[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8320-8335]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 
                      BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 248, I call up 
the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 248, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, before I begin with the opening, let me just thank our 
staff. We have to make a lot of decisions around here, and we put 
together the policy and make the votes, but the staff makes it all come 
together in the document that we review today, as well as the work of 
the Committee on the Budget. I thank Jim Bates who is the majority 
staff director, who has done an excellent job this year, and Tom Kahn 
on the minority side who has done an excellent job. Both their staffs 
do a great job on behalf of the budget, the Senate staff in putting 
this together working with Chairman Gregg and the Senate Budget 
Committee, and our leadership staff that is here that works the floor 
and helps us put this all together. They do an excellent job. It is a 
big job putting together a budget.
  But if there was ever a time that we needed a plan and we need a 
budget, this is the time. We have seen what it is like in years past 
when we do not have budgets, when we are not able to come together. And 
yes, the House has been able to manage the process. We have been able 
to keep the line on discretionary spending, but we need to do more this 
year. We need a fiscal blueprint. We have enormous and quickly growing 
sets of challenges, and we do not have infinite resources with which to 
meet them. We can and will meet those challenges with a fiscal 
blueprint, with a budget.
  But in order to do that, we have to make some tough choices. We 
cannot say yes to everything. There is going to be a lot of debate 
today where Members say you did not say yes to this, you did not say 
yes to that, you did not give enough here, you did not give enough 
there, or you gave too much over here. That is the whole budget in a 
nutshell, is that no one is going to be perfectly satisfied with either 
how much you spend on one side or how much or how little you take from 
the other side of the ledger. No one will be satisfied, but it needs to 
be put in writing. It needs to be a fence around our process. We need a 
plan.
  I am extremely pleased that we have brought our plan and our 
conference report here today. It was not easy to get to this position. 
I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader; the members of my committee; 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the conference. I 
thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), my friend and 
colleague. He will remind us that he was not a party to this conference 
in the way that either one of us would have liked, but I would like to 
thank his partnership and the way we run the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, we have work to do, and I believe it can continue in a 
very positive way today if we pass this resolution.
  Last year we were able to reduce the deficit 20 percent. We need to 
continue that work. We need to continue the strength of this country. 
We need to continue the growth of our economy. We need to continue the 
restraint of spending for deficit reduction. These are our highest 
national priorities, and if these priorities are not met, none of the 
rest of the priorities will be met.
  All of the programs, all of the areas of government, none of them can 
happen if our economy is not strong, if our Nation is not strong, if 
our freedom is not protected, and if we do not have a fiscal blueprint 
to surround us. These are our fiscal priorities as we move forward.
  Let me talk about the conference report that we are bringing today. 
First, the budget fully accommodates the President's request for 
defense and homeland security. That is our number one job. None of the 
rest of the discussion matters if we do not protect the country. In 
addition, it provides for $50 billion in emergency supplementals 
looking forward, recognizing that we have a continuing obligation in 
our global war on terror.
  Second, the budget continues our successful economic policies, 
including tax relief, spending restraint, and deficit reduction to 
ensure a strong, sustained economic growth and job creation dynamic. 
This is why we are doing it, so that people can continue to find the 
opportunities to earn the money to take care of themselves and their 
families and their communities first before the IRS and the Federal 
Government takes a portion of that out here for the national 
priorities. People have an obligation to manage their affairs first, 
and we allow that here.
  Finally, the budget takes a critical, I think, next step, because we 
made the first step last year in reducing the unsustainable rate of 
Federal spending and our deficit. We take the next step this year to 
reduce that deficit.
  Last year we wrote and passed in this House and actually stuck to a 
budget that for the first time in a long time called for a little 
restraint in our discretionary spending. When the books were closed at 
the end of the year, we saw the deficit go down. The deficit went down. 
In fact, the reduction of the deficit last year alone was 20 percent, 
still way too high, a deficit still way too high by my count, by the 
count of my colleagues, by the President, and by the other body. But 
during a war, during a time of new national priorities such as homeland 
security, it is not unusual that we made a determination to borrow some 
money in the short term to shore that up.

                              {time}  1845

  But we also have to continue the work that we started last year on 
reducing that deficit.
  This year this budget takes the necessary steps to get our spending 
back on a sustainable path and to continue to reduce that deficit. On 
the discretionary side, this budget will actually reduce the overall 
amount of nonsecurity discretionary spending. The nondefense 
discretionary spending will actually be reduced, something we have not 
seen done on this floor or in this government since Ronald Reagan was 
in town, the last time that we had an actual reduction in the 
nondefense discretionary.
  But more important than that, this budget begins the process of 
addressing the growth in the automatic spending, what we call mandatory 
spending, the spending that continues year after year unless we reform 
the programs that underlie that spending. And this year this is a 
reform budget. This is a budget that allows us to continue on the path 
that we need to head. Mandatory spending is growing out of control. We 
know it, Governors know it, the President knows it, the other body 
knows it,

[[Page 8321]]

our committees know it. What we have not had is the mechanism to do 
something about it.
  Let me show how mandatory spending is growing. If we look at this 
chart, we will see that back in 1995, the automatic spending was almost 
half of the budget. Now it is over half, about 55 percent of the 
budget. And if we do nothing, it will eventually take two thirds of the 
budget by 2015 alone, meaning mandatory spending will crowd out things 
like national defense, homeland security, education, transportation, 
the environment, health care. A number of important issues that we need 
to be focusing on will be enveloped by the mandatory spending side of 
the ledger without reform. And these programs in many instances are 
plainly not working.
  I think of a senior citizen sitting in a hallway of a nursing home in 
Iowa and wondering whether or not that senior is getting the best 
quality care for the huge increases and the unsustainable growth that 
we find in Medicaid. And I do not see that being the case. Is the 
quality there? Is the program being delivered in the best possible way? 
And for that one instance and thousands of others that are out there we 
need to focus programs on doing a better job for the money that is put 
forth in order to meet the needs of some of our most vulnerable 
citizens; children who are poor, people with disabilities, seniors who 
are either locked in poverty or unable to meet their needs. We have got 
to handle the mandatory growth in this budget and do so in a way that 
provides the reform to make sure that the needs of the people that 
these programs were intended to meet, that those needs are met. And 
that is the reason that we bring this budget forth.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes and 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, basically, the budget before us is the President's 
budget sent to us a couple of months ago, subject to a few puts and 
takes. Unfortunately, neither the President nor the Republicans in the 
House nor the Republicans in the Senate have done what was done for 
years in good budget practice, and that is run their numbers out for 10 
years. They simply give us a 5-year display of their numbers and that 
conveniently avoids showing the effect, the enormous effect, on the 
budget of having the renewal of the tax cuts after the year 2010.
  But if Members want to see basically where this budget will take us, 
they can look in CBO's analysis done in the early part of March 
required by law of the President's budget because it basically is the 
same as the President's budget. They do not have to read past Page 2 in 
this analysis of the President's budget. And when they do, they will 
see that if we follow the path that the President is proposing, we will 
add $5.135 trillion to the national debt to the United States between 
now and 2015, over the next 10 years.
  But that calculation does not include anything for fixing the AMT, 
which CBO tells us will cost $642 billion in revenues; and it includes 
nothing for deployment of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after 
2005, which CBO calculates at $384 billion; and it includes nothing for 
partial privatization of Social Security even though the President 
estimates it will cost $774 billion.
  When we add all of those things in and calculate their effect on the 
budget, here is what happens. I have sat here for the last hour, heard 
Member after Member on the other side saying we have got a budget that 
will cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years. Here is what 
happens: take it from CBO, make these two or three noncontroversial 
adjustments to their number, and see what happens. The deficit never 
gets below $362 billion. At the end of the time frame, it is $621 
billion, $7 trillion of additional debt. That is where we are headed. 
That is where this train will take us if we adopt this budget 
resolution today.
  Do the Members believe me?
  Let me show which side should be regarded as credible. Let us just 
look back at the recent past. When Bill Clinton came to office, the 
deficit was $290 billion. Awaiting him was the biggest deficit in our 
Nation's peacetime history. We passed the Clinton budget, and every 
year thereafter the bottom line of the budget got better for 8 straight 
years until in the year 2000 we had a surplus, 5 years ago, of $236 
billion. Every year since, the bottom line of the budget has gotten 
worse.
  And I have got a much simpler, more emphatic way to describe the 
effects of it. This chart right here shows us how much we have had to 
raise the statutory ceiling on the permissible amount of debt that the 
United States can incur, the debt ceiling, over the first Bush 
administration. And guess what. In this budget resolution too. Over the 
first Bush administration, in 4 years there were three increases in the 
debt ceiling that totaled $2.234 trillion. It is a matter of record. 
That is where the budget took us over the last 4 years. And this 
budget, vote for this budget resolution and buried in it is a provision 
which will increase the debt ceiling of the United States by another 
$781 billion. Members are voting for that if they vote for this 
resolution tonight, a total over 5 years of $3.015 trillion increase in 
the national debt of the United States. Incredible.
  But as I said, that is not all. Read chart two, Page 2 in the CBO 
report, and they will see it goes on and on and on. We stack debt on 
top of debt.
  I have heard people come out here and say we are flush with revenues 
in the aftermath of these tax cuts, we have had a rejuvenation of 
revenues. Here is the truth if Members want a very simple back-of-the-
envelope form: this is where the Bush administration told us we would 
be if we passed their tax cuts. We would have, in the year 2004, $1.118 
trillion in individual income taxes. And here is what the actual take 
was last year: $811 billion. That $300 billion shortfall in revenues 
accounts for three-fourths of the $412 billion deficit last year.
  People may ask, and I think it is fair for all of us to ask, how do 
we run a $427 billion deficit and still have room for additional tax 
cuts which the Republicans are pushing in this budget resolution, 
another $106 billion of tax cuts pushed in this budget resolution? 
There is one short answer, a simple step: when we do not have the 
income taxes because we cut these taxes, we go to the Social Security 
trust fund, and there is a surplus there of $160 billion. We reach into 
the surplus not this year but next year and every year for 10 years to 
come as far as the horizon can see, and this is what happens: every 
year this budget resolution will result in the consumption of the 
Social Security surplus. With the problems we have got in Social 
Security, surely we should have one rule until we finally find the 
grand solution, that is, do no harm. This bill does harm year after 
year after year because it raids the Social Security trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over the Medicaid program.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the budget 
resolution that we are going to vote on here in about 30 or 45 minutes 
because we are a body about solutions. If we do not pass the budget, we 
have no opportunity to solve some of the problems that face our great 
Nation.
  The committee that I chair does have jurisdiction over the Medicaid 
program and a large portion of the Medicare program, as well as 
telecommunications and energy. And in the instructions for 
reconciliation in this budget, we are asked to try to find savings of 
approximately $20 billion over the next 5 years.
  For those who are not familiar with the arcane process of 
reconciliation, it is very similar to what happens when a husband and 
wife have a spat and they get mad and they do not talk to each other 
for a while. Eventually they reconcile. They come back together. That 
is what we do here in this body. We do it between the Committee on 
Appropriations and the authorizing committees, and we also do it 
between the House and the Senate. We fight all year, but at the end of 
the year, we are

[[Page 8322]]

going to have a reconciliation. We are going to come forward, hopefully 
on a bipartisan basis; and we are going to say we want some solutions 
to some of these problems.
  The Medicaid program is a $300 billion-a-year program. It is about 60 
percent funded by the Federal taxpayers and about 40 percent funded by 
State taxpayers. Twenty-nine States in the last 3 years have frozen 
their Medicaid populations. The State of Tennessee, for example, has 
kicked 323,000 people off their Medicaid rolls because they just did 
not have the money.
  There are a lot of good ideas out there in terms of things we could 
do to reform Medicaid. We are not talking about trying to do things to 
kick people off the rolls. We are talking about things like letting 
people stay at home instead of having to go to a nursing home to get 
long-term care. We are talking about giving the States the flexibility 
perhaps to decide how to price some of their pharmaceuticals. We are 
talking about commonsense things like people that have some assets, 
getting them to use reverse mortgages on their homes so they can stay 
and live at home and not have to hide that or sell that home and then 
go into a nursing home.
  So I know it is difficult, but this is a budget about solutions. And 
I hope that we will pass it so that we can begin the reconciliation 
process at the appropriate time with the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this budget resolution. On 
March 17, this House voted 218 to 214 in support of a budget that 
instructed the Committee on Energy and Commerce to find $20 billion in 
savings. Members at that time recognized the importance of reducing the 
rapid rate of growth in entitlement programs like Medicaid. As the 
House and Senate reconcile our two budgets, we need to continue to be 
diligent and stay on the path of fiscal responsibility.
  Opponents of this resolution argue that any budget resolution that 
allows for Medicaid reforms will cause untold suffering for Medicaid 
beneficiaries. This argument ignores the fundamental truth that these 
beneficiaries are already suffering. In Tennessee and Missouri, over 
three hundred thousand beneficiaries are going to lose their health 
coverage, due to the out-of-control growth in Medicaid costs. Other 
States are imposing restrictions on benefits, including limits on the 
total number of prescriptions a beneficiary can receive per month and 
restricting access to other basic services.
  Without Congressional action, these problems are just going to get 
worse. Mississippi's Medicaid program ran out of money last year, and 
they were almost unable to pay their providers. Unfortunately, the 
current Medicaid program traps beneficiaries in a second rate health 
program, where too often they cannot get access to quality care or 
manage their chronic conditions.
  These problems stem in large part from the explosive growth in 
Medicaid spending. From 2000 to 2003 alone, Medicaid spending grew at 
an average rate of 10 percent each year. Neither the States nor the 
Federal Government can sustain these rates of spending growth. That is 
why Governor Mark Warner (D-VA) recently warned that ``we are on our 
way to a meltdown'' on Medicaid.
  By including Medicaid reforms in the budget, we're attempting to save 
this important program. Our efforts will not cut Medicaid, but only 
slow its rate of growth. In 1993, Medicaid spending was approximately 
$132 billion. By 2003, the program had more than doubled, and it is 
expected to cost $5 trillion over the next 10 years. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) projects that Medicaid will ``grow more 
rapidly than the economy over the next several decades and . . . add 
substantially to the overall budget deficit.''
  I take Medicaid reform extremely seriously. There are 46 million 
people out there who depend on the Medicaid program, and I don't want 
to let them down. That is why I have been working with members of 
Congress, Secretary Mike Leavitt, and several key Governors to identify 
solutions to the problems that face Medicaid. Over the next few months, 
my Committee will hold several additional hearings on different aspects 
of Medicaid reform. Yesterday, we held our first Medicaid hearing this 
year on long-term care. These hearings and the additional work we are 
doing will lead to a reform proposal that can strengthen and improve 
the Medicaid program. The Energy & Commerce Committee is doing its job. 
I would urge Members of Congress to do theirs and vote against this 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished chairman of the House 
Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's $2.6 trillion budget was 
filed just over 3 hours ago, and we have not even had a chance to 
review it. But from press reports 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 such as funding 
for continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  So let us be clear that when Members come to the floor representing 
their constituencies, they should understand that a vote for this 
budget resolution is a vote to increase the debt ceiling of the United 
States to $8.6 trillion. This will ensure that our tax dollars do not 
go to Social Security and Medicare or to investing in our people, but 
to simply paying interest on this debt that Republicans continue to 
raise without any concern about future generations.
  By not restoring the budget enforcement rules, the rules that say we 
have to pay for the expenditures of the Nation as we go, they continue 
to spend wildly, making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and driving 
us and the deficit into deeper debt, a debt that will not educate one 
child, provide lifesaving health care to someone who needs it, or treat 
and care for those veterans that are returning from war.
  This budget only guarantees that the middle class will be further 
squeezed. It does nothing to help these families provide quality 
affordable health care for them and their children nor make a college 
education more affordable nor ensure a secure retirement nor lower the 
prices of gasoline that have reached an all-time high. These are not 
the values we share.
  Republican priorities are making the wealthy tax cuts permanent 
regardless of the damage that will be caused not only to the citizens 
and families of this country but to the Nation's economic well-being.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report. It may 
be the last opportunity to preserve America's future and the 
intergenerational responsibility this Republican majority cares nothing 
about.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a conferee and a member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding 
and for all his hard work on this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no greater priority in this budget than 
ensuring America's strength and security. As became painfully clear 
when we were attacked on September 11, our Nation had severe defense 
and homeland security deficits that had to be addressed immediately.
  Since that day, Congress has shown that we are more than willing to 
spend whatever is needed to protect and defend our Nation and support 
the needs of our troops. We have invested nearly $2 trillion for the 
critical building, rebuilding and across-the-board updating necessary 
to provide for the defense and for homeland security, and this year's 
budget builds on the substantial progress we have already made.
  Our national defense base budget continues the multiyear plan to 
enable the military both to fight the war against terrorism now and to 
transform our military to counter unconventional threats in the future.
  This budget fully accommodates the President's request for the 
Department of Defense and increases discretionary spending by 4.8 
percent. It also proposes a sustained average increase of 3 percent 
over the next 5 years, not including supplementals, following on the 
heels of a 35 percent increase between 2001 and 2005.
  We have also included in our budget $50 billion to provide for the 
ongoing war against terrorism. We provide for an increase of 8.6 
percent in homeland security funding. About 55 percent of that will go 
to the Department of Homeland Security, with other homeland security-
related funding going to the Department of Defense with 19 percent, 
Department of Health And Human Services with 9 percent, the Department 
of Justice with 6 percent, and

[[Page 8323]]

the remaining being spread throughout the government.
  These funds will work to meet the needs in three key strategic areas 
of our homeland security, including preventing attacks, reducing 
vulnerabil-
ities and ensuring preparedness.
  An increase in this year's budget, rather large, at the same time 
follows on the heels of truly massive increases in the past few years. 
Since 2001, we have increased homeland security spending an average of 
about 20 percent per year to get us to where we are now. And we have 
invested more than $50 billion to create the Department of Homeland 
Security, reorganized 22 agencies consisting of 180,000 employees and 
their missions, and invested heavily to protect homeland security 
against threats such as bioterrorism.
  Again, there is no higher priority in this budget, or certainly in 
the budgets of the past years, than providing what is needed to protect 
and defend our Nation and support our troops.
  I urge my colleagues to support this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Very frankly, I listened to the Republican comments about this 
budget, and I cannot decide whether it is George Orwell or Lewis 
Carroll who is writing their stuff: Up is down; down is up; black is 
white; huge deficits are really savings. My, my, my.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very tempting to come to the House floor today and 
to focus solely on the numbers; to focus on the fact that in just 4 
short years the Republican Party has turned a projected 10-year budget 
surplus of $5.6 trillion in surplus into a projected deficit of $4 
trillion; to focus on the fact that this year OMB projects a record 
budget deficit of $427 billion, and it will actually be over half a 
trillion dollars, the third record deficit in a row; to focus on the 
fact that since 2001, this Republican Party has added more than $2.2 
trillion to the national debt, now $8.2 trillion, and that Republicans 
will increase the debt ceiling by another $780 billion this year in 
this budget.
  It is tempting, Mr. Speaker, to let this important debate revolve 
around numbers, but I think the American people want the big picture, 
and here is the unvarnished truth: This budget conference report is the 
absolute epitome of unfairness and irresponsibility.
  At a time of exploding deficits and debt, this conference report 
calls for another $70 billion in tax cuts, with nearly 75 percent of 
those tax breaks going to the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans. At the 
very same time, it calls for $10 billion cut to Medicaid. I would 
presume that the 43 people plus the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson) who signed this letter and said ``don't cut Medicaid,'' I would 
presume all 44 of those Republicans will vote ``no'' on this budget. We 
will see.
  It also calls for cuts to student loans, food stamps, pension 
benefits and other national priorities. I suggest to my friend the 
majority leader, who was concerned rightfully about the vulnerable, 
those, Mr. Leader, are the vulnerable. They are let down in this 
budget.
  Furthermore, this conference report not only fails to arrest our 
exploding deficit, it makes it worse, increasing the deficit by some 
$168 billion over the next 5 years. And while the Republican Party 
tries to convince the American people that Social Security faces an 
imminent crisis, the Republican conference report would spend every 
last nickel of the Social Security trust fund; every last nickel.
  Now, let me refer the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) to comments I 
am sure that are emblazoned upon his brain: ``The Congress will protect 
100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Period. No 
speculation. No supposition. No projections. Jim Nussle, July 11, 
2001.''
  Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friends that the other side of the 
aisle on seven different times between 1999 and 2001, House Republicans 
voted to protect our Social Security surplus. They could do it because 
of the Clinton surpluses. They could do it because of the Clinton 
surpluses.
  But over the last 4 years, when you controlled this House, the 
Presidency, and the Senate, you could not do it. You have not done it. 
You have spent every nickel and decimated the lockbox.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Budget boldly proclaimed in 2001 
again, ``We will not touch a nickel of Social Security.'' He touches 
every nickel tonight.
  What the Nation has seen over the last 4 years is nothing short of 
full-scale retreat from fiscal responsibility and the imposition of 
Republican policies that will immorally force our children to pay our 
bills, because we are not paying for what we propose buying tonight. 
This conference report is the latest example of that irresponsibility.
  I urge my colleagues in all good conscience, vote ``no.''
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), our distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget and every member of Committee on the Budget 
for doing a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances. Also I 
want to say it is a day of small miracles.
  First, we hear that the Democrats all of a sudden have become 
fiscally responsible. I have been here 20 years. I have lived through 
their fiscal responsibility. On the one hand, they do not like tax 
relief to grow the economy; on the other hand, they do not like 
spending cuts. So, how in the world are you going to balance the 
budget?
  Secondly, in eastern Arkansas, ornithologists are confirming the 
rediscovery of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, a species of birds long 
feared extinct. Meanwhile, here in Washington, the House and Senate 
have agreed on a resolution that will provide for reforms in Federal 
entitlement programs, a fiscal strategy whose prospects for survival 
critics said were not much better than the survival of the Ivory-Billed 
Woodpecker.
  Now that the final details of the budget conference report have been 
negotiated, we can say for sure that this budget before us today is the 
best since the historic Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  I mentioned the mandatory spending reforms before, Mr. Speaker, but 
they merit further explanation. These entitlement programs deserve 
reform. The Medicaid system is antiquated and the quality of care is 
not being brought to the people that need it. It needs to be reformed 
so that we can get that health care to them. These reforms are 
necessary in other programs that are at the same time popular but rife 
with waste. It is time to implement these reforms. These reforms are 
therefore necessary if we are going to get our arms around the deficit.
  The needed belt-tightening this year will help build momentum toward 
more savings in the future as we slow the overall rate of growth of the 
Federal Government. That is how we balanced the budget in the 1990s, by 
holding down spending and growing the economy.
  Just this week, we received more evidence of the fruit of our 
strategy. New home sales last month increased by 12.2 percent over last 
year, and the Commerce Department reports that the United States gross 
domestic product grew at 3.1 percent for the first quarter of 2005, 
marking the 14th consecutive quarter of real growth and the 8th 
straight above 3 percent.
  Meanwhile, the budget agreement holds overall discretionary spending 
growth to 2 percent, that is including the war spending, and provides 
for a real cut, a real cut, in nonsecurity discretionary spending. That 
is what makes them squawk, because we are trying to hold down spending. 
And at the same time, it provides for continued pro-growth tax policies 
over the next 5 years.
  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that this budget meets all of our 
current needs, makes realistic assumptions about emerging challenges, 
takes real aim at waste and fraud and will cut the deficit in half in 5 
years, all in a time of war.

[[Page 8324]]

  This is the budget that the American people voted for when they 
returned a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican White 
House last November. It is the next step in our long-term plan to 
reform government at every level to better serve the American people.
  For 10 years, this Republican majority has built an historic record 
of economic and fiscal accomplishments, and the proof is in the 
pudding: 17 million new jobs, 14 million new homeowners, low inflation, 
a 24 percent increase in the GDP, the first balanced budget in a 
generation, smaller welfare rolls and fewer families living in poverty.
  So looking at today's budget, Mr. Speaker, some might say that fiscal 
accountability is back in the Republican Congress, but as the evidence 
bears out, like that rediscovered woodpecker, it never left.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader of the 
House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time, and also, more 
importantly, for his very distinguished service to our country through 
his leadership on issues relating to our budget and other matters of 
concern to working families in America. I thank him for his great 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided budget resolution 
because it is a missed opportunity. Instead of strengthening Social 
Security, this budget spends 100 percent of the Social Security 
surplus, $160 billion for this year alone, on tax cuts to the 
wealthiest Americans. Instead of being an engine of growth, this budget 
and its deficits will put the brake on job creation.
  Do not take it from me. Chairman Greenspan said just recently, ``The 
Federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path in which large 
deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest 
payments that augment deficits in future years. Unless this trend is 
reversed, at some point these deficits would cause the economy to 
stagnate, or worse.''
  A missed opportunity, because instead of being a blueprint of 
positive initiatives for the future, this budget is an assault on our 
values. The budget calls for $10 billion in Medicaid cuts, maybe more, 
despite the fact that both this House and the other body explicitly 
rejected such cuts. That is a cut that is deeper than was even 
originally proposed by the President.
  Republicans must explain to the American people, who oppose Medicaid 
cuts by 4 to 1, why they insist on slashing funds for sick children, 
seniors in nursing homes and the disabled. Governors across the 
country, both Democrat and Republican, oppose these cuts, because they 
know the devastating impact they will have on Americans, more than 1 
million of whom will likely lose their health coverage.
  The reckless Republican budget does not stop with cuts in Medicaid 
and Social Security.

                              {time}  1915

  Its wrong priorities mean cuts in education, medicare, student loans, 
and changes in the pension guarantee program which will cause American 
workers to lose their pensions.
  Democrats have a better idea. During the last years of President 
Clinton's administration, the entire Social Security trust fund surplus 
was saved, and we were on a budget path to continue saving that money. 
We were on a path of $5.6 trillion in surplus. America would have been 
debt-free by 2008. Think of it: our country would have been debt-free 
by 2008. No more spending a big chunk of our budget on debt service 
interest payments which soon will be bigger than all of our domestic 
discretionary spending. But the Republicans have turned that $5.6 
trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit; a $10 trillion, I repeat, 
a $10 trillion failure of leadership on the part of the Republicans.
  This budget we are passing today will pass mountains of debt on to 
our children and grandchildren, jeopardizing economic security by 
increasing our debt to China and Japan and other foreign investors. The 
Republican budget does not do justice, it does great harm, to our 
country. Instead of being a statement of our values, the Republican 
budget is an assault on our values.
  I urge my colleagues to return to fiscal discipline, to honor our 
values, and to oppose this disgraceful Republican budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time. I also want to congratulate him on the great work he has done on 
this budget. The budget is always a hard thing for us to do because you 
can always find something in the budget that is not exactly what you 
would have wanted there. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from 
Iowa and his committee and the conference committee have done a great 
job of bringing a budget that really reflects the values of our 
country.
  We provide the resources for our men and women in uniform and for 
homeland security to protect America at this dangerous time. We do the 
things that grow the economy and create jobs by ensuring that taxes on 
job creation and on American families are not automatically raised over 
the next 5 years. We restrain government spending, and we reduce the 
deficit with the first reduction in nonsecurity discretionary spending 
since Reagan was President, and the first proposal for mandatory 
savings in 8 years. This budget sets the framework for the spending and 
tax policies we pursue this year.
  For our friends on the other side who oppose this budget, really, 
what is the plan that they would have? Do we want fewer funds for the 
armed services and homeland security? Do we want tax increases on 
businesses and families, particularly on small businesses and families 
who have that 10 percent bracket, and other things we have added? Do we 
want even more government spending that will only increase the deficit?
  This is a good budget, I say to my colleagues, for our country. We 
need to adopt this budget and set these priorities for America: create 
jobs, control spending, and support our Armed Forces.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage support of this conference report.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, a minute is not a long time, but I 
want to spend it for thanking the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) for building unanimity on this side of the House. I make that 
observation because, frankly, this is only the second time on a major 
vote this year that this side of the House will have been united, and 
that is in large tribute to the gentleman's good work, but it speaks to 
something else.
  To everyone in this caucus, to everyone in every corner of America 
who styles himself or herself as progressive, if you want to know if 
Democrats still stand together, if you want to know if we still have a 
common ground, I submit that you see it in the debate over this budget. 
The common ground that we occupy is in defense of 46,000 families in 
Mississippi who have been cut from the Medicaid rolls; 300,000 families 
in Tennessee who have been cut from the Medicaid rolls; 13.5 million 
children in this country who live below the poverty line who cannot 
stand to see subsistence programs cut further; millions of veterans who 
cannot stand to see their premiums rise; and it is a common ground for 
everyone who believes in a more generous, more responsible, more 
inclusive America.
  So I thank the gentleman for building that unanimity, and I hope it 
stands for the whole country to see. As it is so often said by the 
leader on the other side, there are profound differences between these 
two parties. We stand for a fairer country. They stand for a narrower 
country and a narrower vision, and I hope the people will take note of 
that.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, we stand for growing the economy; and to 
speak about that, let me yield 2 minutes to

[[Page 8325]]

the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, over the last 4 years our 
economy has faced some pretty serious challenges; but, today, the 
consensus of both the private and public forecasters is that our 
economy is in a sustained expansion, with solid growth of real GDP and 
payroll jobs, unemployment rate at its lowest point in 4 years, and 
inflation remaining relatively in check.
  Let me give some highlights of this economic success. Real GDP has 
increased for 14 consecutive quarters, including the first quarter of 
2005 when it grew at 3.1 percent and, last year, the average growth was 
4.4 percent, and that is the best it has done in 5 years. As my 
colleagues know, homeownership has continued to be at an all-time high, 
69 percent. Housing construction continues at record paces. New home 
sales are up again in March, over 12 percent, another record high, and 
the unemployment rate is down to 5.2 percent. That is lower than the 
decade average in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s.
  These figures are not just abstractions. They represent something 
real that is happening in our economy: real growth, real job creation. 
And this budget that we are going to pass today ensures that we are 
doing everything that we can do to support the sustained growth in job 
creation which is so critical to our Nation and its people.
  This year's budget is not an easy budget, but the steps it takes to 
keep taxes and spending down are critical to a strong economy and a 
better life for all Americans.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House a couple of 
days ago, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) said the Nation's 
Governors support cuts in Medicaid funding. In fact, the Nation's 
Governors wrote a letter to all of us as House Members opposing those 
cuts.
  Then 2 days ago, 348 House Members instructed House negotiators to 
keep Medicaid cuts out of the final budget resolution. The gentleman 
from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), one of the House negotiators, joined the 
chorus and actually instructed himself to say no to the Medicaid cuts. 
Apparently, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) changed his mind; 
he flip flopped and ignored our, his, all of our instructions, because 
he agreed to a budget resolution that includes at least $10 billion, 
maybe as much as $14 billion, in Medicaid cuts, significantly more than 
the President and a whole lot more than the Senate made a decision 
about.
  Now it is time for the other 347 Members in this body to decide if 
they too will reverse their positions and flip flop and endorse the 
Medicaid cuts. After all, Mr. Speaker, no one really likes a flip 
flopper.
  Now, the budget, Mr. Speaker, is a moral document which illustrates 
our values and demonstrates our priorities. Tonight, this House is 
about to cut medical services for 50 million of the most vulnerable 
Americans, at the same time giving multinational corporations and 
billionaires another $106 billion in tax cuts. How can any Member of 
this body go home and tell our constituents, I took health care away 
from impoverished children and home care away from impoverished 
seniors, but do not worry, I gave Ken Lay another tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, we should begin this process by voting overwhelmingly to 
protect Medicaid, as we did 2 days ago.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the committee.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, we have spent a great 
deal these past few years to secure our Nation in the wake of the 
September 11 terrorist attacks. On 9/11, our priorities shifted because 
they had to, but we in Congress failed to make up for our enormous new 
fiscal responsibilities by reining in the growth in other parts of the 
budget. Over the last decade, we have increased our discretionary 
domestic spending programs almost across the board at double, triple, 
or even quadruple the rate of inflation. Even without 9/11, these rates 
were unsustainable.
  Look at this chart. Overall discretionary spending growth since 1994, 
not including emergency spending, a very steep line. On average, we 
have increased discretionary spending by just over 6 percent per year 
for a decade.
  Let us look at two areas of specific discretionary spending. 
Education: in the past 5 years, the Republican Congress has increased 
education funding by an average of 9.1 percent per year. Over this same 
period, spending for the Department of Education has increased almost 
60 percent. In fact, aside from the Department of Homeland Security, 
the Department of Education has grown faster than any other agency 
during this period. Despite the rhetoric about irreparable harm to 
children, the Education Department is well funded.
  Veterans: since 1995, when the Republicans took control of the 
Congress, total spending on veterans has increased from $38 billion to 
almost $68 billion. That is a 77 percent increase, compared with a 40 
percent increase over the previous 10-year period. Since 1995, we have 
increased payments per individual veteran by an average of 103 percent.
  The discretionary portion of this budget continues to recognize and 
fund our nonsecurity domestic priorities, but does so in a way by 
reducing domestic nonsecurity spending by eight-tenths of a percent. It 
recognizes the need to get our deficit under control. That is the right 
thing to do. We have to stop judging success by the amount of dollars 
going into the program. We have to pass this responsible budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman.
  This chart clearly shows, Mr. Speaker, where the increases in 
spending have come. They have been supported by the Bush administration 
and supported by both sides of the aisle because they have gone to 
national defense, homeland defense, and response to 9/11. Ninety to 95 
percent of the spending increases in the discretionary accounts over 
and above current services have gone to these programs in these 4 
fiscal years. You supported it, the President sought it, and we have 
done it because we had to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from 
South Carolina for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this 
economic blueprint which, for 3 years in a row, adds over $400 billion 
each year to the Nation's deficit, running a structural, basically 
putting in place structural deficits that added up to $2 trillion in 
over 4 years to our Nation's debt. All the while that we have added $2 
trillion to the Nation's debt, we have taken every penny out of the 
Social Security surplus; $700 billion in 4 years. We have not left a 
single dime in there. Every penny we have taken out of Social Security.
  And while we have taken that $700 billion out of the Social Security 
surplus and have run up $2 trillion to the Nation's economy, to the 
debt, we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in 4 years; 43 
million Americans are now without health care; and incomes are falling 
behind, in the last few years, behind inflation.
  That is the economic record of this budget; and rather than change 
directions, rather than launching in a new way to help Americans, what 
are we doing? The same old same old that will get the same results. The 
one thing that will always be said about this economic blueprint and 
this economic strategy is that we will forever be in your debt, and 
that will be the record of this economic strategy. That is what you 
will leave us.
  So while you produce a $2.7 trillion budget, you did not even meet 
the President's request for college assistance and Pell grants for $5.4 
billion.

                              {time}  1930

  You cut $10 billion from health care. And your economic strategy has 
left people without jobs, without health

[[Page 8326]]

care, without the ability to pay for higher education, and their 
incomes are falling.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and a member of the committee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I support this budget because it represents 
at least a small step in coming to grips with mandatory spending. As a 
member of the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee, I have 
seen firsthand that we spend the vast majority of our time fighting 
over discretionary spending, those 11 appropriations bills which we 
must pass each year. But that type of spending makes up only one-third 
of our total spending.
  Entitlement spending continues to grow with no restraint. We have 
allowed mandatory spending to be on autopilot, and now it consumes 55 
percent of our total budget. It is time we wake up and take control of 
this spending.
  Today our mandatory spending not only is growing at a rate far beyond 
what any of us could have imagined, it is also growing at a rate far 
beyond our means to sustain it.
  Left unchecked, over 62 percent of our total budget will be mandatory 
spending by the year 2015 as this chart explains. This will place an 
unsustainable burden on our economy and eventually crowd out other 
priorities like education, transportation, and veterans programs.
  This trend can easily be seen in some of our larger mandatory 
programs. Student loan growth is more than 10 percent a year. During 
the past decade, Medicare has grown by 88 percent. Medicaid has more 
than doubled.
  These are popular and valuable programs, Mr. Speaker, but these 
growth rates cannot be sustained. We need to slow the growth rate so 
that we can save the programs.
  Despite what Members have said tonight, this budget does not contain 
cuts in mandatory spending. We are enacting commonsense reforms that 
slow the growth rate and improve care. Mandatory spending will continue 
to grow every year of this budget.
  We cannot put off this program any longer. It is becoming more 
serious and difficult to control with each passing year. There is 
nothing more irresponsible than doing nothing.
  Our budget makes the tough choice to begin dealing with this problem 
now. It takes the critical step in slowing the growth of spending by 
including reconciliation instructions to the authorizing committees to 
find a specified amount of savings in the mandatory programs under 
their jurisdiction. In total, these savings would slow the growth of 
our mandatory spending by about one-tenth of 1 percent over 5 years. 
That is all. And while that may not sound like much, it is a critical 
first step.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in rejection of this budget resolution 
because it continues to mortgage our children's future. A vote for this 
budget resolution tonight is a vote to continue the record budget 
deficits that we have seen over the last 4 years. A vote for this 
budget tonight is a vote that continuously raises the national debt 
automatically by a half a trillion dollars in this budget resolution 
for the fourth year in a row.
  A vote for this budget continues the raid on the Social Security 
trust funds. And a vote for this budget continues our reliance on Japan 
and China being the largest purchaser of our government deficits today.
  It also fails to invest in our students and our work force who need 
to compete in a 21st century global economy by cutting the education 
workforce by $12.7 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we can do better for our children, for our 
students, for the workers of this country. Reject this budget 
resolution.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, President Bush sent to Capitol Hill earlier 
this year a strong conservative budget that represented a good start 
down the road toward fiscal discipline. And the House Budget Committee, 
under the skillful leadership of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), 
began a process not so much of writing a Federal budget, as of truly 
changing the way we spend the people's money.
  Now, I would agree with my colleague who spoke just before me, that 
we can do better and we will do better. But this budget that we will 
adopt today is a good start. And most especially, from our perspective, 
it is important that we pass this budget because it includes not only 
new restraints, actual cuts in nondefense spending, actual savings in 
entitlements, but it gives Members of Congress the power to put our 
fiscal house in order by bringing with it today the new protection 
known as ``point-of-order protection,'' that any Member of Congress can 
now go to the floor for major spending bills and raise a procedural 
point to enforce the budget that we are adopting today.
  This budget is a good start, however modest, down the road toward 
fiscal discipline. And with the power to enforce it we are changing the 
way we spend the people's money.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, sadly, this partisan, fiscally 
irresponsible budget does not reflect the values of the American 
people. It locks in place massive deficits for as far as the eye can 
see, thus hurting our Nation's economic growth and harming Social 
Security.
  This budget is neither compassionate nor conservative. And it is 
certainly not a faith-based initiative. No major religious faith would 
ask the most from those who have the least, while asking the least from 
those who have the most. Yet, that is what this budget does.
  This budget will deny nursing home care to seniors and health care to 
children and the disabled. And this budget makes a mockery of the 
American principle of shared sacrifice during a time of war. How? By 
cutting veterans benefits by $13.5 billion over the next 5 years.
  Yet, at the same time it says to those making a million dollars a 
year in dividend income, you can still keep every dime of your $220,000 
a year tax break. Where is the fairness in that?
  I guess we can welcome home our Iraqi war veterans with two signs. 
One says welcome home, and thanks for serving our country. The other 
says, by the way, we are going to be cutting your veterans health care 
benefits by $13.5 billion over the next 5 years. What a welcome home.
  This budget does not reflect the decency of American family values. 
Americans deserve better.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the distinguished chairman of the Veterans Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, this budget reflects our military values to 
ensure that health care for our service disabled, special needs and 
indigent veterans remain the highest priority of our Nation. With an 
increase of nearly $1 billion in discretionary spending, this budget 
will fund care for our veterans, including those now serving from 
service in the war on terror.
  Mr. Speaker, you asked us to examine the system that serves America's 
veterans. We are doing so. Yet, it is not timely to carry out the 
mandatory savings that you originally had asked. There will be no 
increase in copays and no enrollment fees at this time. We must work 
with Secretary Nicholson and Senator Craig to develop a clear picture 
and craft a good legislative product to eliminate inefficiencies, waste 
and fraud in the VA for discretionary savings. And we will produce that 
product for you.
  I am hopeful that the veterans service organizations will take part 
in this endeavor. After all, it was the VFW Commander in Chief John 
Furgess who told Congress last month that the VA must ``start acting 
like a business and create a corporate culture of accountability that 
rewards success and penalizes failure.''
  With $3 billion in uncollected debt in the VA, he is right. To ensure 
sustainable quality health care, we must make

[[Page 8327]]

the best use of every technology enhancement, every sound management 
practice, every dollar entrusted to us by the taxpayer, and utilize 
every good example to find elsewhere in the health care and business 
sectors.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a strong veterans budget from the President, and 
we have further strengthened that budget, and we have increased it over 
time.
  If you can see this, since 1995, over 77 percent increase. And I am 
really proud of the work of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps), I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards) to respond to the last speaker.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the last speaker, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs. But the gentleman failed to point out this budget 
cuts veterans benefits by $13.5 billion over the next 5 years.
  Perhaps the Republicans and the Republican leadership in this House 
think that is a fair deal for veterans. I would be willing to bet that 
America's veterans would say it is a bad deal. It is an unfair deal for 
America's veterans.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Where does the 
gentleman get that number?
  Mr. EDWARDS. It is in your budget.
  Mr. BUYER. Where does the gentleman find the number?
  Mr. EDWARDS. If the leadership had given us more than 3 hours to look 
at the bill before voting on it, perhaps we all could have seen that 
fact.
  Mr. BUYER. The gentleman from Texas cannot make up numbers.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
conference report. The budget is a clear demonstration of misplaced 
priorities.
  I believe the budget will cut taxes by some 70 to $100 billion. Most 
of those tax cuts will go to the extremely wealthy in our society.
  At the same time, the budget will cut Medicaid, which provides health 
care for the poorest in our society. And just who are the poor people 
that Medicaid helps: 28 million poor children, 16 million working 
parents, 6 million elderly, 9 million disabled.
  Each of us represents a share of these people in our community. Their 
faces should be before us as we cast our vote this evening. This budget 
vote gives us a moral choice. We can keep cutting taxes that help 
mostly the well-off in our society, or we can ensure that the most 
vulnerable are provided with adequate health care. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on this unfair budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to just point out, 
because there has been some question, so let us get the facts. The 
budget calls for veterans increases; fiscal year 2005 will be $30 
billion; fiscal year 2006, $31.8 billion. It is an increase of almost a 
billion dollars, or a 3.2 percent increase. That is an increase. So 
there may be some other facts on the floor, but let us look at the 
facts in the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the ranking member of the 
Committee on Agriculture, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards) to respond.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the people who wrote this budget may not 
like it. I know America's veterans will not like it. But the fact is, 
the truth is that this budget cuts veterans health care benefits 
compared to today's benefits by $13.5 billion once you take into 
account inflation. That is a reality. That is the truth. And that 
number does not even count the increasing number of veterans that need 
VA health care, which is 300,000 veterans this year, 300,000 veterans 
next year, so the real story is even worse than 13.5 billion in cuts.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. This is veterans 
medical care before and after 1995, and that is what we are going to 
increase that beyond. I can understand when you want to put, you know, 
some kind of magical inflation number that you have just pulled out of 
the air and then make up a number. That is a different issue.
  The budget has an increase for veterans. They deserve it, and that is 
what we are going to pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Deal).
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, the Committee that has jurisdiction over the issue 
of Medicaid, I would like to talk about that subject for just a minute, 
the most expensive health care program we have in this country, costing 
over $300 billion last year alone.
  The question is, where are the Governors on this issue? Sure, every 
Governor would like to have more Federal dollars. But the truth is that 
they are telling us they cannot really afford, in a matching program as 
Medicaid, the money that we are providing in many instances now. That 
is why a Democratic Governor of Tennessee is having to cut over 323,000 
recipients off the Medicaid rolls. That is why the same pattern is 
being repeated in other States.
  What would they rather have more than more money or a normal growth 
pattern? They want reform. The only way we are going to get reform of 
the Medicaid system is to pass this budget resolution.
  Why does it need reform? Every State is now spending more on their 
contribution to Medicaid than they are spending on elementary education 
and on secondary education. It is on a road to disaster. The 
Comptroller General tells us that. Governors say it is something that 
is going to melt down and take all of their State budgets unless we 
have reform.
  If you want to go home and explain to your Governor and to your 
people why you voted against an opportunity to reform the most 
expensive part of their State budget, then vote against the budget 
resolution.
  If you want to vote for reforms that will include increasing personal 
responsibility which, when your hospitals tell you that over half of 
their emergency room visits are for nonemergency reasons, and that the 
majority of those are Medicaid recipients, simply because there is no 
personal responsibility built in the program, and you want that to be 
the status quo, then vote against the budget resolution.
  If you want what every Governor is saying, on a Democrat and 
Republican basis together, if you want reform of this program, vote for 
the budget resolution.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) has 9\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to myself.
  Mr. Speaker, the numbers that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
was citing come from a document that we have prepared that compares the 
conference report with the Congressional Budget Office's current 
services baseline. And by that comparison, this conference report falls 
$13.504 billion below current services over the next 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Peterson), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, in 2002 we passed a 
bipartisan farm bill that has been successful. In the first 3 years of 
the bill, we saved 40 percent below what we spent the 3 years of the 
last farm bill. We saved $15 billion below what was projected to be in 
the farm bill. Yet, unbelievably, they are asking us to open this bill 
up and cut another $3 billion out of the bill.
  I do not think anybody can tell me any other part of the government 
that saves money during this period of time, and we were promised 
during that conference that we were not going to

[[Page 8328]]

change this bill. Farmers made decisions based on the fact that the 
farm bill was going to be there for 5 years. So this is absolutely the 
wrong thing for us to do.
  The Committee on Appropriations has already capped some of the 
programs in the farm bill in the last 2 go-arounds. We think this is 
unfair. This breaks a contract that we have with the American farmers. 
For those of you who represent farm country, I can tell you most of 
your farm groups are opposed to making these cuts to the farm program 
that are being proposed in this budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, since coming to Congress, 
I have been struck by the majority party's spending policies. Under 
their watch, the Nation's debt has grown by $2.2 trillion over the last 
4 years. The annual deficit is averaging more than $200 billion and 
this year's budget is no different, spending more than we are bringing 
in and increasing the Nation's debt. In fact, this budget will allow 
for $412 billion in deficit spending, increasing the interest that we 
are paying on our Nation's debts, interest that already totals more 
than we are spending on education, the environment and veterans.
  I was proud to join my Democratic colleagues in putting forward 
better ways to refocus our spending and investments on the priorities 
that matter to everyday lives of Americans: keeping and creating new 
jobs, lowering the cost of health care, and providing for a safe and 
secure homeland.
  We put forward an alternative budget that would have balanced the 
Federal Government's checkbook by 2012, something the Republican budget 
fails to do, while meeting our basic obligations to hardworking 
Americans. These efforts were, unfortunately, rejected along party 
lines.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to lead not just with words, 
but in deeds. This means enacting a spending plan that will meet basic 
budgetary principles of meeting our obligations, working within our 
resources, and making smart investments. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
resolution so we can return to negotiations and return to fiscal 
discipline.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution.
  Two weeks ago, the House passed legislation aimed at promoting and 
encouraging personal financial responsibility. Yet, we are on the cusp 
of enacting a fiscal year 2006 budget that is fiscally-unsound.
  It is a budget that prioritizes tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans 
and largest corporations at the expense of creating opportunities for 
hard-working Americans and helping people meet their responsibilities. 
It is a budget that puts political expediency over honest budgeting by 
failing to acknowledge future increases in the deficit and neglecting 
to live within available revenues. It is a budget that will allow the 
government to increase spending and implement new tax cuts without 
finding a way to pay for the associated costs.
  Mr. Speaker, I supported the bankruptcy bill because I believe people 
who have the means available have an obligation to meet their financial 
obligations. However, just as we are asking individual Americans to 
take responsibility for their spending decisions, so must the Federal 
Government.
  Since coming to Congress, I've been struck by the majority party's 
spending policies. Under their watch, the nation's debt has grown by 
$2.2 trillion over the last four years, with annual deficits averaging 
more than $200 billion. And this year's budget is no different; 
spending more that we are bringing in and increasing the Nation's debt. 
In fact, this budget will allow for $412 billion in deficit spending. 
Increasing the interest we are paying on our Nation's debt; interest 
that already totals more than we are spending on education, the 
environment or our veterans.
  My colleagues, our decisions have consequences, and the consequences 
of this budget will be felt by every American. Our first-responders 
will go without equipment needed to keep communities, and themselves, 
safe from harm. Our veterans will be subjected to health care fees or 
reduced benefits. Our best and brightest will continue to struggle to 
afford a college degree. And some of our Nation's disabled and sickest 
citizens will continue to go without needed medical care and services 
unless our State and local governments pick up the costs.
  During committee consideration of the budget resolution, I was proud 
to join my Democratic colleagues in putting forward better ways to re-
focus our spending and investments on the priorities that matter to the 
everyday lives of Americans--keeping and creating new jobs, lowering 
the costs of health care and providing for a safe and secure homeland. 
We put forward an alternative budget, one that would have balanced the 
Federal Government's checkbook by 2012--something the Republican budget 
fails to do--while better meeting our obligations to hard-working 
Americans. These efforts were, unfortunately, rejected along party 
lines.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to lead not just in words, but 
in deeds. That means enacting a spending plan that meets basic 
budgetary principles of meeting one's obligations, working within the 
resources you have and making smart investments that will ensure the 
Nation's current and future fiscal well-being.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution so that we can return to the 
negotiating table and find a better way; one that represents a true 
commitment to sound budgetary principles and fiscal responsibility. One 
that funds the right priorities, makes the right investments and in so 
doing builds a Nation that is strengthened rather than weakened by the 
decisions we make today.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time and for his leadership.
  I rise to oppose this budget conference report and support and remind 
you of the budget priorities which were identified in the Congressional 
Black Caucus budget alternative.
  At a time when 48 million Americans, 7.5 million of these Americans 
are African Americans, mind you, they have no health insurance. The 
health care cuts in this budget will increase the number of the 
uninsured. At a time now when our inner cities are crumbling, and they 
are truly crumbling, this budget cuts funding for community and small 
business development.
  At a time when we face the real threat of terrorism, this budget 
wastes billions of dollars on an unnecessary missile defense system 
while leaving likely targets like our Nation's ports defenseless.
  The Congressional Black Caucus, if you remember, offered a fiscally 
responsible alternative. It addressed the health care disparities in 
our Nation. It provided funding for community and for small business 
development, and it provided for real national security that included 
economic security.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is a big day. Gas is at $2.50 a 
gallon. The President's Social Security road show is a shambles. His 
numbers are falling in the polls. Iraq has more violence. The Japanese 
are loaning us $450 billion to cover our loans on our deficit. And the 
Rubber Stamp Congress is back in shape. They are all here with their 
stamp to give the President exactly what he needs.
  Now, in about 40 minutes he is going to come on TV. This tells you 
how bad it is. The President is in such terrible shape he has got to go 
on TV and start his magic act. He has got to try to convince the people 
that the gasoline is not $2.50 a gallon or that we are not borrowing 
$450 billion from the Japanese.
  That is the problem you have got with this budget. And what are you 
doing? You are rubber-stamping cutting the safety net in shreds. You 
are going after the poor, the sick, the elderly, anybody who cannot 
fight back.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to convey my disappointment with the 
decision of the conferees to ignore the clear and bipartisan wishes of 
the vast majority of the Members of this body to restore crucial 
Medicaid funding to this budget.

[[Page 8329]]

  Tuesday night I offered a motion that passed overwhelmingly to 
instruct the conferees to restore cuts to Medicaid and include a $1.5 
million reserve fund for the creation of a bipartisan Medicaid 
commission.
  We know that Governors across the country are opposed to Medicaid 
cuts because these cuts will pass the burden directly on to States, to 
providers, and to the millions of Americans whose health care depends 
on Medicaid.
  In a statement released this morning, the National Governors 
Association made clear its position has not changed. It states: 
``Medicaid reform must be driven by good policy and not the Federal 
budget process.''
  I want to be clear. No one is saying that we do not need to reform 
Medicaid. No one is saying we should not be trying to find savings or 
to make Medicaid more efficient. And, yes, let us find proposals to 
improve the program. But let us not let arbitrary budget cuts drive the 
reform. Let us not just cut the budget and call it reform. And let us 
not rashly and substantially decrease funding without adequate time to 
deliberate meaningful reform measures and without some time to 
implement those measures.
  A majority of this body agrees, a majority of the Senate agrees, a 
majority of the Governors agree, and a majority of Americans agree. 
That is a pretty clear mandate. And for the conferees to ignore these 
clear majorities it is irresponsible.
  I urge the 348 Members who voted in favor of the motion on Tuesday to 
vote against this conference report tonight.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, not that long ago, my 
colleague came to the House floor wearing a paper bag on his head 
because he was ashamed that House Members were spending more money than 
they had in their accounts down here in the House bank.
  I would remind my colleague that since the President's budget of May 
9, 2001, our Nation has spent $2.135 trillion that we do not have.
  I would also remind my colleagues that buried in this bill, on the 
very last page of the bill, the second to last paragraph reads: ``If 
the joint resolution is enacted to raise the debt limit to the level 
contemplated by this conference agreement, the limit will be increased 
from $8 trillion 184 billion to $8 trillion 965 billion.'' An increase 
of $781 billion of new debt.
  Now, you have heard a lot of talk about cutting the budget. If we are 
cutting the budget and cutting the deficit, why does the chairman seek 
an increase in the debt limit?
  I would welcome the chairman to respond to my question because I 
think it is something that is in the bill and it deserves answering.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the majority does not 
allow us or Americans to read this bill before we vote on it is because 
there is some little nasty surprises in it. One of those little nasty 
surprises buried on page 30 is a provision that allows through 
congressional skullduggery getting around the rules to try to drill in 
the Arctic that could not pass the other Chamber on an up-or-down vote.
  On page 30, they essentially try to work around on a midnight deal 
the right for checks and balances and a filibuster in the other Chamber 
that could not pass under regular rules in the United States Senate.
  Those who believe that we have better options than drilling in the 
Arctic and destroying a provision set up by Ike Eisenhower and defended 
by every President since should vote ``no'' on this budget. No matter 
what you think of the fiscal issue, vote ``no'' tonight.
  Take out this legislative flea on the back of this bill and preserve 
the Arctic. Vote ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a budget that follows the will of the House. 
That is the first problem with it.
  The will was expressed 2 days ago. Two days ago, 348 Members voted 
emphatically against any Medicaid cuts. The conferees disdained that 
instruction and whacked $10 billion out of Medicaid.
  This is a budget that does contain spending cuts, but in this budget 
the spending cuts do not go to the bottom line and reduce the deficit 
dollar for dollar. Basically, what they do is offset partially the tax 
cuts that are also called for. Consequently, this budget is not a 
budget that will bring the deficit into balance. We have a deficit of 
$427 billion this year.
  I said earlier, do not take it from me. Take it from CBO. Read their 
analysis of the President's budget. This is basically the President's 
budget with some puts and takes. They project that over the next 10 
years, if you follow that budget, we will incur $5.130 trillion.
  This budget resolution, if Members vote for it, includes an increase 
in the statutory debt ceiling of almost $800 billion. That is the 
course we are on, stacking debt on top of debt.
  Now, one would think with all the problems we have got we would do 
something about the deficit in this budget, but this budget does not 
make the deficit better. It adds $167 billion to the CBO baseline 
deficit over the next 5 years and worse in the second 5 years. We are 
just kicking the can down the road, and this budget very conveniently 
avoids the huge mountains just over the crest of the horizon.
  So if you want to vote for a balanced budget, vote down this budget 
resolution. If you want to vote against accumulating debt on debt and 
leaving our children with mountains of debt, vote against this budget 
resolution. Send the budget conferees back to work with something that 
is respectable and deserving of our vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a real leader on our side 
when it comes to Medicaid reform.

                              {time}  2000

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the 
time.
  We have heard references tonight to the financial condition of this 
country in the summer of 2001 and the fact that we have bigger deficits 
today. Most of us in this chamber were here on a cool September morning 
when the world changed. Any other country in the world would still be 
on its knees, but America is back on its feet, in part because of the 
leadership of this body, and all of us should be proud of that.
  All of my colleagues in this chamber know that I was very concerned 
about Medicaid. It is the safety net for people in this country who are 
very vulnerable, and it is very important to the Americans who depend 
upon it. We have worked together, and I wanted to thank the chairman 
for allowing a budget that will put us on the path to reform which can 
drive the budget. Let policy drive the budget and not the other way 
around.
  There are no reductions in the projected growth of Medicaid in fiscal 
year 2006, and this budget funds a commission, a bipartisan commission, 
to put us on the path for reform.
  Annual increases in Medicaid are 7.1 percent over the next 5 years. 
But why does all this matter? All of us have stories from the people we 
have met who have touched our lives.
  I was at a rehab hospital not too long ago in New Mexico and a doctor 
came up to me. He had been treating a patient that morning who was a 
diabetic, who was eligible for Medicaid. He had had both of his legs 
amputated, and he said: Mrs. Wilson, this morning I taught my patient 
how to use a glucometer to monitor his disease. Can you tell me why is 
it that we have a Federal Medicaid program that will pay $28,000 to a 
hospital to cut a guy's legs off but I need a waiver from the Federal 
rules to help him learn to monitor his disease? Today I am teaching how 
to go back home and live on his own, even though he is in a wheelchair.
  We deserve Medicaid reform for the people who depend upon it. We 
deserve

[[Page 8330]]

a system that is not prejudiced toward institutional care for our 
parents when we all know that they want to stay in their own homes for 
as long as they can.
  We deserve a Medicaid system that does not encourage States to take 
foster children and put them into residential treatment centers and 
define them as mentally ill and that allows States to use that money to 
recruit and support foster parents, so that teenagers can have 
families, real forever families, instead of learning the new rules on 
the wall of their latest institutional placement.
  That is why we need Medicaid reform. Our chairman has brought us a 
budget bill that protects our country, that supports our troops and 
puts us on the path toward real reform, and I would ask my colleagues 
to vote for it.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Nussle and all the 
members of the Budget Committee for their tireless work. This budget 
agreement is a major accomplishment made possible by them.
  Our nation is at a pivotal point. We are at war around the globe as 
our brave armed forces continue to root out unscrupulous terrorists. We 
have an economy, stymied after the September 11th attacks, now 
recovering and gaining strength, as long as we continue our pro-growth 
agenda. And we have decades-old entitlement programs that are overdue 
for some much-needed improvements and reforms.
  House Republicans have demonstrated fiscal discipline and leadership, 
keeping America on course towards a strong economy. This budget 
agreement commits the Congress and the federal government to spend less 
while still addressing our nation's priorities. It ensures a safe and 
secure future for America's families by reforming and improving 
important programs like Medicaid, fully supporting our military at home 
and overseas, and protecting our homeland. It keeps our promise to 
reduce the deficit by half while providing tax relief for American 
families.
  We should do everything within our power to make certain that the 
terrorist attacks of 2001 never happen again in this country. This 
budget keeps that commitment, but it also rightly calls for spending 
restraint in the rest of the budget. We no longer live in an era of 
surpluses. Our efforts to fight terrorism have left us with a big 
deficit. We need to spend less money, and this budget spends less 
money.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, by tradition, would 
argue that the solution is to tax families more so that the government 
has more to spend. I could not disagree more. Higher taxes kill jobs, 
hurt families and stifle growth. Those who would be hit hardest by the 
flawed policy of the other side are our small businesses. They make up 
99 percent of all businesses in America. They're the mom and pop 
stores, the family business started out of the garage. They would 
suffer if this House picked up the tax-and-spend banner of the other 
side.
  My friends, America's future growth depends on its ability to be 
stable, secure and economically prosperous. The budget agreement on the 
floor firmly places our nation on that path. Any other proposals move 
us backwards, towards bigger government, bigger tax burdens and a 
bigger fiscal mess.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this conference 
report.
  It not only is no better than the version of the budget resolution 
previously passed by the House, it is significantly worse in several 
ways.
  In my opinion, it reflects only the priorities of the Republican 
leadership, not the right priorities for our country.
  Over the last five years the federal budget has reversed a decade of 
progress that saw the budget go from the $290 billion deficit when 
President Clinton took office to a surplus of $236 billion in 2000, 
which was where things stood when the current President Bush came to 
office.
  Since then, we have gone from projected surpluses to undeniable 
deficits. The toxic combination of recession, necessary spending for 
defense and homeland security, and excessive and unbalanced tax cuts 
have taken us to the largest deficits in our Nation's history--a $375 
billion deficit two years ago, a deficit of $412 billion last year, and 
for this year, according to the Bush Administration itself, a deficit 
of $427 billion.
  That is three record-setting years in a row. And, regrettably, this 
conference report reflects neither a serious effort to reduce deficits 
nor an attempt to increase fairness.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, following 
the path suggested by the Bush Administration and this budget 
resolution will add $5.135 trillion to our national debt over the next 
10 years.
  It is true that the Republican leadership claims this conference 
report will put us on the path to cut the deficit in half by 2009. But 
this bit of Enron bookkeeping rests on omitting enormous predictable 
costs--including the $200 billion five-year cost of fixing the 
Alternative Minimum Tax and realistic five-year costs for military 
activities in Iraq.
  And this conference report not only fails to recognize the deficit as 
a problem, it sets the stage for new tax cuts for selected 
beneficiaries. In all, these could amount to as much as $106 billion 
over the next five years, and the tax-writing committees are instructed 
to report bills worth $70 billion in the next few months.
  Further, the conference report sets the stage for reducing the 
ability of States, local governments, and charities to provide 
essential services to the many thousands of families who are struggling 
to stay above water in this time of a sluggish recovery from recession. 
I do not think this is the right way to go.
  I also have very serious concerns about other aspects of this 
conference report.
  For one thing, it continues the pattern of spending 100 percent of 
the Social Security surplus--a total of $2.6 trillion over the next 10 
years. We cannot continue on this reckless and irresponsible fiscal 
path. That is why I supported an effort to require the Budget Committee 
to instead bring forward a conference report that would ensure that the 
Social Security surplus would not be spent for any purpose other than 
Social Security. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership opposed that 
effort, and it was not successful.
  In addition, the conference report calls for $34.7 billion in 
mandatory spending reductions, including $10 billion in Medicaid cuts 
and billions in other cuts that could affect pension programs, student 
loans, and food stamps.
  And further, on top of the cuts in social services, the conference 
report cuts discretionary spending on environmental and natural 
resource programs to the extent that over the next five years funding 
for these programs would be cut 21 percent below the level needed to 
maintain current status.
  These punitive cuts threaten a wide range of programs that ensure the 
health of our communities and protect our natural resources. Among the 
programs that could be most severely affected are clean water 
infrastructure investments, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
oceans and coastal protection, and agricultural conservation.
  Finally, the budget resolution clearly will pave the way for 
legislation as a part of the reconciliation process to open the coastal 
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. I cannot 
support this.
  When the House first debated this budget resolution, I supported an 
alternative that would have provided more resources for important 
priorities and would have laid the basis for more responsible tax 
policy. It was better fiscally and better in terms of the education of 
our children, the health care of our veterans, the development of our 
communities, and the quality of our environment.
  Unfortunately, that alternative was not adopted--and this conference 
report not only does not resemble that alternative, in several respects 
it is even worse than the House-passed resolution. As a result, I must 
vote against it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 2006 
budget conference report. I believe that the federal budget is a 
reflection of values and priorities, and that the spending choices made 
in the 2006 budget bring into focus where this administration and House 
of Representatives leadership's priorities lie. Frankly, this budget is 
a travesty, and it's going to cost the American people dearly, and 
seriously imperil our nation's economic and national security.
  The budget makes tax cuts for the most affluent members of our 
society a top priority. By contrast, it shortchanges investments in our 
future and fails to honor past commitments to our veterans, seniors, 
and those in need.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget is surely not what the American people 
bargained for. Given what we know about our America's financial 
situation--a national debt approaching $8 trillion, interest payments 
of $280 billion, weakening economy, growing health care needs, a weak 
dollar, and weakening economy--why would the Republican leadership 
continue to cut taxes for the wealthy? The House voted two weeks ago to 
eliminate the estate tax.
  The conference report will take $40 billion from programs for the 
poor, much of it in from Medicaid, yet it protects $70 billion in new 
tax cuts for the wealthy. After the five year budget window, these tax 
cuts will balloon, costing $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It's 
sad that we're debating how much to cut from Medicaid, TANF and other 
programs for the

[[Page 8331]]

poor, yet few of my colleagues on the other side of the isle are 
criticizing the additional tax cuts in this budget.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, independent CBO 
projections show that the proposed budget would add another $5.135 
trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, a more than 50 
percent increase over the current total. If Congress passes the 
President's Social Security plan, then you can add several trillion 
more to that figure.
  The Administration has cleverly (and dishonestly) hidden both the 
projected cost of the war in Iraq and the plan to take money out of 
Social Security from its budget documents. They have to know that the 
costs, in the long run, will be exceedingly high. Yet they stubbornly 
continue to cut taxes for high income tier individuals, shifting the 
burden on the already squeezed middle class and poor. These fiscal 
policies, I contend, are without precedent in their level of 
irresponsibility.
  In an attempt to hide the full ramification of the budget, documents 
submitted by the White House and the resolution adopted by the House 
purposely withheld cost estimates of the war in Iraq and the 
President's Social Security privatization plan. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), when you combine the cost of the war 
with that of the plan to privatize Social Security and other unstated 
expenses such as relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, you get a 
deficit that moves from $427 billion in fiscal 2006 to $621 billion in 
2015.
  When President Bush assumed office in 2001 we had a projected budget 
surplus of $236 billion. Not only do I oppose these fiscally 
irresponsible policies that will produce growing deficits and debt, I 
object to the false claim that non-defense discretionary spending 
programs are responsible for the budget deficits. While these programs 
ate the principal target of the proposed spending cuts, the total non-
defense discretionary budget is at the lowest level in the past 30 
years.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this sham conference report.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal 2006 budget resolution is 
based on false economies and false promises. This budget provides tax 
cuts for the rich while adding to our national deficit, cutting 
billions from critical programs such as Medicare and shortchanging 
national priorities such as community development and housing, 
education, and environmental protection.
  Cutting vital programs does nothing to solve our problems. 
Congressional leadership and the administration are simply not owning 
up to their responsibilities to the American public. I will not support 
any budget framework that pretends that we have more funding than we do 
while at the same time cutting programs that help our families and 
communities.
  The administration's tax cuts give over $70 million in benefits to 
those who need them the least. Yet nothing is being done to address the 
long-term costs of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax--a tax that 
continues to force middle-income families to pay higher taxes. This 
budget will put our country deeper into debt, mortgaging the future for 
our children and grandchildren. This is wrong.
  This budget resolution also sets the stage for drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, which would be a travesty. Not only is this 
policy incredibly shortsighted in terms of the real energy needs of 
this country, it is unconscionable that Congress is making a decision 
of this magnitude in a budget resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today being very 
disturbed with the direction that the Republican Party and this 
administration is taking our great Nation. The reason for my concern is 
the Budget Conference Report which stands before this body today. 
Sadly, this body has just now received a copy of the Budget Conference 
Report. It's truly tragic to think that this piece of legislation 
actually affects every single American and yet here we are in the 
`people's house' and there is no real deliberation on this monumental 
bill. The Budget Conference Report clearly does not improve upon the 
severely flawed Republican budget, which barely passed in the House a 
little more than a month ago. 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 
Conference Report 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 Conference 
Report 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 
Budget Conference Report. I hear so much in this body from the majority 
party about the greatness of our Armed Forces, and their rights, but 
again it's 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 Party 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 Veteran's 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 Conference Report 
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 make up only two areas where the 
Budget Conference Report 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 Party finds it necessary to cut so 
many fundamental programs. The answer is simple, yet disturbing; the 
majority party 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 Party 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 Budget Conference 
Report 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 is 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 Conference Report 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. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise in strong opposition to H. 
Con. Res. 95, the Republican Budget Conference Report. During

[[Page 8332]]

House consideration of the budget last month, we had the opportunity to 
pass the Spratt Substitute, which contained thoughtful policies to 
balance the budget by 2012 without individual tax rate increases or 
harmful cuts to security, health care, education, veterans' benefits, 
and other programs that improve the quality of life for Rhode Island's 
working families. Unfortunately, these responsible ideas were cast 
aside in favor of the Republican values we have before us today: tax 
cuts for the wealthy paid for by slashing programs that Rhode Islanders 
depend on.
  While the Republicans claim that budget cuts are needed to return to 
fiscal discipline, they forget their own policies caused today's 
financial problems. Without the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent 
of Americans enacted since 2001, our nation's fiscal health would be 
much rosier, and the neediest and most vulnerable Americans would not 
be forced to sacrifice. Their fiscal year 2006 budget proposal 
continues to move in the wrong direction, and next year's deficit will 
likely be the largest in history, with more than $400 billion added to 
the national credit card.
  Unfortunately, the budget before us today lacks the vision needed to 
move our country forward. In addition to driving us further into debt, 
H. Con. Res. 95 also contains vast cuts to programs that benefit the 
working class. Most troubling is a $10 billion cut to Medicaid, which 
will place an enormous burden on Rhode Island. My state has 
successfully leveraged federal Medicaid dollars and currently offers 
health care coverage to many vulnerable, low-income pregnant women, 
parents of young children, and other groups not included in the federal 
mandate. Without sufficient Medicaid funding, these people would likely 
join the increasing ranks of the uninsured.
  In addition, this budget implements a multitude of other cuts 
proposed by the President. These cuts include reductions in law 
enforcement and firefighter funding, the elimination of 48 education 
programs, and new fees for veterans' health care. Clearly, these 
reductions are not the priorities of the American people.
  The Republican blueprint does not make us safer or healthier, prepare 
children for the future, or honor veterans. By continuing failed tax 
policies while cutting effective programs that Rhode Islanders depend 
on, their proposal is a misguided and unjust starting point. As 
Democrats show, it is possible to create a realistic blueprint that is 
fiscally responsible and is built around the needs of the American 
people. I urge my colleagues to reject the Conference Report on H. Con. 
Res. 95.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican 
Budget Conference Report.
  The Republican budget makes huge cuts to critical programs for the 
poor and the most vulnerable in our country in order to give away $106 
billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society.
  The Republican budget instructs the Energy and Commerce committee to 
cut $14.7 billion, of which at least $10 billion is supposed to be cut 
from the Medicaid program that serves nearly 50 million Americans. 
Medicaid provides health care not only to poor moms and kids, but also 
to the elderly and the disabled.
  The Republicans will tell you that they have to cut Medicaid because 
we are in state of fiscal crisis. And it's true we are in the midst of 
crisis. But it is a manufactured crisis.
  If you add up all the spending that Congress has approved since 2001, 
you will see that: 48 percent of all the spending has gone to tax cuts, 
37 percent has gone to Defense and Homeland Security, and only 15% has 
gone to Domestic programs.
  It is clear when you look at these numbers that the deficit did not 
balloon upward due to social programs, or even the war in Iraq. The 
deficit came from the Republican's irresponsible tax giveaways to help 
their fat cat friends get fatter and fatter and fatter.
  This Republican budget asks the mothers and grandmothers in the 
nursing home, the disabled children, the poor, those with Alzheimer's 
and Parkinson's disease, to sacrifice their health and dignity in order 
to finance the tax cuts of the wealthiest 1 percent in this country.
  It asks those who have nothing to sacrifice everything, and those who 
have everything to sacrifice nothing.
  This budget is about giving $106 billion away in tax cuts, cutting up 
to $14.7 billion from the Medicaid program.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this shortsighted, fiscally 
irresponsible, and immoral budget.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican 
Budget Conference Report.
  One of the most egregious offenses committed in the Republican Budget 
is the proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and 
gas drilling.
  Although a budget should have nothing to do with controversial 
environmental policy decisions, this budget would open the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge through backdoor budget chicanery. In poll 
after poll, the American people have expressed their disapproval of 
using the budget to decide such a contentious issue. The Republican 
Majority knows that it cannot pass this measure as standalone 
legislation. By shoehorning the Arctic Refuge into the budget, they are 
making an end-run around the legislative process, knowing that it 
cannot pass in the Senate any other way.
  While the budget claims that oil leases from the Arctic Refuge will 
generate $2.4 billion in revenue, this appears to be a case of gross 
deception and misinformation.
  When the President's Office of Management and Budget was asked why it 
is assuming that the oil leases in the Refuge will sell for amounts 
that are hundreds of times greater than the average North Slope lease 
over the last 15 years, OMB passed the buck--they said, ``Go ask 
Interior; we don't know.''
  Ladies and gentleman, we deserve more than such dodges and lame 
excuses. This Republican budget will destroy forever the wilderness 
quality of one of God's most magnificent ecological systems on the 
basis of illusory economic projections.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this shortsighted, fiscally 
irresponsible, and immoral budget.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. I rise in opposition to the resolution. 
It is punitive to low-income families. The conference agreement 
proposes cuts totaling $10 billion in Medicaid. It also calls for 
significant cuts in domestic programs.
  In addition to cuts in Medicaid services, the resolution also calls 
for cuts in education, including student loans, the Earned Income Tax 
Credit, and large tax cuts. At a time when we need to add jobs to the 
economy, the budget agreement cuts back on funding for adult and 
vocational education. Finally, the budget resolution conference report 
requires drastic increases in the premiums paid by employers to the 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). These premium increases 
will drive many employers to exit the defined benefit pension system, 
thereby undermining the retirement security for millions of workers and 
retirees and ultimately weakening the PBGC.
  The tax cuts called for in the resolution total $100 billion over 
five years, but will balloon to $1.4 trillion when stretched out over a 
10-year period through 2015. Despite all the domestic program cuts, the 
tax cuts will make the budget deficit picture worse, not better.
  The $2.56 trillion budget agreement cuts domestic spending below 
Fiscal Year 2005 levels. It does this without making any progress on 
reducing record level budget deficits. Supporters of the budget 
resolution, spin this document as a vehicle for bringing the budget 
deficit into check, but do not be persuaded by that argument. The 
Republican leadership have made the same argument in the last three 
budget cycles and look at their performance: more record budget 
deficits.
  It took this country 204 years to run up a public debt of $1 
trillion. Under this administration, under this Republican Congress, we 
are adding $l trillion to the public debt every 18 months. Over the 
last four years, we have added $2.2 trillion to the national debt.
  What concerns me most about this budget is that it signals the call 
of retreat. It is a blue print for disinvesting in the programs that 
make our economy and our people competitive in the global marketplace. 
We cannot build a stronger economy and create good paying jobs if we 
cut programs for worker education and job training--critical programs 
that invest in our human capital resources--the future American 
workforce.
  This budget does not represent the values of my district, nor does it 
represent the priorities of the American people. Is there any wonder 
that poll after poll has registered declining public confidence in the 
direction of our economy and the nation's spending priorities. The real 
test of this budget resolution will come when we attempt to pass the 10 
appropriations bills later this year. I predict a tough time ahead 
because it will be difficult to obtain the consensus needed to pass the 
spending bills that will keep the government running.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
conference report.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 95.
  The GOP budget resolution will leave Department of Veterans Affairs 
programs $2 billion short of meeting the needs of our veterans. VA will 
not be able to make critical program enhancements for servicemembers 
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and it is even deficient to 
maintain current services.
  The Bush Administration's budget submission for FY 2006 requested 
less than half of a one-percent increase for its health care services. 
This budget offers us about a one to

[[Page 8333]]

two-percent increase. VA has testified that it requires a 13- to 14-
percent increase just to adjust for the growth in VA enrollment partly 
due to the rising tide of uninsured and underinsured Americans and 
medical inflation rates often approaching eight percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I joined every Democrat on the Veterans Affairs 
Committee in asking our Budget Committee to add $3.2 billion to our 
budget for America's veterans. Earlier measures offered by Mr. Obey and 
Mr. Spratt on the floor of this House would have supported increased 
amounts of funding for our veterans, but these efforts have been 
soundly rejected by Republicans in favor of tax cuts and the funding we 
must provide to our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ironically, when 
the troops return from these deployments, they will find a health care 
system that is not adequately funded to address their needs.
  The President's budget has proposals that are anathema to many 
veterans. In addition to the increased copayments, new enrollment fees, 
and draconian reductions in long-term care programs, it would force VA 
to shoulder even greater ``management efficiencies''--a myth which many 
in this Congress continue to believe. At this point, ``management 
efficiencies'' must be viewed as what they truly are--cuts in services 
to veterans, longer queues for care, and fewer points of access for 
care than veterans have been promised or deserve.
  Republicans seem to have bought into many of these fantasies. 
Democrats have not been involved in the preparation of the conference 
package and are being forced to vote with little review of it. An $872 
million increase over the President's budget is a minimal increase in 
the total amount of funding available for veterans programs. This may 
only be enough to compensate VA for once again rejecting the proposals 
the President has sent up to increase copayments for pharmaceutical 
drugs and charge new enrollment fees.
  It is not enough to restore long-term care services, to bolster 
mental health programs for our returning troops, or to better ensure 
that veterans' claims can be administered on a timely basis. It will 
not fill the deficits created from unspecified management efficiencies. 
It will not be adequate to allow for growth in medical inflation or 
veterans enrollment. It will not allow VA to make critical investments 
in its aging medical infrastructure.
  The Senate has at least rejected House budget reconciliation 
instructions that would have forced Congress to make $155 million in 
cuts to veterans' benefits in fiscal year 2006 and almost $800 million 
in cuts by fiscal year 2011.
  America's veterans deserve our eternal support and gratitude, and we 
should reflect this gratitude by providing adequate funds for the 
programs that serve them and help them readjust to their lives as 
civilians. This budget resolution fails our Nation's heroes and we 
should be ashamed if we pass it.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, as Congress moves toward passing the fiscal 
year (FY) 2006 budget, I would like to address my thoughts and concerns 
on two aspects of this proposal.
  First, this budget will reduce the deficit. The resolution caps 
discretionary spending at $843 billion and cuts the deficit in half 
over the next 5 years. We will reach our deficit reduction goals 
through a combination of policies that encourage economic growth and 
fiscal discipline that slows the growth of mandatory spending by 0.1 
percent over five years. Without this restraint, the federal deficit 
would continue to grow.
  I am very disappointed with one aspect of the budget agreement. The 
original House passed budget did not include language to open the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil and gas exploration, 
while the Senate's budget did. The Concurrent Budget Resolution deleted 
the Senate language. Several weeks ago we debated the Energy Bill (H.R. 
6). On April 20, 2005, the House considered the Markey amendment that 
would have protected ANWR from oil and gas drilling. I voted for the 
Markey amendment to protect the wilderness. When the amendment failed, 
I voted against the House Energy Bill. I will continue to oppose 
proposals to open the Refuge to drilling.
  This Budget Resolution includes reconciliation instructions for the 
House Resources Committee to find $2.4 billion in savings from programs 
under their jurisdiction. The Resources Committee should find savings 
from programs outside the ANWR. They can do this and should not rely on 
the speculative revenues of oil yet to be discovered.
  Since my election to Congress, I have voted consistently to protect 
ANWR from oil and gas exploration. I have voted to protect ANWR for two 
main reasons. First, ANWR is among the last untouched natural 
landscapes in the entire United States. Once ANWR is open for 
exploration, its natural landscape will be changed forever. Second, any 
oil found in ANWR will not put the United States on a path to energy 
independence or lower gas prices one cent. The United States Geological 
Survey estimates that the supply of oil in ANWR is totally inadequate 
to meet our nation's growing energy needs. More importantly for the 
current energy debate, oil from ANWR is more than 10 years away from 
hitting domestic markets. ANWR will not solve our domestic energy 
issues.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget is not the forum for a debate on ANWR--its 
main purpose is to cut the deficit.
  I will support the budget because it moves us toward a balanced 
budget by reducing spending by 1 percent. And I will continue to oppose 
legislation that opens ANWR to drilling.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
misguided resolution that represents a missed opportunity to address 
some of America's most pressing problems in a fair and equitable 
manner.
  The budget is much more than just a government document; it is a 
statement of our nation's priorities and values. This budget fails the 
test of moral leadership by increasing the burdens on the poor, the 
middle class and those families struggling to get into the middle 
class. The American people deserve better.
  I am tremendously proud that in my first term as the Second 
District's Representative, Congress and the President balanced the 
budget for the first time in a generation. Until just a few years ago, 
the budget remained balanced and the surpluses we produced were being 
used to pay down the national debt and strengthen the solvency of 
Social Security. But this Administration and its allies the Republican 
Congressional Leadership have squandered the budget surpluses on 
wasteful tax policies and are running record budget deficits as far as 
the eye can see. That's just plain wrong.
  This budget resolution contains deep cuts in services to the most 
vulnerable in our society, including Medicaid, which provides medical 
care to 870,000 poor children in North Carolina. This budget resolution 
continues to shortchange the No Child Left Behind education reform law, 
which is now $39 billion below budget. This budget spends more than 
three times in taxpayer funds on interest on the national debt as we 
are investing in education on the federal level. Folks, cutting our 
investments in education is like eating our seedcorn. This budget 
resolution eliminates proven programs and cuts essential services like 
law enforcement and Border Patrol. And this budget resolution makes the 
deficit bigger not smaller while automatically raising the limit on the 
national debt which is increasingly held by foreign countries.
  Instead of this wrongheaded budget resolution, Congress and the White 
House should work together to balance the budget with real PAYGO 
enforcement rules, provide middle class families tax relief and make 
real investments in our nation's future through science, technology, 
agriculture and health care.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this budget 
resolution.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for 
the Conference Report for the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 
Fiscal Year 2006.
  When I was elected to Congress last year I pledged to the people of 
Southwest Florida that I would work to help reduce the size and cost of 
the Federal Government while preserving the services that people need.
  For years Congress allowed spending to grow uncontrollably--25 
percent since 2001--creating a deficit of almost $500 billion. That's 
wrong.
  If our children and grandchildren are to inherit a free, secure, and 
prosperous Nation, we must restore fiscal discipline and 
responsibility.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I am proud to have had a seat at 
the table as we took a first step forward in this critical effort.
  This budget begins to exercise fiscal restraint by slowing the growth 
of both mandatory and discretionary spending while allowing room to 
fund our national priorities.
  It is the first budget since 1997 to include reconciliation 
instructions so that we can slow the rate of growth in rapidly 
expanding mandatory programs. It roughly freezes non-defense, non-
homeland security discretionary spending. At the same time, it provides 
ample resources for our defense abroad and security at home.
  I congratulate the Chairman and the Conference Committee for ensuring 
these elements remain in the budget, and I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to achieve a balanced budget that funds our national 
priorities without raising taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

[[Page 8334]]


  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against this 
budget resolution. This budget provides $105.7 billion in tax cuts to 
the wealthiest Americans, above the $1.9 trillion already bestowed upon 
them since 2001. This additional fiscal irresponsibility in the face of 
huge deficits is ample reason to oppose the resolution.
  But this resolution goes further--it takes from the poor to give to 
the rich by shredding our healthcare safety net. This resolution will 
result in $10 billion in cuts to Medicaid, and possibly more because 
the instruction to the Committee on Energy and Commerce is for $14.7 
billion, and the Committee might cut even more.
  I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to consider every 
dollar we spend in these times of high deficits. This is exactly why 
our scarce resources should go to the most vulnerable among us. 
Medicaid provides healthcare to more than 52 million of the sickest and 
poorest Americans, including 25 million children, 14 million low-income 
adults (the majority of whom work), five million low-income seniors, 
and eight million individuals with disabilities.
  A bipartisan majority of both the House and Senate have called for no 
cuts to Medicaid. The National Governors Association opposes the cuts. 
And nearly 1,000 state organizations and more than 800 national 
organizations have voiced opposition to these cuts.
  Medicaid is not the problem. It has done a better job at holding down 
costs than private insurance by almost half. And Medicaid is absorbing 
the costs of care not covered by Medicare.
  These reconciliation instructions will increase the number of 
uninsured, create job losses in the healthcare sector, and result in 
payment reductions to doctors and other healthcare providers who care 
for Medicaid patients. Such cuts will also undermine community health 
centers that depend so much on Medicaid to survive.
  We must get our priorities straight. This budget resolution fails to 
do that. Two days ago, 348 Members said ``no'' to Medicaid cuts in a 
non-binding motion to instruct. I urge my colleagues to stick to their 
guns, and vote ``no'' on this budget resolution.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget before us 
today.
  In a time when our schools are struggling to keep up with increasing 
Federal standards, this budget actually cuts funding to our schools.
  It cuts funding for programs that promote equal education 
opportunities for low-income students, such as programs in my district 
in California.
  It also eliminates funding for school violence and drug prevention 
programs.
  It freezes bilingual education funding. Twenty-four percent of the 
students in my county of San Bernardino are English learners and depend 
on these programs. We should not hold back children by preventing them 
from learning English.
  The budget will endanger the health of millions of Americans, by 
cutting funding to food stamps, the nation's number one investment in 
nutrition and defense against hunger.
  Families will be forced to make hard choices between buying groceries 
and paying their bills.
  It will also cut funding to Medicaid by $10 billion.
  These cuts will be devasting to low-income families.
  This budget also falls millions short of what is needed for Veterans' 
medical care. Veterans hospitals will either have to cut health care 
services or require local veterans to pay more for services.
  Our men and women in uniform are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan to 
protect us, and we aren't providing the funding to protect them when 
they come home!
  This budget also slashes funding to COPS program. The program has 
funded 15,801 additional police officers and 504 school resource 
officers in California.
  It completely eliminates funding for the $301 million State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program, leaving state and local governments to pay 
for the jailing of undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes. San 
Bernardino County received more than $1 million in these funds in 2003.
  The President and Republicans in Congress talk about conservative 
compassion, but where's the compassion in this budget?
  Instead of funding the programs that working families depend on, the 
President has offered tax cuts totaling over $100 billion over five 
years. Most of these cuts will benefit the richest one percent of all 
Americans.
  This budget also spends every last penny in the Social Security trust 
fund, $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years.
  The President entered his term with a budget surplus he inherited 
from President Clinton, and now he has created the largest deficit in 
our nation's history .
  My colleagues, I urge you to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the 
conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 95 will be followed by 
a 5-minute vote ordered on H. Res. 210.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 211, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 149]

                               YEAS--214

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach

[[Page 8335]]


     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clyburn
     Cunningham
     Doggett
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Jefferson
     Paul
     Rothman
     Towns

                              {time}  2035

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall, No. 149, on H. Con Res. 95, I 
was in my Congressional District on official business. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________