That is exactly right. The number should not drive policy. 
This number should not drive policy any more than it ought to determine 
compassion. But there is only one way to get the Governors to come back 
to Washington. They were here the first time. The only way to get them 
back the second time is to have a process that requires reform and that 
is exactly what this budget does. It says, by September, we want you to 
come back with ideas for reform. Just as a result of this, they have 
committed to come back by June with a reform proposal that the 
Governors are going to offer that we can work together with the 
administration to try and come to a solution and try to come to some 
agreement on. That is a positive step forward. That helps us with a 
program that most people think is unsustainable and that helps us solve 
the problem of making sure that this goes to people who cannot help 
themselves.
  What does the so-called reduction in growth look like? We have heard 
all the complaints on the floor today. One would think we were just 
eliminating the Medicaid program. I want to show you the chart of what 
this looks like after we are all done. This is what the Governors would 
complain about. This is what some of the advocates are complaining 
about. In other words, we are asking for just a little sliver, just 
slow down the growth. But it is growing every year. Every year it 
grows. We are just asking for a little bit of change, just a little bit 
of reform, make the program work better, less it help seniors, let it 
help people with disabilities, make sure it is solving the problem for 
families that do not have the resources to meet their health care 
needs. Let us also instill some personal responsibility. Do not just 
hand it out and give people first dollar Cadillac coverage without 
saying in return, Folks, you have got to be healthier, you have got to 
practice prevention, you have got to be personally responsible. That is 
what reform can give you and a budget without that reform will not give 
you.
  I understand that between today and tomorrow we have got a big 
decision to make. The decision as it boils down to me is very simple. 
If you believe that taxing a little bit more, taking a little bit more 
out to Washington from all of these hardworking families across the 
country and hiring more bureaucrats and inventing more programs and 
trying to solve more of these problems from Washington, if you believe 
that is the solution, you need to vote for the Spratt budget. You need 
to vote for the Democrat alternative budget because that is what it 
does. It says increase taxes, increase spending and you will begin to 
solve these problems.
  But there is an alternative and it is the majority. What the majority 
is saying, Stop the madness. It is the spending. We have got to get the 
spending under control. We know the other body left to their own 
devices may not do it on their own. We have already seen in a kind of a 
disappointing way that they have not really stepped up the way the 
President has and how we believe the way I have.
  In closing, let me just say that we will be able to give, I believe, 
our kids and our grandkids the opportunity of a debt-free world if we 
begin with a small step again this year. I ask Members to support the 
majority budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) each will control 30 minutes 
on the subject of economic goals and policies.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  It is a real privilege to rise tonight to take on the role of 
discussing the statutorily required Humphrey-Hawkins side of this 
debate; that is, to consider how this budget fits into the overall 
economic policy of the United States.
  We have heard so far a very engaging debate, and may I say, the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget has done an extraordinary job 
of defending the details of this budget. He has been powerful and 
persuasive and intelligent and, I think, has made a compelling case. 
The argument that we are going to make in the next hour has to do more 
with how this fits into the overall economic priorities of the United 
States. This in my view is perhaps one of the most important reasons 
for passing this budget, because as we look at where America is today, 
as we look at the economic challenges we are facing, it is clear that 
we need to have a strong and responsible fiscal policy that encourages 
economic growth, that controls spending, and by controlling spending 
brings down our deficit over time, reassures capital markets and sends 
the message that the American economy continues to be the safest place 
in the world to invest. If we continue on the path directed by this 
budget resolution, we have an opportunity, I think, to lay the 
groundwork for an unprecedented expansion and to create opportunity and 
economic growth in the American economy that is so badly needed in many 
of our communities, including many parts of my district.
  There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that the challenges we are facing 
today are substantial, the deficit is a serious problem and the 
proposed remedy contained in this budget resolution involves some very 
strong medicine and, for many individual Members of the House, some 
very, very difficult policy decisions. We need to pass this resolution 
because the broad parameters of spending that are the real budget 
resolution, the blueprint that is the substance of this budget 
resolution is precisely the vehicle we need to move in the right 
direction to make sure that we control spending and create the 
opportunity to continue the economic expansion which is only now just 
beginning.
  Over the past few years, America has gone through a challenging time 
economically. Nowhere is that more evident than in my district, but at 
the same time there are very encouraging signs. We know that we have 
been running a deficit. We know we have been running a deficit because, 
first of all, understandably, we have been in the throes of a recession 
and we have never run a surplus during a recession. Second of all, we 
have never run a surplus in wartime. And even as we have been 
undergoing a very difficult episode, a combination of a slowdown which 
began during the last administration coupled with the substantial 
damage to our economy that occurred in the wake of 9/11, at the same 
time we have had to take on a war on terrorism that was not of our 
choosing. The combination of these two factors, the loss of revenue 
because of the slowdown of the economy and at the same time the 
challenge of meeting the war on terrorism have been a substantial drain 
on our resources. Yet our underlying economy continues to be sound and 
clearly we have a path that we can pursue that brings us back toward a 
balanced budget and providing the kind of policy in place that will 
continue to meet the needs of America.
  This budget resolution is precisely what we need. We recognize that 
an uncontrolled deficit can put pressure on interest rates, increasing 
the cost of borrowing and putting the brakes on economic growth and 
investment. Without economic growth, we are not going to be able to 
generate the revenue to get back to a balanced budget. We also 
recognize that a lax fiscal policy could further weaken the U.S. dollar 
in global markets and undermine its standing as the reserve currency of 
the world economic system. This has

[[Page 4910]]

been one of the core advantages that America has retained relative to 
our global competition. That is why the decision we make with this 
budget is going to be so very, very important.
  This budget is a blueprint for injecting spending restraint while 
encouraging economic growth and stability. Its adoption will signal to 
the financial markets that a fiscally conservative Congress once more 
is prepared to sally forth to make difficult decisions necessary to 
control the Federal deficit and maintain our economy on a growth path. 
This budget vehicle provides fiscal discipline that will strengthen 
investor confidence in the renascent economy and act as a powerful 
tonic to continue on the path of economic growth. It provides for 
controlling spending without raising taxes, which is precisely the 
formula that has worked for us and can continue to work for us.
  Mr. Chairman, we recognize that we need to maintain a pro-growth tax 
policy. That is essential to move America toward a balanced budget. 
This budget resolution allows us to continue and make permanent the 
successful tax policies that have allowed us to grow the economy. What 
it does in a nutshell is it cuts the deficit in half over a 5-year 
period. Perhaps more importantly, Mr. Chairman, it shrinks over time 
the national debt relative to the economy. That is the burden on the 
national economy that the capital markets understand. If we have a 
national debt that is growing relative to the economy, it will roil 
capital markets over time if it grows excessively. But what matters to 
the economy is not the absolute size of the debt, it is the size of the 
debt relative to the economy.

                              {time}  2000

  If we can continue to grow the economy and grow the economy faster 
than the national debt, then that will be a source of confidence and a 
source of growth in the economy. Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what 
this budget resolution does in a sound, responsible way. It maintains a 
strong commitment to economic growth and pro-growth tax policy by 
controlling discretionary and mandatory spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I will have further remarks in support of this 
resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As a member of the Joint Economic Committee, I am pleased to speak on 
the economic goals and policies reflected in the budget.
  When it comes to the economy, this is a record-setting 
administration. The problem is, the administration is setting records 
for debt and deficits. We now have the largest debt, the largest budget 
deficit, and the largest trade deficit in the history of our Nation. 
Republicans have become the party of debt and deficits.
  Even worse, the administration continues to repeat the same economic 
mantras even as experience continues to prove them wrong and more 
wrong.
  This administration has turned a surplus projected in January of 2001 
to be almost $400 billion by 2004 into a budget deficit of over $400 
billion. And, Mr. Chairman, there is no end in sight. The budget 
deficit for last month set another record as the first time the budget 
deficit has gone over $100 billion in a single month in the history of 
our country. The administration has raised the debt limit three times 
to a record $7.6 trillion, which means $26,000 of debt is owed for 
every man, woman, and child in America.
  This week the lead story is our Nation's trade deficit; and to no 
one's surprise, this deficit is breaking records too. Data released 
today by the Department of Commerce shows that the trade deficit in 
2004 was at an all-time high, nearly $666 billion, 5.7 percent of our 
GDP. Another unfortunate record. The all-time monthly trade deficit of 
more than $59 billion was set in November, and the total for January 
was just barely shy of setting a new record.
  The administration keeps saying that the ever-weaker dollar will 
correct our trade deficit for the last several years, and this has 
proven to be wrong. Our deficits are soaring because it is the policy 
of this administration to spend money we do not have and to borrow from 
foreign sources to cover ourselves.
  Since the administration is content importing money lent by foreign 
banks to cover the cost of foreign goods, we are increasingly at the 
mercy of our overseas benefactors. As of January, foreign governments 
own $1.2 trillion of our public debt, the highest it has ever been. 
What if one day they decide to stop propping up our spend-and-borrow 
habit? We had a tiny taste of that recently when South Korea hinted 
that they would not buy more dollars and the markets trembled.
  America is the greatest economic engine in the world. We should never 
build our economic system on a foundation of foreign loans. Any day 
that foundation could become a house of cards. There is absolutely no 
evidence in the budget resolution before us in the House or in the 
policies of this budget that the majority understands or even cares 
about these risks to our economy.
  This budget uses smoke and mirrors to give the allusion of cutting 
the deficit in half, but it leaves out necessary actions such as fixing 
the alternative minimum tax, which is hurting the middle class more and 
more and must be dealt with sooner rather than later.
  This budget is also mean spirited. In order to preserve the 
Republican tax cuts, the budget cuts programs for Americans who are 
struggling just to make it in what for them is a very difficult 
economy.
  Mr. Chairman, this President continues to have the worst job record 
since President Hoover and the Great Depression. Even worse, the gains 
the economy has made benefit the bottom line of large corporations at 
the expense of ordinary hard-working Americans. The gap between the 
haves and have-nots is growing, and that should be of great concern to 
everyone in America.
  The administration continues to say the economy is recovering, but 
how good a recovery can it be if ordinary American families can buy 
less and less with their paychecks? Over the period of job gains since 
May of 2003, the average hourly earnings of workers in nonfarm 
industries has actually fallen by .6 percent after inflation.
  The administration's budget does not even address the biggest and 
largest budget buster of them all: the President's plan to privatize 
Social Security. As a new study by the Joint Economic Committee 
Democratic staff shows, the President's plan for private accounts would 
create $5 trillion of new debt in the first 20 years, but it would do 
absolutely nothing to address Social Security's solvency and would do 
nothing to increase national saving. In fact, it would weaken the 
solvency of Social Security and probably reduce national saving, 
exactly the opposite of what is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the President's plan for Social Security is a 
perfect example of what is wrong with the economic goals and policies 
of this administration. It manufactures a false crisis around a real, 
but manageable, problem and then offers a proposal that makes things 
worse without even addressing the original problem. As I have seen in 
my own town meetings, Americans understand that privatization of Social 
Security is a bad idea. We need honest budgeting and an honest economic 
policy if we are to foster true economic prosperity to ordinary hard-
working Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a fellow member of the 
Joint Economic Committee.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to talk about 
the budget. In listening to the debate today on both sides of the 
aisle, there has been a lot of expression of concern about the deficit; 
and, of course, I am very concerned about the deficit as well.
  But I would like to make a suggestion that we are not facing 
primarily a

[[Page 4911]]

budgetary crisis or a budgetary problem. I see this more as a 
philosophic problem, dealing more with the philosophy of government 
rather than thinking that we can tinker with the budget, dealing with 
this as a tactical problem when really it is a strategic problem. So as 
long as we endorse the type of government that we have and there is a 
willingness for the people as well the Congress to finance it, we are 
going to continue with this process and the frustrations are going to 
grow because it is just not likely that these deficits will shrink.
  And the gentleman from Pennsylvania rightly pointed out the concerns 
this might have in the financial markets. I am hoping that his optimism 
pans out because, indeed, if they do not, there could be some 
ramifications from these expanding deficits and what it means to our 
dollar.
  But I would like to suggest that in dealing with the budget itself, I 
see only one problem that we have. And that problem to me is the budget 
is too big, and I would like to shrink the budget. I have toyed with 
the idea over the years to introduce and offer a constitutional budget 
to the House floor. That would not be too difficult because the budget 
would be so much smaller. It would mean essentially that if one is a 
strict constitutionalist that they would cut the budget approximately 
80 percent.
  What would that mean to the economy? It would be a boost because we 
would be injecting $2 trillion back into the economy, allowing the 
people to spend their own money. But being pretty realistic, I know 
that is not likely to happen or be offered or even be able to present 
that on the House floor. Besides, it could be rather embarrassing to 
bring something like that to the floor. Not so much embarrassing to me, 
because I am accustomed to voting in a small group of people on many 
occasions; but it could be embarrassing to others because, for the most 
part, most Members would not even conceive of the idea of having a 
strict interpretation of the Constitution and severely limiting the 
budget. So we would not want to put everybody on record for that.
  The other day I heard an interview with one of our Members, and he 
was asked about a particular program about where the authority came 
from in the Constitution for that program. And his answer was very 
straightforward; and he explained that in the Constitution there was no 
prohibition against that program, so therefore it was permitted. In his 
mind, as it is in the minds of many Members of Congress, if there is no 
strict prohibition, it is permitted.
  And that is just absolutely opposite of what was intended by the 
authors of the Constitution that we would only be able to do those 
things which are explicitly permitted in the Congress, and they are 
spelled out rather clearly in article I, section 8.
  And then we are given the permission to write the laws that are 
necessary and proper to implement those powers that are delegated to 
us. Those powers that are not delegated are reserved to the States and 
to the people. So it means that those things that are not prohibited 
are permitted, but I would say that the conventional wisdom today is 
that people accept the notion that we can do anything that we want as 
long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution.
  I think this improper understanding and following of the Constitution 
has brought us closer to a major crisis in this country, a crisis of 
our personal liberties, a crisis in our foreign policy, as well as a 
crisis in our budgeting.
  But it is not simply the ignoring of the Constitution that I think is 
our problem. I think our other problem is our country and our people 
and our Congresses and our Senators have accepted the notion of faith 
in government, faith in the State, that the State can provide these 
great services and do it efficiently.
  Really, there are only two areas that would have to be cut if we were 
to strive for a constitutional budget. There are only two things that 
we would have to cut, and it would be welfare and warfare. And then we 
would get back to some fundamentals. During World War I, a gentleman by 
the name of Randolph Bourne wrote a pamphlet called ``War is the Health 
of the State,'' and I truly believe that. When we are at war, we are 
more likely to sacrifice our liberties; and, of course, we spend more 
money that we really have. I would like to suggest a corollary, that 
peace is the foundation of liberty because that is what the goal of all 
government should be: the preservation of liberty.
  We have endorsed a program with this interpretation that spending is 
going to be endlessly increased, and we have devised a system whereby 
we have ignored the constraints through monetary policy by not only are 
we taxing too much and borrowing too much; we have now since 1971 
endorsed a monetary system that if we come up short we just print the 
money. And I would suggest to the gentlewoman that one of the reasons 
why the workers' purchasing power is going down is we print too many 
dollars and they are the ones who are most likely and first to suffer 
from inflation.
  And it is the philosophy of government and our philosophy on money 
that encourages these problems. And the current account deficits and 
this huge foreign indebtedness that are encouraged by our ability to 
maintain a reserve currency, it is going to lead to a crisis where this 
spending will have to come in check.

                              {time}  2015

  And that is why the gentleman from Pennsylvania is quite correct that 
we should be concerned about how the financial markets look at what we 
do. And hopefully we will be able to deal with this in a budgetary way 
and institute some restraints. But quite frankly I am a bit pessimistic 
about that. This program that we follow and this philosophy we followed 
prompted our Federal Reserve to create $620 billion in order to finance 
the system. That is the reason that the dollar becomes less valuable, 
because we just print too many to accommodate the politicians and the 
people who enjoy the excessive spending.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the committee and a very 
outstanding colleague.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me 
the time. Mr. Chairman, this budget of course is a clear statement of 
the economic objectives of the people who have put it together, and it 
is illustrative of where they want this country to be over the course 
of the next year.
  In understanding that, it is important for us to look back at 
previous budgets that they have constructed and the effect that those 
budgets have had on the economy of our country.
  We have here in Washington today, and have for the last 4 years, a 
monolithic government. In other words, the Republican Party controls 
both Houses of the Congress, the House and the Senate, and the White 
House. So they are in complete control of the budget operation, how we 
take in money, and how we spend it, allegedly, on behalf of the 
American people.
  Let us just take a look at the effects of their budgets and economic 
policies over the course of the last several years. First of all, the 
economy has endured the most protracted job slump since the 1930s. Last 
year we had some increase in jobs. Government payrolls, in fact, have 
expanded. And it is interesting, because our colleagues in the 
Republican Party talk about shrinking government. But what their budget 
policies have managed to do is to expand government.
  At the same time, there were 544,000 fewer private nonfarm payroll 
jobs and 2.8 million fewer manufacturing jobs. Their budget policies 
have cost us nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs over the last several 
years.
  The official unemployment rate is now 5.4 percent. But many more 
people than that would like to go to work if there was an opportunity 
for them to do so. When you include the 5 million people who have 
stopped looking but who would take a job if one were available to them 
and the 4.3 million people who have been forced to settle for part-

[[Page 4912]]

time employment, when you consider all of those, the unemployment rate 
jumps to 9.3 percent.
  Four years ago America enjoyed a $5.6 trillion 10-year projected 
budget surplus. Today our country is facing a $3.3 trillion 10-year 
projected budget deficit. That is a heroic accomplishment over the last 
5 years by these Republican budgets, nearly $9 trillion in negative 
results.
  The public debt has almost doubled and will probably reach $5 
trillion before the end of this year, all of that as a result of these 
budgets, and this particular budget that we are addressing tonight 
continues these same policies.
  One consequence of the low national savings associated with large 
budget deficits is that we are running now a very large trade deficit. 
In January, for example, the last month for which we have figures, it 
was $58.3 billion in trade deficit just for the month of January.
  Last year we accomplished a record trade deficit. The trade deficit 
for the year 2004 was a record $617 billion. This budget continues 
those same policies. But those deficits are unsustainable. Our economy 
will not survive if we continue along the same road.
  American workers are becoming more productive, but that productivity 
as a result of these budgets is not showing up in their wages. Private 
nonfarm industries' wages have fallen .6 percent, after being adjusted 
for inflation.
  This year, this past year alone, typical households will make $1,500 
less than they did 4 years ago as a result of the economic policies 
reflected in this and the previous budgets of the Republican Party.
  Since November 2001, output per hour has increased from the average 
worker by an average of 3.9 percent per year. Over that same period, 
the hourly wages and benefits of the workers producing that increased 
output has increased by only 1.6 percent per year.
  The current account deficit, which measures the amount we have to 
borrow from the rest of the world to finance our international trade 
imbalance, reached a record of over $600 billion. Increasingly, foreign 
central banks purchase U.S. treasury securities, and that means that we 
are increasingly deeper and deeper in debt to other foreign countries. 
That is also a result of these budgets. If foreigners become nervous 
about the falling value of the dollar, they could stop buying our 
treasury debt, which would cause the dollar to plunge. The consequence 
could be an international financial crisis, sharply higher inflation 
and interest rates, and also stop any economic recovery.
  So the debate today on this budget resolution is critically 
important. The question is, are we going to continue the policies that 
have put us in this very difficult position where we find ourselves 
today as a result of the previous four budgets passed by this 
monolithic government, or are we finally going to wake up, realize the 
consequences of these policies and begin to take a new course? That 
vote will come tomorrow.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the immediate past Chair of the Congressional 
Black Caucus.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time. As a member of the Joint Economic Committee, I rise today to 
speak on the economic policies of the budget resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, both the Bush and Republican budgets suffer from the 
same infirmities, fiscal irresponsibility and self-serving and out-of-
touch priorities. Both are wholly inadequate to meet the needs of our 
Nation and will pass along mounting deficits and debts to generations 
yet unborn.
  First, the 5-year Republican budget will result in a deficit of $376 
billion in 2006, $44 million over the President's projection.
  The Republicans' budget proposal also has many cost omissions, 
because they know that their deficit numbers explode after 5 years. As 
such, this budget does not take into account the cost of fixing the 
AMT, which will cost at least $642 billion. It does not take into 
account the $774 billion needed to pay for the President's much-talked 
about but yet unveiled Social Security privatization plan.
  I suppose the Republican budget proposal deserves a little credit for 
hiking its deficit projection as it at least includes $50 million in 
2006 for the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The President's budget 
proposal contained zero dollars. As a matter of fact, it reported that 
the costs could not be known. However, both figures are fantasy. The 
realistic figure over the next 10 years, in addition to the $80 billion 
that we just passed in the supplemental, is likely to be $384 billion.
  To pay for its misguided policies, the House budget resolution cuts 
nondefense discretionary spending by $12 billion below the amount 
needed in fiscal 2006 just to maintain current spending levels, and it 
cuts spending on mandatory domestic programs by $8 billion.
  To add insult to injury, the Republican budget provides $18 billion 
in additional tax cuts. These misguided tax cuts will actually cost 
much more when the tax cuts actually expire in 2010. In fact, 97 
percent of these tax cuts will benefit taxpayers with incomes above 
$200,000. I think most reasonable people can agree that these 
priorities are not America's priorities.
  While little good can be said about the Bush administration's budget, 
it at least provides detailed information on the programs it seeks to 
cut. The House resolution shrouds its cuts in darkness, leaving the 
American people to wonder what vital programs will find their way to 
the chopping block next.
  Both the Republican and Bush budget proposals are travesties. When 
the Bush administration took office, the Nation was experiencing record 
surpluses. It has managed to turn a $521 billion surplus into a $367 
billion deficit.
  In contrast, the Spratt alternative budget, as well as the 
Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget that we will consider 
tomorrow, focus national spending on priorities that benefit all 
Americans and get us on the road to economic recovery. They do this by 
funding key domestic priorities which address the needs of working 
families while fully supporting the national defense and protection of 
our homeland and preserving Medicaid, Social Security, pension programs 
and student loans.
  Let me speak particularly about the budget developed by the 
Congressional Black Caucus which corrects the irresponsible fiscal and 
economic policies contained in the House budget resolution by 
supporting existing programs that are essential to closing disparities, 
creating opportunities and helping our citizens build their future. It 
will get our country on the road to recovery, while funding meaningful 
national priorities for our children, for our seniors, for our veterans 
and for our communities.
  Importantly, the Congressional Black Caucus budget supports these 
priorities, while also meeting our obligation to our troops in Iraq and 
in Afghanistan.
  The CBC budget funds community development programs, including 
restoring funding to the Community Development Block Grant Program and 
supporting increased funding for elderly and disabled housing programs.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget will also restore funding for 
veterans' health care, rather than imposing new copayments on them for 
essential services and prescription drugs.
  Importantly, the Congressional Black Caucus budget will reduce the 
budget deficit by $167 billion during the next 5 years below the 
deficit that will be produced by the House budget resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget cuts educational, housing and 
health programs for our children, while bequeathing to them a public 
debt that has increased by $1.268 trillion over the last 4 years and 
that will exceed $4.6 trillion even before we begin fiscal year 2006.

[[Page 4913]]



                              {time}  2030

  These actions are not only irresponsible, they are unconscionable. In 
the end, one can only conclude that the Republican budget balances 
itself on the backs of Americans who can least afford it.
  I urge the administration to reconsider its ill-conceived economic 
policies. The Congressional Black Caucus budget is the ultimate 
expression of our national priorities; and our priorities must be our 
children, our families, our elderly and our veterans and, of course, 
our soldiers.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget this evening.
  This budget would not only add funding to close the glaring and 
shameful disparities which have existed too long for African Americans, 
but it is fiscally responsible. Our budget would provide additional 
protection for our troops today and provide more funding to honor the 
debt to our Nation's veterans, including those who are returning as we 
speak. It also protects us at home by adding funding to address 
unacceptable deficiencies in homeland security.
  But our investment in homeland security goes beyond the important 
funds we provide for first responders, for fighting bio-terrorism, and 
providing interoperable communications. Our homeland security also 
depends on a well-educated citizenry, and so we fully fund Leave No 
Child Behind, TRIO programs as well as increased Pell grants.
  Our homeland security depends on a healthy citizenry. The 
Congressional Black Caucus budget restores much of the funding for 
minority AIDS, Health Professions Training, and the Office of Minority 
Health, as well as provides funding to help close gaps in the Caribbean 
and Africa. And, Mr. Chairman, we do all of that and reduce the deficit 
by an additional $167 billion over 5 years; $167 billion more than the 
majority budget resolution does.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget would make us more economically 
secure.
  Mr. Chairman, the CBC alternative budget, like the Congressional 
Black Caucus itself, speaks to the conscience, not only of the Congress 
but to the conscience of our country. It is a budget that reflects our 
values and seeks to create not just a stronger America but also a 
better America.
  The Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget is a morally and 
fiscally responsible budget, and I urge all of my colleagues to support 
it when it comes to the floor tomorrow.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has 9 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) has 15 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Let me just go through some of the things that the Congressional 
Black Caucus budget will do in various areas. We are planning to submit 
this budget tomorrow, and we will be adding an additional $1 billion in 
the international affairs category for foreign aid to Africa and the 
Caribbean, Global AIDS Initiative in the State Department, Public 
Health and Preventable Illness initiatives.
  We will be adding half a billion dollars in general science, space 
and technology in the following areas: NASA Research and Development, 
NASA Space Shuttle Safety, restore research and development funding for 
the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy. We will be 
adding an additional $50 million in the natural resources and 
environment, historically black colleges and university preservation 
program.
  We will be adding $300 million in the agriculture budget in support 
of the 1890 land-grant historically black colleges and universities, 
expanded food and nutrition education programs, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Office of Civil Rights. And we will be restoring and 
modifying some of the Draconian cuts in agriculture programs that 
affect minorities in particular.
  We will be adding $1 billion in commerce and housing credit for SBA 
loan programs, the 7(a) program, Microloan, and New Market Venture 
programs, adult training and dislocated worker programs, Manufacturing 
Extension Partnerships, home ownership initiatives.
  We will be adding $150 million in transportation, most of which will 
go to Amtrak. We will be adding $1.5 billion to community and regional 
development to restore the cuts that have been proposed by the 
President in the Community Development Block Grants, increased funding 
for Brownfields Economic Development, Empowerment Zones, community 
development, financial institutions, economic development assistance.
  We will be adding $23.9 billion in education and training with which 
we will fully fund the No Child Left Behind. That is $12 billion to 
fully fund No Child Left Behind.
  We will be adding $50 million to elementary and secondary school 
counseling, vocational training, job training, adult education, Pell 
grants, Head Start, Individuals With Disabilities, IDEA, Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, TRIO, 
Gaining Early Awareness of Readiness. That is the GEAR-UP program, 
restoring that. Perkins loans, impact aid.
  In the area of health we will be adding $1 billion. In the area of 
Administration of Justice we will be adding $1 billion. And over on the 
defense side we are going to be adding money for body armor, personal 
support equipment, and other protective gear for our troops, ammunition 
for the Marine Corps, small arms for the Army. We will be adding $4.65 
billion for veterans programs, veterans health care, survivor benefit 
plans, disabled veterans plans, prosthetic needs for veterans, VA 
medical and prosthetic research, mental health care for veterans. And 
we will be adding $2 billion in homeland security for rail security and 
port security.
  Now, you are wondering how can the Congressional Black Caucus do all 
of this? It is simple. Simply roll back the tax cut on people who make 
above $200,000 a year. And all we are saying to our Members in this 
body is that these things that I have just described are much higher 
priorities. Even to people that I know who make more than $200,000 a 
year, they think these things are higher priorities than getting a 
little extra tax cut. And I just entreat my Members to please support 
the Congressional Black Caucus budget. It is a sane budget. It is good.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, when Lem Keyserling wrote the Full 
Employment Act of 1946, he was an ardent Keynesian, and he believed 
that the government had a major role to play in stimulating an economy, 
in seeking to maintain full employment. And if he believed that 
theoretically, he believed it even more deeply after the war when the 
enormous demand generated by the war for once made this a full 
employment economy. The whole country supported the concept.
  Keynes believed in deficit financing when the economy was stuck in a 
liquidity trap and could not get loose. But he did not believe in the 
kind of deficit financing that we are running today. I think he would 
be appalled both by the current account deficit which we are running, 
$618 billion, more than most economists thought was sustainable. It 
exceeds 5 percent of the GDP. And certainly I do not think he would 
find at all pleasing to his understanding of economics a budget deficit 
expected this year to be $427 billion. Not even Maynard Keynes would 
look approvingly on that.
  We have come so far from the year 2000 when after 6 or 7 straight 
years of fiscal discipline, we finally put the

[[Page 4914]]

budget in surplus, a surplus of $236 billion. We had a meeting on the 
Democratic side of the Committee on the Budget with Mr. Greenspan about 
what is the best approach we should take to this surplus that we find 
ourselves enjoying. And it was agreed among everyone there and among 
Democrats and Republicans in the House that one thing surely we should 
do since we now have the resources to do it is no longer borrow and 
spend the Social Security trust fund, the surplus in it.
  Indeed, our proposal was that we use this surplus in the future 
instead of funding new debt and buying new government bonds, instead 
going into the open market, buying outstanding Treasury bonds and that 
way reducing the Treasury debt held by the public, increasing net 
national savings which woefully deficient and lowering the cost of 
capital and boosting the economy.
  It was the first and best step we could take towards shoring up 
Social Security and making it solvent. It was a truly conservative 
idea, and we urged it upon the Bush administration when they came into 
office. But they took a much, much different, almost opposite, path, 
and that is, big tax cuts tilted toward wealthy Americans.
  We did not deal then with our long-range liabilities to Social 
Security as we could have for the first time in a long time, and today 
we are suffering the consequence of that. We are dealing with second-
best proposals.
  What do we have instead? Well, instead of being here on this pinnacle 
with a $236 billion deficit surplus, we are down here with a $427 
billion deficit this year, according to CBO.
  Now, the President has told us he has plans and a budget that will 
cut this deficit in half over a period of about 5 years. But when we 
put back into his budget everything we know is likely to be incurred as 
a cost, whether it is the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, whether it is 
the cost of fixing the AMT, the deficit that we are dealing with today 
does not get better. It does not go away. It does not go down; it gets 
bigger. And by the end of our timeframe, 2015, we have a deficit of 
$621 billion.
  Read the CBO analysis of the President's budget. By the end of that 
timeframe, we accumulated 5.135 trillion additional dollars as part of 
the national debt. That surely cannot be the kind of economy that Lem 
Keyserling or Maynard Keynes had in mind.
  Look at this very simple table here, and it tells you a world of 
facts about what has happened over the last 4 years. Three times in 4 
years this Congress at the request of President Bush in order to 
accommodate his budget had to raise the debt ceiling of the United 
States three times by $2.234 trillion.
  At the present rate, we are adding $1 trillion to our national debt 
every year, every 18 months, $1 trillion every 18 to 20 months to our 
national debt. Nobody in his right mind thinks that that course can be 
sustained. And yet look at the Bush budget again. It only promises in 
our estimation more and more debt, not less debt.
  How do we get away with this? No country in the world could have the 
kind of current account deficit we have or certainly have the kind of 
budget deficit that we mitigate the effects of it. Do not feel, do not 
see the consequences, and therefore do not feel compelled to do 
anything serious about it. We sell much of our debt to foreigners and 
that mitigates the effect.
  These are not good vital signs for the economy of the United States. 
And surely one of the things we should be about now is the adoption of 
a resolution which will take us back to where we were in the year 2000, 
back to surpluses because we need to be saving, not spending as the 
baby boomers begin to retire.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to be here to make 
this presentation as required under law by Humphrey-Hawkins because I 
think it is very important perhaps that the record be set straight.
  Any Member of the House who is serious about controlling the deficit, 
about maintaining the forward movement in the economy, growing jobs, 
and the social justice that could only come through economic growth 
should be prepared to strongly support this budget resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of points I think need to be made in response 
to the interesting presentations that were made on the other side.
  First of all, on the issue of jobs. We have heard the criticism that 
our friends on the other side of the aisle try to blame President Bush 
for an economic slowdown that he inherited from the Clinton 
administration that was exacerbated by 9/11. The truth is economic 
policies that have been adopted by this Congress, working with the 
administration, have been successful in helping the U.S. economy 
rebound from the recession into a sustained expansion, with strong 
growth in the gross domestic product and payroll jobs.
  Despite all of the problems that this President inherited, the tax 
relief policies of the past 4 years that our friends on the other side 
of the aisle are striving to sabotage have helped to restore economic 
growth and job creation.
  During 2004, real GDP grew 4.4 percent, the strongest annual 
performance in 5 years, one of the strongest growth performances of the 
past 20 years, belying the glooming forecast we have heard on the other 
side.
  Private forecasters' projections for real GDP growth for this year 
are being revised upward. Growth for 2005 is expected to be at a 3.7 
percent robust rate. More Americans, Mr. Chairman, are working today 
than at anytime in our Nation's history, and employment is at a record 
level of more than 140 million. The unemployment rate in February was 
5.4 percent, lower than the averages for each of the last three 
decades. Payroll employment rose by 2.2 million jobs during 2004. It is 
up by more than 3 million jobs since May of 2003. Last month, we saw 
employment gains of 262,000 jobs, more than a quarter of a million new 
jobs in the month of February alone. This suggests that there is 
clearly forward motion in the economy.
  Mr. Chairman, let us compare that to some of our trading partners. 
Those who last year invoked the Great Depression in describing recent 
economic conditions have been, after all, often favoring policies that 
would increase government intervention in the economy. Yet some of 
those countries where those sorts of policies are applied are not doing 
as well as we are.
  Economic growth in Europe is generally slower than that of the United 
States. The unemployment rate in Europe is much higher than in the U.S. 
In January of 2005, Europe had an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent, 
substantially higher than our U.S. level of 5.4 percent.
  The fact is, by following on a path of high growth and low taxes, we 
are moving the economy in the right direction, and ultimately, if we 
are prepared to put in place fiscal policies that restrain the deficit, 
that will allow us to grow the economy in the right direction.
  I have heard a couple of extraordinary claims on the floor of the 
House that we are facing a record debt. I suppose that is true if we 
look at this in a purely static, green eyeshade perspective, but what 
really matters with the national debt, as I said before, is its size 
relative to the economy. The fact remains the national debt today is 
significantly lower, relative to the economy, than it was in the early 
1990s when their party controlled Congress and controlled the reins of 
spending.
  We have heard about record deficits, but here again we propose in our 
budget resolution to cut the deficits in half relative to the size of 
the economy. That will send the right message to global markets.
  We have heard a little bit tonight about the trade deficit, and I 
must say that is something where I have some sympathy with the critics. 
Our trade deficit is much too high, but those who are making these 
claims tonight perhaps should be questioning whether they supported the 
Clinton-era trade policies that this administration inherited and put 
us firmly on the path to large trade deficits.

[[Page 4915]]

  We have also heard from the other side that they are concerned that 
there is not enough room in this budget to deal with the problem of the 
AMT. As cochairman of the Zero AMT Caucus, I have to be sympathetic 
with their raising the issue, but the fact remains eliminating the AMT 
is only going to be possible as part of fundamental tax reform. This 
budget put lays in place, creates the groundwork for us to go forward 
later this year and take a look at fundamental tax reform.
  We also, notwithstanding this budget, have every opportunity to move 
forward later this year and consider the issue of Social Security 
solvency. I believe that the President is right to raise this issue. 
Anyone who has studied this issue carefully has to concede that for the 
long-term health of the Social Security system we have a choice of 
either going forward with a laissez-faire approach that has long been 
advocated on the other side and ultimately have to see truly draconian 
cuts as a result, or if we act now we can put in place reforms that 
will allow us to preserve existing benefits, also provide a solid 
retirement for the next generation and do so by improving the rate of 
return within the Social Security system. Nothing in this budget 
resolution is inconsistent with that initiative.
  I am very, very pleased to address the concerns raised by the 
gentleman from New York about the supposed monolithic government in the 
Congress that has worked with a Republican administration to do some 
things that the gentleman finds distasteful. The fact is our economic 
policies and our economic challenges today are at least partially the 
result of the gridlock that existed before the last election in which 
the Senate was at least not able to move forward on key issues like a 
stimulus bill, like an energy bill, like tort reform, that directly 
speak to our economic health because of the gridlock implicit in the 
rules that gave the minority a veto over many of these provisions. 
Monolithic government is not the issue. The issue here is whether we 
can move forward and get to a balanced budget ultimately. Our 
resolution clearly is the one strongest able to do that.
  We continue to grow the economy without raising taxes, which clearly 
is the agenda on the other side, raising taxes that would slam the 
brakes on economic growth.
  At the same time, it is obvious from the laundry list we have heard 
tonight if the other side were in the majority we would be 
contemplating a saturnalia of new spending. I can think of a lot of 
things that I would love to spend money on in the Federal budget, but 
the fact remains we need to set tough priorities if we are going to get 
back to a balanced budget. Our spending resolution does just that.
  What we provide is low taxes, controlling Federal spending and 
ultimately the prospect of falling deficits and low debt and ultimately 
the right economic direction for this country, a true blueprint for 
economic growth, expansion and opportunity.
  With that, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Republican 
budget resolution. Regardless of any concern about any particular 
program, we need to move forward with the broad outline of spending 
that this resolution fairly lays out and put it in place so that we are 
able to get to a balanced budget over time as we reassure capital 
markets that we are truly committed to controlling spending without 
raising taxes.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, as a member of both the Congressional Black 
Caucus and the Energy and Commerce Committee, I rise in support of both 
the Democrat alternative and of the Congressional Black Caucus 
alternative to H. Con. Res. 95, the First Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget. The CBC alternative offers to the American people and to this 
Congress a rational budget that is fiscally sound and morally 
responsible. The CBC alternative budget invests federal resources in 
the programs that benefit the constituencies of all of the Members of 
this House: education, health care, economic opportunity, retirement 
security and homeland security. And the CBC alternative budget makes 
these investments while reducing the federal deficit--which has 
spiraled out of control and out of sight over the last four years--by 
an additional $4.0 billion.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative focuses on closing 
the disparities that exist in America's communities and invests in the 
future of this Nation by fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act at 
Fiscal Year 2006 authorization levels, expanding the Head Start 
Programs, doubling the funding for Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and Hispanic serving institutions and increasing the size 
of the Pell grant allotment for college students.
  The CBC alternative restores much-needed federal dollars to the 
Minority Health Initiative and for Community Health Centers that 
provide critical health services to urban-based congressional districts 
like mine and rural-based congressional districts as well. The CBC 
alternative also increases funding for law enforcement initiatives such 
as juvenile justice programs and prisoner reentry programs that are so 
critical to facilitating successful reentry into society by ex-
offenders.
  The Congressional Black Caucus Substitute invests in education and 
funding for the minority health initiative. The Congressional Black 
Caucus Substitute invests in our nation's veterans by restoring the 
cuts the President's budget proposed in veterans' health care and 
providing enhanced survivor benefits, medical and prosthetic research, 
long term care and mental health care.
  To meet the needs of America and its citizens, the CBC changes some 
of the components of the President's tax program, and directs those 
revenues to making our troops safe in the battlefield and our citizens 
safe here at home. Mr. Chairman, the CBC's budget is America's hope for 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the CBC 
alternative budget.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The text of H. Con. Res. 95 is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 95

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), 

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2006.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2005 and 
     2007 through 2010 are set forth.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2010:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,483,971,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,589,905,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,693,266,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,824,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,928,663,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,043,903,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $53,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $16,622,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $24,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $4,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $8,570,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $9,063,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,070,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,135,290,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,199,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,314,562,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,430,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,257,892,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,052,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,154,404,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,206,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,298,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,402,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,507,365,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $568,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $564,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $513,034,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $474,087,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $474,056,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $463,462,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,685,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,071,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,389,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,649,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,891,000,000,000.

[[Page 4916]]

       Fiscal year 2010: $6,105,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $7,958,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,635,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $9,264,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,862,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,464,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $11,060,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2005 through 2010 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $500,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $497,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $441,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $475,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $465,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $483,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $503,763,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $513,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $505,908,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,085,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,718,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,397,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,928,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,643,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,413,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,735,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,922,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,851,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,162,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,565,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,564,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,147,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,212,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,056,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,527,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $31,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,513,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,883,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,046,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,952,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,402,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,706,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,663,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,254,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,507,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,190,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,999,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,334,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,281,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,796,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,417,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,687,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,804,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,302,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,562,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,074,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,929,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,040,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,565,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,393,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,393,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,130,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,421,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,501,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,167,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,911,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,254,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,356,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,756,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,461,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,196,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,413,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,283,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,421,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,441,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,140,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,001,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,981,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,360,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,980,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,864,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,194,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,363,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,181,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,469,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $262,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $274,801,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $317,113,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $313,625,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $336,523,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $335,574,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $292,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $331,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $330,944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $371,875,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $372,167,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,312,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $395,364,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $420,234,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $419,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $448,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $448,442,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $339,057,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $347,754,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:

[[Page 4917]]

       (A) New budget authority, $347,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $354,055,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $352,416,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $359,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $365,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $370,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $374,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $378,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $383,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $386,978,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,849,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,891,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,891,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,704,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,743,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,029,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,448,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,873,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,881,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,321,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,448,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,961,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,672,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,059,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,787,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,501,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,390,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,463,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,031,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,860,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,803,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,748,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,999,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,570,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,555,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,408,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,216,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,479,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $310,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $359,797,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $359,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $397,194,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $397,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $426,162,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,162,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $453,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $453,172,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,368,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,845,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$9,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,363,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$9,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,636,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,738,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$14,484,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$55,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$64,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$65,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$60,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$62,822,000,000.

            TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions to Slow the Growth in Mandatory Spending 
     and to Achieve Deficit Reduction.--(1) Not later than 
     September 16, 2005, the House committees named in paragraph 
     (2) shall submit their recommendations to the House Committee 
     on the Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the 
     House Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $797,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $5,278,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
     level of direct spending for that committee by $2,097,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 2006 and $21,410,000,000 in 
     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $630,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $20,002,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (D) Committee on financial services.--The House Committee 
     on Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $30,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $270,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (E) Committee on the judiciary.--The House Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $123,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $603,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (F) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on 
     Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $96,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $1,413,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (G) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $12,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2006 and $103,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (H) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $155,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $798,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (I) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $3,907,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and $18,680,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (b) Submission Providing for Changes in Revenue.--The House 
     Committee on Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation 
     bill not later than June 24, 2005, that consists of changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues 
     by not more than $16,623,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and by 
     not more than $45,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2010.
       (c)(1) Upon the submission to the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House of a recommendation that has complied with its 
     reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of section 
     310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chairman 
     of that committee may file with the House appropriately 
     revised allocations under section 302(a) of such

[[Page 4918]]

     Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report 
     recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a 
     committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions 
     solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the House 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of 
     such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
     aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

                    TITLE III--CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

     SEC. 301. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--If the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House reports legislation, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides new budget authority for the 
     budget accounts or portions thereof in the highway and 
     transit categories as defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and 
     (C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985 in excess of the following amounts:
       (1) for fiscal year 2005: $42,806,000,000,
       (2) for fiscal year 2006: $45,899,100,000,
       (3) for fiscal year 2007: $47,828,700,000,
       (4) for fiscal year 2008: $49,715,400,000, or
       (5) for fiscal year 2009: $51,743,500,000,

     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of 
     new budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2005 
     and for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to the 
     extent such excess is offset by a reduction in mandatory 
     outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or an increase in 
     receipts appropriated to such fund for the applicable fiscal 
     year caused by such legislation or any previously enacted 
     legislation.
       (b) Adjustment for Outlays.--For fiscal year 2006, in the 
     House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that changes obligation limitations such that 
     the total limitations are in excess of $42,792,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006 for programs, projects, and activities 
     within the highway and transit categories as defined in 
     sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and if legislation has 
     been enacted that satisfies the conditions set forth in 
     subsection (a) for such fiscal year, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may increase the allocation of 
     outlays and appropriate aggregates for such fiscal year for 
     the committee reporting such measure by the amount of outlays 
     that corresponds to such excess obligation limitations, but 
     not to exceed the amount of such excess that was offset 
     pursuant to subsection (a).

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

       (a) Exemption of Overseas Contingency Operations.--(1) In 
     the House, if any bill or joint resolution is reported, or an 
     amendment is offered thereto or a conference report is filed 
     thereon, that makes supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2005 or fiscal year 2006 for contingency operations 
     related to the global war on terrorism, then the new budget 
     authority, new entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts 
     resulting therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 
     302, 303, 311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 for the provisions of such measure that are designated 
     pursuant to this subsection as making appropriations for such 
     contingency operations.
       (2) Amounts included in this resolution for the purpose set 
     forth in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be current law 
     for purposes of the preparation of the current level of 
     budget authority and outlays and the appropriate levels shall 
     be adjusted upon the enactment of such bill.
       (b) Exemption of Emergency Provisions.--In the House, if a 
     bill or joint resolution is reported, or an amendment is 
     offered thereto or a conference report is filed thereon, that 
     designates a provision as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to this section, then the new budget authority, new 
     entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting 
     therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 
     311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (c) Designations.--
       (1) Guidance.--In the House, if a provision of legislation 
     is designated as an emergency requirement under subsection 
     (b), the committee report and any statement of managers 
     accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of 
     the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in 
     paragraph (2). If such legislation is to be considered by the 
     House without being reported, then the committee shall cause 
     the explanation to be published in the Congressional Record 
     in advance of floor consideration.
       (2) Criteria.--
       (A) In general.--Any such provision is an emergency 
     requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to 
     life, property, or national security and is--
       (i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up 
     over time;
       (ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;
       (iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, 
     unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
       (iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       (B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate 
     level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally 
     estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.

     SEC. 402. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

       (a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section 
     302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 
     13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for 
     the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social 
     Security Administration.
       (b) Special Rule.--In the House, for purposes of applying 
     section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     estimates of the level of total new budget authority and 
     total outlays provided by a measure shall include any 
     discretionary amounts provided for the Social Security 
     Administration.

     SEC. 403. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the 
     appropriate Committee on the Budget; and
       (2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments 
     to such levels to carry out this resolution.

     SEC. 404. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported 
     in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation 
     or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an 
     amendment thereto.
       (2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
     Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless 
     specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given 
     by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
       (b) Limitation.--In the House, an advance appropriation may 
     be provided for fiscal year 2007 or 2008 for programs, 
     projects, activities or accounts identified in the joint 
     explanatory statement of managers accompanying this 
     resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for 
     Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed 
     $23,568,000,000 in new budget authority.
       (c) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority 
     in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations 
     or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2006 that first 
     becomes available for any fiscal year after 2006.

     SEC. 405. SPECIAL RULE IN THE HOUSE FOR CERTAIN SECTION 
                   302(B) SUBALLOCATIONS.

       In the House, the Committee on Appropriations may make a 
     separate suballocation for general appropriations for the 
     legislative branch for the first fiscal year of this 
     resolution. Such suballocation shall be deemed to be made 
     under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     and shall be treated as such a suballocation for all purposes 
     under section 302 of such Act.

     SEC. 406. SPECIAL PROCEDURES TO ACHIEVE SAVINGS IN MANDATORY 
                   SPENDING THROUGH FY2014.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the share of the budget consumed by mandatory spending 
     have been growing since the mid-1970s, and now is about 54 
     percent;
       (2) this portion of the budget is continuing to grow, 
     crowding out other priorities and threatening overall budget 
     control;
       (3) mandatory spending is intrinsically difficult to 
     control;
       (4) these programs are subject to a variety of factors 
     outside the control of Congress, such as demographics, 
     economic conditions, and medical prices;
       (5) Congress should make an effort at least every other 
     year, to review mandatory spending; and
       (6) the reconciliation process set forth in the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is a viable tool to reduce 
     the rate of growth in mandatory spending.

[[Page 4919]]

       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that concurrent resolutions on the budget for fiscal years 
     2007 through 2010 should include reconciliation instructions 
     to committees, every other year, pursuant to section 310(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve 
     significant savings in mandatory spending.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule and the order of the House, no 
amendment to the concurrent resolution is in order except the 
amendments printed in House Report 109-19. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, except for amendment 
No. 2, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, 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.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 2 printed in House report 109-19.


Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Hensarling:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2006.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2005 and 2007 through 2010 are hereby set forth.
       (b) Table of contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

            TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Submission of report on savings to be used for members of the 
              Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

           TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

Sec. 301. Rainy Day Fund for nonmilitary emergencies.
Sec. 302. Contingency procedure for surface transportation.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Point of Order Protection.
Sec. 402. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 403. Automatic votes on expensive legislation.
Sec. 404. Turn off the Gephardt Rule.
Sec. 405. Restriction on the use of emergency spending.
Sec. 406. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act 
              of 1990.
Sec. 407. Action pursuant to section 302(b)(1) of the Congressional 
              Budget Act of 1974.
Sec. 408. Changes in allocations and aggregates resulting from 
              realistic scoring of measures affecting revenues.
Sec. 409. Prohibition in using revenue increases to comply with budget 
              allocation and aggregates.
Sec. 410. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 411. Entitlement safeguard.
Sec. 412. Budget Protection Mandatory Account.
Sec. 413. Budget Protection Discretionary Account.

                      TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

Sec. 501. Sense of the House on spending accountability.
Sec. 502. Sense of the House on entitlement reform.
Sec. 503. Sense of the House regarding the abolishment of obsolete 
              agencies and Federal sunset proposals.
Sec. 504. Sense of the House regarding the goals of this concurrent 
              resolution and the elimination of certain programs.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2010:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,483,971,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,589,905,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,693,266,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,824,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,928,663,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,043,903,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $53,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $16,622,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $24,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $4,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $8,570,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $9,063,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,070,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,125,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,185,198,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,291,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,404,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,497,636,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,052,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,143,613,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,192,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,275,421,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,377,265,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,476,988,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $568,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $553,708,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $499,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $451,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $448,602,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $433,085,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,685,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,060,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,374,742,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,626,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,865,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $6,074,877,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $7,958,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,623,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $9,249,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,839,054,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,438,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $11,029,815,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2005 through 2010 for each major functional category are as 
     follows:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $500,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $497,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $441,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $475,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $465,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $483,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $503,763,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $513,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $505,908,000,000.
       (2) Homeland Security (100):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,896,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,186,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,673,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,029,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,081,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,244,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,910,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,404,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,703,000,000.
       (3) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.

[[Page 4920]]

       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (4) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (5) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (6) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (7) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (8) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (9) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (10) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (11) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.

[[Page 4921]]

       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (12) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (13) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (14) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (15) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (17) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (18) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (19) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $276,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $310,247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $358,951,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $358,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $395,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $423,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $423,169,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $448,789,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $448,789,000,000.
       (20) Allowances (920):

[[Page 4922]]

       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,325,002,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,315,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,399,360,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,384,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,394,577,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,407,005,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,477,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,444,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,505,999,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,493,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,566,983,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,553,407,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$55,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$64,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$65,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$60,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$62,822,000,000.

            TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste, 
     Fraud, and Abuse in Mandatory Programs.--(1) Not later than 
     July 15, 2005, the House committees named in paragraph (2) 
     shall submit their recommendations to the House Committee on 
     the Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $893,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $5,959,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
     level of direct spending for that committee by $2,128,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 2006 and $21,803,000,000 in 
     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $1,419,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $30,725,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (D) Committee on financial services.--The House Committee 
     on Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $30,000,000 in new budget 
     authority for fiscal year 2006 and $270,000,000 in new budget 
     authority for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (E) Committee on government reform.--The House Committee on 
     Government Reform shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $268,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $3,164,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (F) Committee on house administration.--The House Committee 
     on House Administration shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $57,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $2,673,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (G) Committee on international relations.--The House 
     Committee on International Relations shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level 
     of direct spending for that committee by $45,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 2006 and $504,000,000 in outlays for 
     the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (H) Committee on the judiciary.--The House Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $144,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $826,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (I) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on 
     Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $114,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $1,598,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (J) Committee on science.--The House Committee on Science 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that 
     committee by $303,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2006 and 
     $3,864,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2010.
       (K) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $65,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2006 and $690,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (L) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $155,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $798,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (M) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $6,534,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $52,391,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (N) Special rule.--The chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may take into account legislation enacted after the 
     adoption of this resolution that is determined to reduce the 
     deficit and may make applicable adjustments in reconciliation 
     instructions, allocations, and budget aggregates and may also 
     make adjustments in reconciliation instructions to protect 
     earned benefit programs.
       (b) Submission Providing for Changes in Revenue.--The House 
     Committee on Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation 
     bill not later than June 24, 2005, that consists of changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues 
     by not more than $17,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and by 
     not more than $105,900,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2010.
       (c)(1) Upon the submission to the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House of a recommendation that has complied with its 
     reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of section 
     310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chairman 
     of that committee may file with the House appropriately 
     revised allocations under section 302(a) of such Act and 
     revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report 
     recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a 
     committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions 
     solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the House 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of 
     such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
     aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

     SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON DEFENSE SAVINGS.

       In the House, not later than May 15, 2005, the Committee on 
     Armed Services shall submit to the Committee on the Budget 
     its findings that identify $2,000,000,000 in savings from (1) 
     activities that are determined to be of a low priority to the 
     successful execution of current military operations; or (2) 
     activities that are determined to be wasteful or unnecessary 
     to national defense. Funds identified should be reallocated 
     to programs and activities that directly contribute to 
     enhancing the combat capabilities of the U.S. military forces 
     with an emphasis on force protection, munitions, and 
     surveillance capabilities. For purposes of this subsection, 
     the report by the Committee on Armed Services shall be 
     inserted in the Congressional Record by the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget not later than May 21, 2005.

           TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

     SEC. 301. RAINY DAY FUND FOR NON-MILITARY EMERGENCIES.

       In the House of Representatives and the Senate, if the 
     Committee on Appropriations reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted, that provides new 
     budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) for 
     nonmilitary emergencies, then the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget of that House shall make the appropriate 
     revisions to the allocations and other levels in this 
     resolution by the amount provided by that measure for that 
     purpose, but the total adjustment for all measures considered 
     under this section shall not exceed $20,000,000,000 in new 
     budget authority for fiscal year 2006 and outlays flowing 
     therefrom.

     SEC. 302. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--If the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House reports legislation, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides new budget authority for the 
     budget accounts or

[[Page 4923]]

     portions thereof in the highway and transit categories as 
     defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in excess of 
     the following amounts:
       (1) for fiscal year 2005: $42,806,000,000,
       (2) for fiscal year 2006: $45,899,100,000,
       (3) for fiscal year 2007: $47,828,700,000,
       (4) for fiscal year 2008: $49,715,400,000, or
       (5) for fiscal year 2009: $51,743,500,000,

     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of 
     new budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2005 
     and for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to the 
     extent such excess is offset by a reduction in mandatory 
     outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or an increase in 
     receipts appropriated to such fund for the applicable fiscal 
     year caused by such legislation or any previously enacted 
     legislation.
       (b) Adjustment for Outlays.--For fiscal year 2006, in the 
     House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that changes obligation limitations such that 
     the total limitations are in excess of $42,792,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006 for programs, projects, and activities 
     within the highway and transit categories as defined in 
     sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and if legislation has 
     been enacted that satisfies the conditions set forth in 
     subsection (a) for such fiscal year, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may increase the allocation of 
     outlays and appropriate aggregates for such fiscal year for 
     the committee reporting such measure by the amount of outlays 
     that corresponds to such excess obligation limitations, but 
     not to exceed the amount of such excess that was offset 
     pursuant to subsection (a).

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. POINT OF ORDER PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--(1) A report by the Committee on Rules on 
     a rule or order that would waive section 302(f) or 303(a) 
     (other than paragraph (2)) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 may not be called up for consideration (over the 
     objection of any Member) except when so determined by a vote 
     of a majority of the Members duly chosen and sworn, a quorum 
     being present.
       (2) A question of consideration under this paragraph shall 
     be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided by a proponent 
     and opponent of the question but shall otherwise be decided 
     without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.
       (3) This paragraph does not apply to any rule providing for 
     consideration of any legislation the title of which is as 
     follows: ``A bill to preserve Social Security.''
       (b) Waiver Prohibition.--The Committee on Rules may not 
     report a rule or order proposing a waiver of subsection (a).

     SEC. 402. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported 
     in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation 
     or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an 
     amendment thereto.
       (2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
     Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless 
     specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given 
     by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
       (b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may 
     be provided for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal years 2008 for 
     programs, projects, activities or accounts identified in the 
     joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying this 
     resolution under the heading `Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations' in an aggregate amount not to exceed 
     $23,568,000,000 in new budget authority.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority 
     in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations 
     or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2006 that first 
     becomes available for any fiscal year after 2006.

     SEC. 403. AUTOMATIC VOTES ON EXPENSIVE LEGISLATION.

       In the House, the yeas and nays shall be considered as 
     ordered when the Speaker puts the question on passage of a 
     bill or joint resolution, or on adoption of conference 
     report, which authorizes or provides new budget authority of 
     not less $50,000,000. The Speaker may not entertain a 
     unanimous consent request or motion to suspend this section.

     SEC. 404. TURN OFF THE GEPHARDT RULE.

       Rule XXVII shall not apply with respect to the adoption by 
     the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 405. EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       (a) Exemption of Overseas Contingency Operations.--In the 
     House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or an 
     amendment is offered thereto or a conference report is filed 
     thereon, that makes supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2006 for contingency operations related to the global 
     war on terrorism, then the new budget authority, new 
     entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting 
     therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 
     and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for the 
     provisions of such measure that are designated pursuant to 
     this subsection as making appropriations for such contingency 
     operations.
       (b) Exemption of Emergency Provisions.--In the House, if a 
     bill or joint resolution is reported, or an amendment is 
     offered thereto or a conference report is filed thereon, that 
     designates a provision as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to this section, then the new budget authority, new 
     entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting 
     therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 
     311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (c) Designations.--
       (1) Guidance.--In the House, if a provision of legislation 
     is designated as an emergency requirement under subsection 
     (b), the committee report and any statement of managers 
     accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of 
     the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in 
     paragraph (2). If such legislation is to be considered by the 
     House without being reported, then the committee shall cause 
     the explanation to be published in the Congressional Record 
     in advance of floor consideration.
       (2) Criteria.--
       (A) In general.--Any such provision is an emergency 
     requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to 
     life, property, or national security and is--
       (i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up 
     over time;
       (ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;
       (iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, 
     unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
       (iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       (B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate 
     level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally 
     estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
       (d) Enforcement.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment or conference report that contains an emergency 
     designation unless that designation meets the criteria set 
     out in subsection (c)(2).
       (e) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall 
     not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a 
     rule or order that waives the application of subsection (d).
       (f) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As 
     disposition of a point of order under subsection (d) or 
     subsection (e), the Chair shall put the question of 
     consideration with respect to the proposition that is the 
     subject of the point of order. A question of consideration 
     under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the 
     Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
     opponent of the point of order, but shall otherwise be 
     decided without intervening motion except one that the House 
     adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole rise, as the case 
     may be.

     SEC. 406. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

       (a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section 
     302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 
     13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for 
     the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social 
     Security Administration.
       (b) Special Rule.--In the House, for purposes of applying 
     section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     estimates of the level of total new budget authority and 
     total outlays provided by a measure shall include any 
     discretionary amounts provided for the Social Security 
     Administration.

     SEC. 407. ACTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(B)(1) OF THE 
                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

       (a) Compliance.--When complying with Section 302(b)(1) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House shall consult with the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the other House to ensure that the 
     allocation of budget outlays and new budget authority among 
     each Committee's subcommittees are identical.
       (b) Report.--The Committee on Appropriations of each House 
     shall report to its House when it determines that the report 
     made by the Committee pursuant to Section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the report made by the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the other House pursuant to 
     the same provision contain identical allocations of budget 
     outlays and new budget authority among each Committee's 
     subcommittees.
       (c) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report providing 
     new discretionary budget authority for Fiscal Year 2006 
     allocated to the Committee on Appropriations unless and until 
     the Committee on Appropriations of that House has made the 
     report required under paragraph (b) of this Section.

     SEC. 408. CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES RESULTING 
                   FROM REALISTIC SCORING OF MEASURES AFFECTING 
                   REVENUES.

       (a) Whenever the House considers a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion or conference report, including measures 
     filed in

[[Page 4924]]

     compliance with section 201(b) or 201(c), that propose to 
     change federal revenues, the impact of such measure on 
     federal revenues shall be calculated by the Joint Committee 
     on Taxation in a manner that takes into account--
       (1) the impact of the proposed revenue changes on--
       (A) Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for 
     the Gross Domestic Product;
       (B) total domestic employment;
       (C) gross private domestic investment;
       (D) general price index;
       (E) interest rates; and
       (F) other economic variables;
       (2) the impact on Federal Revenue of the changes in 
     economic variables analyzed under subpart (1) of this 
     paragraph.
       (b) the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make 
     any necessary changes to allocations and aggregates in order 
     to conform this concurrent resolution with the determinations 
     made by the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to paragraph 
     (a) of this Section.

     SEC. 409. PROHIBITION ON USING REVENUE INCREASES TO COMPLY 
                   WITH BUDGET ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) For the purpose of enforcing this concurrent resolution 
     in the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall not take into account the provisions of any piece of 
     legislation which propose to increase revenue or offsetting 
     collections if the net effect of the bill is to increase the 
     level of revenue or offsetting collections beyond the level 
     assumed in this concurrent resolution.
       (b) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to any 
     provision of a piece of legislation that proposes a new or 
     increased fee for the receipt of a defined benefit or service 
     (including insurance coverage) by the person or entity paying 
     the fee.

     SEC. 410. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the 
     appropriate Committee on the Budget; and
       (2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments 
     to such levels to carry out this resolution.

     SEC. 411. ENTITLEMENT SAFEGUARD.

       (a) It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives to consider an direct spending legislation 
     that would increase an on-budget deficit or decrease an on-
     budget surplus as provided by paragraph (e) for any 
     applicable time period.
       (b) For purposes of this clause, the term ``applicable time 
     period'' means any of the following periods:
       (1) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the 
     most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (2) The period of the 5 fiscal years following first 5 
     years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget.
       (c) For purposes of this section and except as provided in 
     paragraph (d), the term ``direct-spending legislation'' means 
     any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report 
     that affects direct spending as that term is defined by, and 
     interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (d) For purposes of this section, the term ``direct-
     spending legislation'' does not include--
       (1) any legislation the title of which is as follows: ``A 
     bill to preserve Social Security.''; or
       (2) any legislation that would cause a net increase in 
     aggregate direct spending of less than $100,000,000 for any 
     applicable time period.
       (e) If direct spending legislation increases the on-budget 
     deficit or decreases an on-budget surpluses when taken 
     individually, it must also increase the on-budget deficit or 
     decrease the on-budget surplus when taken together with all 
     direct spending legislation enacted since the beginning of 
     the calendar year not accounted for in the baseline assumed 
     for the most recent concurrent resolution on the budget, 
     except that direct spending effects resulting in net deficit 
     reduction enacted pursuant to reconciliation instructions 
     since the beginning of that same calendar year shall not be 
     available.
       (f) This section may be waived by the affirmative vote of 
     three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (g) For purposes of this section, the levels of budget 
     authority and outlays for a fiscal year shall be determined 
     on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the 
     Budget.
       (h) The Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order 
     proposing a waiver of paragraph (a).

     SEC. 412. BUDGET PROTECTION MANDATORY ACCOUNT.

       (a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection 
     Mandatory Account''. The Account shall be divided into 
     entries corresponding to the allocations under section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in the most recently 
     adopted concurrent resolution on the budget, except that it 
     shall not include the Committee on Appropriations.
       (2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it 
     under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be 
     made.
       (b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint 
     resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint 
     resolution (other than an appropriation bill), the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget shall--
       (A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection 
     Mandatory Account by the amounts specified in subparagraph 
     (2); and
       (B) reduce the applicable 302(a) allocations by the amount 
     specified in subparagraph (2).
       (2) Each amount specified in subparagraph (A) shall be the 
     net reduction in mandatory budget authority (either under 
     current law or proposed by the bill or joint resolution under 
     consideration) provided by each amendment that was adopted in 
     the House to the bill or joint resolution.
       (c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in 
     subparagraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall, upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint 
     resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint 
     resolution, other than an appropriation bill, reduce the 
     level of total revenues set forth in the applicable 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year or 
     for the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing 
     fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction in 
     mandatory authority (either under current law or proposed by 
     a bill or joint resolution under consideration) provided by 
     each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint 
     resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the 
     adjustments described in subsection (b).
       (2)(A) The provision specified in subparagraph (1) is as 
     follows: ``The amount of mandatory budget authority reduced 
     by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in 
     revenues.''
       (B) All points of order are waived against an amendment 
     including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the 
     amendment is otherwise in order.
       (d) As used in this rule, the term--
       (1) ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations 
     through the end of fiscal year 2006 or any subsequent fiscal 
     year, as the case may be.
       (2) ``mandatory budget authority'' means any entitlement 
     authority as defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (e) During the consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all 
     Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and 
     decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 413. BUDGET DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS.

       (a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection 
     Discretionary Account'';. The Account shall be divided into 
     entries corresponding to the allocation to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the committee's suballocations, under 
     section 302(a) and 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
       (2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it 
     under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be 
     made.
       (b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall--
       (A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection 
     Discretionary Account by the amounts specified in 
     subparagraph (2).
       (B) reduce the applicable 302(a) and (b) allocations by the 
     amount specified in subparagraph (2).
       (2) Each amount specified in subparagraph (A) shall be the 
     net reduction in discretionary budget authority provided by 
     each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint 
     resolution.
       (c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in 
     subparagraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall, upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill, 
     reduce the level of total revenues set forth in the 
     applicable concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 
     year or for the total of that first fiscal year and the 
     ensuing fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction 
     in discretionary budget authority

[[Page 4925]]

     provided by each amendment that was adopted by the House to 
     the bill or joint resolution. Such adjustment shall be in 
     addition to the adjustments described in subsection (b).
       (2)(A) The provision specified in subparagraph (1) is as 
     follows: ``The amount of discretionary budget authority 
     reduced by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in 
     revenues.''
       (B) All points of order are waived against an amendment 
     including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the 
     amendment is otherwise in order.
       (d) As used in this rule, the term ``appropriation bill'' 
     means any general or special appropriation bill, and any bill 
     or joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency, or 
     continuing appropriations through the end of fiscal year 2006 
     or any subsequent fiscal year, as the case may be.
       (e) During the consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all 
     Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and 
     decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint 
     resolution.

                      TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

     SEC. 501. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) authorizing committees should actively engage in 
     oversight utilizing--
       (A) the plans and goals submitted by executive agencies 
     pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 
     1993; and
       (B) the performance evaluations submitted by such agencies 
     (that are based upon the Program Assessment Rating Tool which 
     is designed to improve agency performance);in order to enact 
     legislation to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse to ensure 
     the efficient use of taxpayer dollars;
       (2) all Federal programs should be periodically 
     reauthorized and funding for unauthorized programs should be 
     level-funded in fiscal year 2006 unless there is a compelling 
     justification;
       (3) committees should submit written justifications for 
     earmarks and should consider not funding those most 
     egregiously inconsistent with national policy;
       (4) the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution should be 
     vigorously enforced and legislation should be enacted 
     establishing statutory limits on appropriations and a PAY-AS-
     YOU-GO rule for new and expanded entitlement programs; and
       (5) Congress should make every effort to offset nonwar-
     related supplemental appropriations.

     SEC. 502. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ENTITLEMENT REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that welfare was 
     successfully reformed through the application of work 
     requirements, education and training opportunity, and time 
     limits on eligibility.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     authorizing committees should--
       (1) systematically review all means-tested entitlement 
     programs and track beneficiary participation across programs 
     and time;
       (2) enact legislation to develop common eligibility 
     requirements for means-tested entitlement programs;
       (3) enact legislation to accurately rename means-tested 
     entitlement programs;
       (4) enact legislation to coordinate program benefits in 
     order to limit to a reasonable period of time the Government 
     dependency of means-tested entitlement program participants;
       (5) evaluate the costs of, and justifications for, 
     nonmeans-tested, nonretirement-related entitlement programs; 
     and
       (6) identify and utilize resources that have conducted 
     cost-benefit analyses of participants in multiple means- and 
     nonmeans-tested entitlement programs to understand their 
     cumulative costs and collective benefits.

     SEC. 503. SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING THE ABOLISHMENT OF 
                   OBSOLETE AGENCIES AND FEDERAL SUNSET PROPOSALS.

       (a) The House finds the following:
       (1) The National Commission on the Public Service's recent 
     report, ``Urgent Business For America: Revitalizing The 
     Federal Government For The 21st Century,'' states that 
     government missions are so widely dispersed among so many 
     agencies that no coherent management is possible. The report 
     also states that fragmentation leaves many gaps, 
     inconsistencies, and inefficiencies in government oversight 
     and results in an unacceptable level of public health 
     protection.
       (2) According to the Commission, there are: more than 35 
     food safety laws administered by 12 different federal 
     agencies; 541 clean air, water, and waste programs in 29 
     federal agencies; 50 different programs to aid the homeless 
     in eight different Federal agencies; and 27 teen pregnancy 
     programs operated in nine Federal agencies; and 90 early 
     childhood programs scattered among 11 Federal agencies.
       (3) According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), there 
     are 163 programs with a job training or employment function, 
     64 welfare programs of a similar nature, and more than 500 
     urban aid programs.
       (4) GAO also indicates 13 agencies coordinate 342 economic 
     development programs, but there is very little or no 
     coordination between them. This situation has created a 
     bureaucracy so complex that many local communities stop 
     applying for economic assistance. At the same time, the GAO 
     reports that these programs often serve as nothing more than 
     funnels for pork, have ``no significant effect'' on the 
     economy, and cost as much as $_____ to create each job.
       (5) In 1976, Colorado became the first state to implement a 
     sunset mechanism. Today, about half of the Nation's States 
     have some sort of sunset mechanism in effect to monitor their 
     legislative branch agencies. On the Federal level, the United 
     States Senate in 1978 overwhelmingly passed legislation to 
     sunset most of the Government agencies by a vote of 87-1.
       (6) In Texas, ``sunsetting'' has eliminated 44 agencies and 
     saved the taxpayers $_____ million compared with expenditures 
     of $ million for the Sunset Commission. Based on these 
     estimates, for every dollar spent on the Sunset process, the 
     State has received about $ in return.
       (b) It is the Sense of the House that legislation providing 
     for the orderly abolishment of obsolete Agencies and 
     providing a federal sunset for government programs should be 
     enacted during this Congress.

     SEC. 504. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE GOALS OF THIS 
                   CONCURRENT RESOLUTION AND THE ELIMINATION OF 
                   CERTAIN PROGRAMS.

       (a) The House of Representatives finds the following:
       (1) The concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2006 should achieve the following key goals:
       (A) Ensure adequate funding is available for essential 
     government programs, in particular defense and homeland 
     security.
       (B) Foster greater economic growth and increased domestic 
     employment by eliminating those provisions in the tax code 
     that discourage economic growth and job creation and by 
     extending existing tax relief provisions so as to prevent an 
     automatic tax increase.
       (C) Bring the Federal budget back into balance as soon as 
     possible.
       (2) The Government spends billions of dollars each year on 
     programs and projects that are of marginal value to the 
     country as a whole.
       (3) Funding for these lower priority programs should be 
     viewed in light of the goals of this concurrent resolution 
     and whether or not continued funding of these programs 
     advances or hinders the achievement of these goals.
       (4) This concurrent resolution assumes that funding for 
     many lower priority programs will be reduced or eliminated in 
     order increase funding for defense and homeland security 
     while at the same time controlling overall spending.
       (b) It is the Sense of the House of Representatives that 
     the following programs should be eliminated:
       (1) Title X Family Planning.
       (2) Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
       (3) National Endowment for the Arts.
       (4) Legal Services Corporation.
       (5) the Advanced Technology Program.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 154, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, spending is out of control in the Nation's capital, and 
if we do not work to control this spending, we will leave our children 
and grandchildren a legacy of debt, a legacy of a lower standard of 
living, a legacy of more government, of less freedom, of less 
opportunity.
  Many people in this Chamber have risen tonight to say that we are not 
spending enough money. I think we should take a look at the facts.
  Number one, Mr. Chairman, we are now spending over $20,000 for 
American families. For the first time since World War II are we 
spending this much money. For only the fourth time in the history of 
our Nation, and if we look back just 10 years, almost every government 
agency has grown by a huge multiple overinflation.
  International affairs is up 93 percent; agriculture up 165 percent; 
transportation, 78 percent; education, 95 percent, and the list goes on 
and on and on. We have been growing government at twice the rate of 
inflation and 50 percent faster than the family budget.
  We believe that these growth rates are unsustainable and let us just 
not look at the past. Let us look at the future.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next decade 
Social Security is due to grow by 5.5 percent a year, Medicaid by 
almost 8 percent a year and Medicare by 9 percent a year. We have an 
explosion of government

[[Page 4926]]

spending, and yet many in this Chamber want to spend even more, at the 
expense of American families.
  Where is this leading us? Mr. Chairman, most recently, the Chairman 
of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan said, As a Nation we may have 
already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be 
unable to fulfill.
  According to the General Accounting Office, Social Security faces a 
serious and growing solvency and sustainability challenge that is 
growing as time passes.
  According to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
referring to Social Security, such chronic and growing obligations in 
the Social Security program are properly understood by the American 
public, including investors, as a sign that the program is out of 
balance and headed for bankruptcy.

                              {time}  2100

  According to the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds, ``We do not believe the currently projected long run growth 
rates of Social Security and Medicare are sustainable under current 
financing arrangements.'' The Comptroller General of the General 
Accountability Office said, ``How this is resolved could effect not 
only our economic security but our national security. We are headed to 
a future where we will have to either double Federal taxes or cut 
Federal spending by 50 percent.'' Let me repeat that. We are headed to 
a future where we will have to double Federal taxes or cut Federal 
spending by 50 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why it is so critical that today, not tomorrow, 
not next week, that we do something, something to begin to control 
spending in the United States Congress.
  First, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman 
Nussle) of the Committee on the Budget for bringing forth to this body 
a truly historic budget, the most fiscally responsible budget we have 
seen since the Reagan era, a budget that is serious about protecting 
the family budget from the Federal budget.
  But a combination of hope and fear has propelled me, on behalf of the 
Republican Study Committee, to offer an alternative budget. The hope 
is, as historic as the gentleman's budget is, maybe given the 
seriousness of the challenge we have, maybe we can do just a little bit 
better on spending discipline. My fear is, as great as the budget is 
that the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) has brought to this 
House, I want it to be a real budget. I want to ensure that we have the 
mechanisms in place to ensure that we enforce the spending discipline.
  How does this particular budget differ from the committee budget? 
There are a number of similarities, but let me describe a couple of 
differences. Whereas in the chairman's budget we have a discretionary 
savings of a little less than 1 percent, this budget would achieve 
savings of roughly 2 percent. It would further double the 
reconciliation savings in the Nussle budget. And finally, it includes a 
number of enforcement mechanisms to ensure that we can live with this 
budget, that the budget is something more than a suggestion, the budget 
is something more than a goal or an aspiration, that it is actually a 
limit on spending, that we draw a line in the sand and say we are going 
to take this much money away from American families and say this is it, 
we are going to live within our budgets.
  Mr. Chairman, budgets tend to be about priorities; and, indeed, this 
budget, the Republican Study Committee budget, is about priorities. We 
have a priority of saving Social Security, and we congratulate our 
President for bringing this issue to the American people. I believe 
when the American people focus on Social Security, what they will 
realize is that government has been part of the problem. They have 
raided the Social Security trust fund 59 times. Government took the 
money away from Social Security; government should give the money back.
  How does government give the money back? Government can grow at a 
slower rate than it has in the past. The second theme of this budget, 
the second priority of this budget, is we believe we have to protect 
the family budget from the Federal budget. Is there really a compelling 
reason as families have to get around their kitchen table and have to 
make tough decisions that we in Congress cannot do the same thing? We 
do not believe that the Federal budget should grow faster than the 
family budget, and this budget achieves that goal.
  Finally, we believe a budget ought to be a limit on spending. We 
ought to decide, subject to emergency spending that we understand, that 
we ought to draw a line in the sand and say this is all we care to take 
away from the American people; and when we tell the American people 
this is our budget, then this is the budget that we will live with.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
be permitted to control 10 minutes, or half of the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman 
Nussle) for 10 minutes.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will vote against this budget, and let me say why. It is because of 
my responsibility and duty to protect the base bill, the base 
resolution, the product that was worked and crafted in a very genuine 
way through the committee process, one that has the support of our 
majority, one that has the support of our leadership, one that has the 
support of our chairman, and one that I dare say has, and I believe 
has, the support of my friends who bring forth the budget resolution 
tonight.
  As I said before when the Congressional Black Caucus came forth, 
anyone who has the guts to come out here with their own budget I have 
to applaud. I may oppose it, but I have to applaud it because I know 
what it takes to put together a budget. Whether the alternative budget 
has one person who supports it or 80 Members or 218 Members to support 
it, I commend the coalition for coming forth with their budget. I said 
the same to the Congressional Black Caucus because they have done this 
in a very responsible way every year I have been in Congress and for 
many year before. I really mean that. Anyone who is willing to put the 
sweat equity into it gets my admiration.
  I reluctantly oppose this alternative because if given the 
opportunity to have a perfect world could we, should we work for more 
spending control? Yes, there is no question. For all of the haranguing 
that happens out here about the cuts, we know there are a lot more 
weeds in the garden we could pull; we know there is more reform that we 
could drive. We know we could work harder and probably find more 
spending to control.
  We have some practicalities, however. One is we have some committees 
that have to do the work of achieving those reforms. I have worked with 
each one of those committees and the committee chairmen to arrange the 
agreements which bring the base resolution here today; and I respect 
that process, and I will support that process.
  In addition, we have a President who is for really I think the first 
time since I have been in Congress willing to step up during a very 
challenging time in our Nation's history when we are at war and say 
even though it would be easy to use the war as an excuse and not worry 
about what is happening on the domestic side, the President of the 
United States has said we are going to control spending, work on the 
entitlement programs, and try to reform the programs and to meet the 
needs out there.
  The fact that the RSC comes forward with a budget that goes a little 
further, as I say, I respect that; but I do not think that we are going 
to get the support behind it that we need in order to get it done. At 
the end of the day, that is what we need. We need the budget to pass so 
we have something to enforce.

[[Page 4927]]

  I want to speak to that briefly because as congressional watchers may 
have seen or misinterpreted, the intramural discussion that went on and 
fighting that may have seemed to be happening between friends and 
colleagues, I interpret what the RSC was doing, the Republican Study 
Committee was doing with regard to enforcement to be the exact right 
attitude to have. That is if you are going to do the work of having a 
budget, then let us enforce it.
  The good news from my standpoint is last year when we were not able 
to get a budget through both bodies, the House took the version we 
passed, we deemed it, and we enforced it. We stuck to it. At the final 
analysis of the Congressional Budget Office when all of the smoke 
cleared and they finally were able to close all of the books, you know 
what we blew that budget by, a $2.4 trillion budget, and we missed it 
by $400 million.
  Now Members could say we missed it, but I would say for not having a 
budget in both the House and Senate and not having the budget being the 
force of law with the President, I would say that is a pretty good 
track record and one that I give a lot of credit to our Speaker, in 
particular, for having accomplished. I give them much credit not only 
on the work product of coming forward with a budget, but also their 
desire to enforce it. I stand ready to work shoulder to shoulder and 
side by side with them as we not only get that budget done, but enforce 
the budget the rest of the year. I commend them on their work product, 
and I reluctantly will vote against their budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
his kindness in providing time for me and also the chairman for 
providing the time he has provided to other Congressional Black Caucus 
members.
  Mr. Chairman, I am both pleased and proud today on the alternative 
budget that we, the Congressional Black Caucus, have crafted. It is a 
sensible and fiscally responsible budget that takes into consideration 
the needs of the average working American. This budget does not cater 
to the wealthy, but addresses the needs of ordinary Americans coping 
with the daily economic challenges that they face such as education, 
jobs, and housing. In short, Mr. Chairman, the CBC alternative budget 
works toward eliminating disparities in housing, small businesses, 
economic, educational, and other disparities created by the 
administration's fiscal year 2006 budget.
  First, as we all know, a sound education is a stepping stone to 
economic opportunity, success, and prosperity. The CBC alternative 
budget has a comprehensive approach to education and training by 
increasing funding for education and training programs by $23.9 billion 
over the majority budget. It provides funds for school construction, 
fully funds No Child Left Behind, and provides critical funding for 
Head Start, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness Programs, and 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. For those in 
college, the CBC budget appropriates $450 million for Pell grants. In 
addition, the CBC budget funds the Perkins loan programs, job training, 
and vocational education programs that are critical in today's global 
economy.
  Our young people, particularly African Americans, are lagging in 
education when compared to other groups. This budget aims to close the 
achievement gap here at home while making our students more competitive 
worldwide. The CBC understands that Federal support for community and 
regional development helps promote growth in economically distressed 
urban and rural areas. To remedy these economic disparities, the CBC 
budget ensures that the community development block grant programs will 
continue to improve housing conditions in low- to moderate-income 
neighborhoods.
  Our budget adds $1.5 billion to CDBG grants and improves housing 
conditions for moderate-income families. I cannot emphasize enough the 
importance of CDBG grants. They assist cities and counties with 
creating jobs, increasing economic development opportunities, and 
expanding homeownership. CDBG provides for these services in a way that 
recognizes the unique needs of distressed areas in rural, urban, and 
suburban communities. It is the signature program for cities and 
counties to stimulate local economies. I know that from experience 
because I once served as the mayor pro tempore on the city council for 
Carson, California.
  In 2004, CDBG assisted 168,938 households across America with their 
housing needs, including financial assistance, construction, 
rehabilitation, and other improvements. At least 95 percent of the 
funds support activities benefiting low- and moderate-income families.
  The alternative CBC budget also allocates funding to the Small 
Business Administration and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and 
provides additional funding for adult training and dislocated workers 
programs. By supporting these programs, the CBC is working to close the 
existing economic disparities in the United States and to help 
entrepreneurs and ordinary Americans realize the American Dream.
  The CBC alternative budget also allocates additional funding for 
enforcement initiatives such as juvenile justice and prison reentry 
programs. The CBC understands we need to protect the homeland, and our 
budget adds $2 billion to meet urgent homeland security needs that face 
our Nation. The alternative budget therefore devotes additional 
resources for guarding against terrorist attacks through our rail and 
ports, including cargo screening that prevents nuclear or radiological 
weapons from entering the United States.
  It also supports essential funding for the Centers for Disease 
Control to help us prepare for a possible biological attack. The CBC 
alternative budget ensures that cities, towns, and hamlets will receive 
the resources that are urgently needed to protect our citizens, 
resources that are absolutely needed for our cities and towns.
  We can accomplish this, all of these priorities, by reducing the tax 
cuts from 2001 and 2003 from an individual's adjusted gross income that 
exceeds $200,000 and closing tax loopholes. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support this budget.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the Budget Committee and a 
budget leader within the Republican Study Committee.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, let me just 
say that in addition to rising in support of this amendment budget, I 
also rise to support the efforts of the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman 
Nussle) that he has done to move us in the right direction with the 
budget that he has released.
  It was just a short time ago that I had the opportunity to finish 
reading a book by Chuck Colson which is entitled ``How Now Shall We 
Live''. And it is a title that is an intriguing title. It is a question 
that we really should all ask ourselves all the time. How shall we 
conduct ourselves in our private lives, in our lives with our families 
and our lives in our community, in our lives in our society, and it is 
really a question that every Member of Congress should be asking 
ourselves every day as we come down to the floor.
  Now, with families, how shall we live. Well, we ask our families to 
do a simple thing, to live within our means. Families have many ways 
that we can be spending our money, on trips, on schools, on property, 
on houses and fancy cars. But at the end of the day, a responsible 
family knows it has to spend no more than it takes in at the end of the 
year and must live within its means because if it does not what will 
the family be doing but simply passing that financial burden on to 
their children and their grandchildren.
  So Congress really has to set an example, and I guess you could say 
in a

[[Page 4928]]

way we have been setting an example for years. But we have been setting 
a terrible example for families for years, and it is about time that we 
set a good one.
  I serve on the Budget Committee, and if you ever come to those 
meetings you will see, from the other side of the aisle especially, 
their ways to live within our means is to increase the means by 
increasing the revenue by raising taxes, and they just did it last week 
again.
  I have never had anyone explain to me how we improve the economy by 
taking more money out of the family budget and sending it down here to 
Washington so that we can spend it. So raising taxes obviously is not 
the answer to living within our means. It is spending less.
  Just like families who have lots of things that we can spend money 
on, Congress has lots of things that we can spend money on and if you 
come to the budget meetings you will see. Every agency, every 
department, every program that comes before us, they all say the same 
thing basically, that they want more money to spend.
  As a matter of fact, if you sat on a budget hearing last year you saw 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who, where we put charts 
up on all the time of these various things, spending requests and what 
have you, the gentleman from Minnesota asked a question. He said, could 
you put up a chart behind us of all the agencies, all the programs, all 
the departments that have ever come before us to ask for their program, 
for their department to spend less money. And we all looked at the 
chart, and there was nothing on the chart, because no one ever asks for 
less money in Washington because we know we always spend more.
  So I am rising in support of the bill sponsored by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) because it moves us in that right direction. It 
moves us in the direction of spending within our means. And how does it 
do it? Not really hard at all. One of the things it does is it limits 
our spending on nonsecurity discretionary by reducing the spending by 2 
percent. 2 percent. Many families have to do that all the time. It is 
not a heavy lift to reduce our spending in that area. We should be able 
to do the same thing.
  The second area is by reducing the growth in mandatory spending from 
6.4 to 6.1 percent. We are still increasing spending there by almost 
twice the increase in the inflation rate, but we are just lowering the 
curve a little bit.
  So how now shall Congress live? We shall live as families have to 
live, within their means. And this bill sponsored by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) does do that.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting 
listening to my colleagues make a presentation on their budget. And I 
would ask them really the real question, this is not about what 
Congress would do. This is about the needs of the American people.
  It is interesting that if there was a serious intent about a budget 
that really was fair and did not burden the children of the future, we 
would not be adopting both the gentleman from Iowa's budget and the 
gentleman from Texas' budget, $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts over the 
next 10 years as proposed by the President and taking every single 
penny from Social Security.
  The budget that is on the floor right now does nothing to close the 
disparities between African Americans, Hispanics and others less 
fortunate than others in the United States of America.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget, fair, balanced, closing the 
deficit, protecting our troops, but it understands protecting Medicaid 
and education funds and health care funds and homeland security.
  The budget that is on the floor today now supports a trillion dollars 
plus in tax cuts and does nothing for catastrophic possibilities that 
may happen, such as a terrorist attack. This is the wrong direction to 
go. The Congressional Black Caucus closes the disparities and supports 
the investment in the American people.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake), one of the most fiscally responsible Members of 
Congress.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for 
helping put together this package and for all the work that he has done 
on behalf of the Republican Study Committee and for all of my 
colleagues there that have worked so hard on this alternative budget.
  I want to also commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for the 
budget that is presented here. It makes cuts of .7 percent in 
nondefense discretionary.
  Finally, we are actually doing what families would do when a large 
deficit looms in the future, though we need to do far more than that. 
This budget would cut 2 percent. When you look at what lies ahead, when 
you look at the unfunded liabilities that lie ahead, this is kid stuff. 
We are going to have to do much, much more in the future. If we are 
inching toward bankruptcy in Social Security, we are flat running 
toward it with Medicare. And when you look at the liabilities there, we 
added $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities with the Medicare 
prescription drug bill, for example, that we are going to have to 
somehow deal with, that our kids and grandkids are going to have to 
somehow deal with.
  We have got to get ahold of this deficit. The problem is not tax 
cuts. That is part of the solution. We need more revenue coming in. You 
do that by cutting taxes. We have seen that time and time again. The 
problem here is spending. There is a culture of spending in this 
institution that is just difficult to stop. This alternative budget 
makes some progress toward that end, but I again want to stress this is 
kid stuff compared to what we are going to have to do in the coming 
years to get a handle on this culture of spending.
  I commend my colleagues for putting this forward. I urge this House 
to support it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to an observation the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) made that this was the most fiscally responsible 
budget since the Reagan years. I was surprised, first of all, that he 
chose the Reagan years as a frame of reference. Those are the years 
that the mushroom deficits first appeared. We had deficits of $200 
billion, 5.6 percent of GDP in the early 1980s. It took us 15 years to 
get to those deficits. That would not be the kind of model that I would 
choose. If you want something to model a budget after, then there is a 
much more recent and much more valid model and that is what we did in 
1990, 1993 and 1997.
  In 1990, both sides sat down, President Bush took part in the 
negotiations through his staff and we came to the first agreement for 
the settlement of the budget deficit. The Bush balanced budget 
agreement of 1990 and 1991, laid the foundation for what we 
accomplished in the 1990s. In 1993, we did the Clinton budget. In 1997, 
we finished it up with the Balanced Budget Act. All of those acts 
contained three elements, the PAYGO rule which we are proposing to 
reinstate, caps on discretionary spending backed up by sequestration, 
and a multiyear 5-year budget, not just a 1-year budget but a 5-year 
budget with goals to attain each year. That is what is lacking here, 
the budget process, the budget discipline, the budget plan.
  If you want to see where this budget is likely to lead us, I would 
like to say once again that everybody should look in his mail and he or 
she will find an analysis of the President's budgetary proposals for 
fiscal year 2006. This is essentially the President's budget with a few 
changes to it, but it is basically his budget. As I have said, you only 
have to read two pages. You come to table 1.1 and you look in the far 
right-hand column and you will see the total debt accumulation 
according to CBO that will be incurred if we follow the President's 
budget through 2015. That total is $5.135 trillion and that is before 
anything for fixing the alternative minimum tax which CBO tells us is

[[Page 4929]]

going to cost at least $640 billion, and before anything is added to 
the cost side of the ledger for the war in Iraq. This is where we are 
going if we adopt this budget, right back where we were in 1980 with 
the budget that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) said he 
admired so much as fiscally responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, growing government and putting us on a 
path to doubling taxes on the American people meets nobody's definition 
of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Chocola), a real leader on budget enforcement in this Congress.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
and I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this very 
important issue which I think is one of the most important issues that 
our Nation faces in the long term.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hensarling amendment. I do so 
because of a lot of reasons. I do so because the amendment in this 
budget is about simplification. It changes our budget functions from 19 
that are really unrelated to the way we spend money around here to four 
simple budget functions, defense, homeland security, nondefense 
discretionary and mandatory spending, making the budget much simpler 
and easier to understand. It is about honesty. It creates a rainy day 
fund where we actually budget for emergencies. Every single year we 
spend Federal money on emergencies but we never budget for them. It 
seems to me if we know we are going to spend money, we ought to be 
honest and we ought to budget for it. It also is about accountability. 
It makes all of us more accountable because it has mechanisms on how we 
can enforce the budget which I think is the least we can do is pass a 
budget and stick by it and do what we say we are going to do to the 
American people. But most of all it is about fiscal responsibility. It 
starts the process of moving from the measurement of success on how 
much we spend to how well we spend. It does so in a way, as has been 
pointed out, it reduces nondefense discretionary spending by 2 percent, 
it reduces the size of growth in government in mandatory spending by 
just a little bit, and there will be those that say this is very 
draconian. But it reminds me of a lot long ago when I was in the 
private sector and I was in other budget process meetings, I would sit 
down with general managers of the business and I would say, your 
expense budget is reduced and maybe it is reduced by as much as 10 
percent. You might expect the world was going to come to an end, we 
were going to lose all our customers, we were going to lose all our 
employees, but every single year the fact of the matter was that at the 
end of the year after we reduced our expense budget and we measured how 
well we spend not by how much we spend, we grew our market share, we 
served our customers better, our employees were more secure in their 
employment because our company was stronger and more successful. In 
other words, we learned how to do more with less and we were better off 
for it.
  I think that government should be no exception because no family and 
no business is an exception to the challenges that we face. This budget 
gets us on the path of being able to meet those challenges in a very 
responsible way. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), an outstanding freshman Member.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to first start by thanking the 
gentleman from Texas for offering this budget alternative. I think it 
is a fiscally conservative, sane budget and I think it is much needed 
here in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget, for putting forward a very strong, fiscally conservative, 
reasonable budget for the American people that is not just good for our 
priorities here in Washington, D.C., like funding national defense, 
like funding homeland security, but it is also a good way to rein in 
government spending and eliminate government programs that have gotten 
out of control and maybe are not responsive to individual taxpayers.

                              {time}  2130

  So I compliment our chairman in that regard.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the reason why I address the House tonight is 
because we have a better alternative, a much more fiscally alternative 
budget put before us by the gentleman from Texas. This budget would 
further reduce spending, would further rein in government growth, and 
would take on the mandatory spending programs that are going to 
bankrupt our country.
  What the gentleman from Texas does with this alternative budget is 
rein in government spending and mandatory programs further, further 
reduce nondiscretionary spending, while at the same time funding the 
President's budget when it comes to defense and homeland security, two 
top priorities of this Congress. But, additionally, it continues the 
tax cuts. It continues returning the taxpayers' money to them at home.
  So I think it is important that we keep all those notions in mind as 
we vote for this budget. I encourage those on the other side of the 
aisle who ask for more fiscal discipline to come on over and vote for 
this budget because it is a reasonable thing to do, the right thing to 
do. It is the right thing to do for the taxpayers, the right thing to 
do for the American people; and I encourage them to vote for the 
budget.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence), one of the outstanding conservative leaders of 
this Congress, the chairman of the 100-member Republican Study 
Committee.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is a 
man of principle and a man of personal courage, in his quest to restore 
fiscal discipline to Washington, D.C. In just a few short years, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) has emerged as a national leader 
on fiscal restraint in Washington, D.C., and it is an honor for me to 
be associated with his handiwork in support of the Hensarling 
amendment.
  I too join in the chorus of those conservatives who have spoken 
tonight in commendation of the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), 
who has, in fact, produced the most conservative budget since the 
historic years of the Reagan administration. And the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who history may be calling him to other duties 
sometime soon, will leave a lasting and indelible mark on the budget at 
the Federal level, and we are grateful for his principled leadership 
and support as well.
  I do support the Hensarling amendment, though, which today was 
endorsed by the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union, Americans for 
Tax Reform, just to name a few, because it is long past time for 
Congress to put our fiscal house in order.
  The OMB estimates the total fiscal outlays in 2005 will be a stunning 
33 percent higher than outlays as recently as fiscal year 2001. We have 
seen extraordinary growth in various departments, including spending in 
the Department of Education, which has grown at almost twice the rate 
of even military spending. Spending at the Labor Department will have 
risen 26 percent during the same period.
  The RSC budget, known as the Hensarling amendment, would provide for 
needed restraint by reducing nondefense-related discretionary spending 
by 2 percent and calling for $57 billion more in savings than the 
Committee on the Budget's budget; but better yet, the RSC's budget 
would dramatically enhance the possibility that Members will adhere to 
the spending levels set out in the budget resolution by providing bold 
initiatives in process reform, point of order protection, forcing

[[Page 4930]]

Congress to define emergency spending and account for it in the budget, 
creating budget protection accounts that would allow spending cuts to 
be directed toward deficit reduction or tax relief, just to name a few 
proposals.
  The RSC budget is an opportunity for Members of Congress to vote for 
the President's number on defense and homeland security and a little 
bit less than the Committee on the Budget's number on everything else. 
Voting for the RSC budget is voting for finding more savings in the 
largest category of Federal spending, mandatory spending. And voting 
for the RSC budget is voting for a way to enforce the budget that the 
House passes and to embrace a series of budget process reforms, which, 
if they are not successful in the Hensarling amendment, may yet be 
entertained by the 109th Congress in the months and days ahead.
  I strongly support the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), his 
courage, his principle; and I urge support of all of my colleagues of 
the Hensarling amendment.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  For some people, Mr. Chairman, we just cannot get enough government. 
But we are drowning in a sea of red ink already.
  This is not a debate about how much we are going to spend on health 
care and education and housing. This is a debate about who is going to 
do the spending. We believe families should do the spending. We believe 
good things come from freedom, from opportunity, and freedom for 
families to choose the health care that is right for them, to choose 
the education opportunities for their children that are right for them, 
to find the best job in a competitive market economy. We cannot have 
unlimited government and unlimited opportunity. The Republican Study 
Committee believes in unlimited opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, we urge the adoption of this amendment; but should it 
fail, please, we ask the House to vote for the Nussle budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I said before, I rise with reluctant opposition. What the RSC has 
done is bold; it is worth consideration. It will be part of the 
consideration as we go through the process, I am sure, throughout the 
rest of the year as well as we consider the budgets in years to come. 
But I would ask, as the author of the amendment just did, that while 
consideration be given that we adopt the underlying bill. And, 
therefore, I oppose the amendment, but with a great amount of respect 
and admiration for the work that has been done.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) will be postponed.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Drake) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________