Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2005, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 through 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 248 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is a great day in this House and a great day for our Nation and an honor to kick off the debate about the fiscal blueprint, that our conference of the House and the Senate has come together to set forth the priorities for our Nation.

House Resolution 248 is a closed rule that provides for consideration of the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 95, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2006 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

As a member of both the Committee on Rules and the Committee on the Budget, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its consideration. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. It provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Importantly, section 2 of the resolution is a valuable addition to the rules and process of the House. I appreciate the work that a number of Members in the House have put into this effort. Specifically, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) particularly have fought for budget process reform and, with the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), have included it. Congress in this resolution makes a strong commitment to enforcing fiscal responsibility with the addition of a separate order for the 109th Congress. The resolution creates a point of order in the Committee of the Whole against a motion to rise and report a general appropriations bill if that legislation, as amended, is in breach of its 302(b) budget allocation. Any Member of either side of the aisle, on the Committee on the Budget or not, on the Committee on Rules or not, may raise this point of order.

A breach in allocation will be determined by the Chair, based on estimates provided by the Committee on the Budget as is currently prescribed in the Budget Act.

If the Chair sustains the point of order, the Chair would put the question to the Committee, and there would then follow 10 minutes of debate on the question, equally divided.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Chair would put the question to the whole Committee. If the motion to rise and report were defeated, then no further amendment shall be in order except one proper amendment equally divided and debated and multiple pro forma amendments, if offered by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, for the purpose of debate.

This point of order is only applicable once for a given bill and does not apply to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI.

The congressional budget is the ultimate enforcement tool, allowing Congress to clearly identify its priorities, to lay out that fiscal blueprint and vision for the coming fiscal year. It lays out the plan for how America's tax dollars will be spent. It allows us at a time of war to ensure that our Nation's soldiers, Guardsmen, Reservists, sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen are equipped and trained and supported, prioritizing guarantees that our economy continues to expand, providing jobs and opportunities for more Americans to achieve their piece of the American Dream each and every day. It is a tool that allows us to make certain that our government acts in a fiscally responsible manner to ensure opportunities and safety for future generations of Americans.

This added point of order gives one more enforcement mechanism to ensure that Congress spends responsibly and follows the priorities set forth in the congressional budget. Just as small businesses and large businesses, families and individuals sit down on a regular basis and review their budget and, despite the pressure, have to stick to it, so should Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the Committee on the Budget that this year reported out a historic blueprint that sets in motion a path to cutting the deficit both in dollars and as a percentage of our gross domestic product, a percentage of our economy. This budget wisely targets both discretionary and mandatory spending in an effort to do that and in establishing priorities.

The Committee on the Budget calls for a reduction in total nondefense, non-homeland security discretionary spending. That has not been done since President Reagan was in the White House. And for the first time since 1997, the budget includes reconciliation instructions to authorizing committees calling for a reduction in the rate of growth in mandatory programs.

Mandatory spending is the guaranteed spending, the entitlement spending, if you will, that grows each and every year, largely without congressional reform or review. Today it consumes 55 percent of the budget, and if

it continues unchecked, it will reach nearly two-thirds of the entire Federal budget by 2015.

It is unacceptable that more than half of the government's spending today is largely on automatic pilot. This is neither sound policy nor sustainable fiscal policy, and Congress is on its way to losing control over spending priorities as entitlements squeeze the budget more and more.

These reconciliation instructions embodied in this conference report are the vital step to begin the process of getting mandatory spending back to growth at a sustainable rate and continuing to lead us on that path toward cutting the deficit in half in 5 years.

I am hopeful that while the authorizing committees are reviewing their programs, they would also conclude that a number of these mandatory programs would be better suited as discretionary, and therefore subject to continued oversight by the Congress.

I am proud of the work the Committee on the Budget has done this year. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for his tremendous, steadfast, fair, balanced and honorable leadership of that committee and for driving us forward with a fiscal discipline that brings us to this point of consideration of the conference report on the budget.

I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished physician, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another aged and crusty Member of the House, a leader on fiscal policy, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who has been a leader in budget process reform and in fiscal discipline.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would remind the gentleman that the Social Security bonds are still backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. And unlike the other side of the aisle, this side of the aisle is concerned not just about Social Security for today's seniors, who are perfectly cared for if you are 50 and older, but for tomorrow's seniors as well, those students who are graduating from college today who will retire 15 years after the system has gone bust if action is not taken.

One side has plans, competing plans even, a variety of plans. The other side is in denial.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House of what this budget is since we have heard what it is not. It accommodates the tax relief that was passed by this House on a bipartisan basis. It fully supports national defense with an increase of nearly 5 percent. Homeland security expenses are dealt with with an increase of 2.3 percent, and an overall nonsecurity, nondefense discretionary spending reduction of less than 1 point, something that, if you only heard the other side, you would believe would lead to massive chaos in the streets, the sky falling and ruin of biblical proportions.

I only wonder what will be said next year. What type of analogy or metaphor will top that of this year? This is a budget that is responsible, that lays out priorities for a Nation and is one that gives a vision, a direction for the country towards cutting the deficit in half in 5 years, by dealing not just with discretionary spending but with mandatory as well, and in doing so by reducing the rate of growth.

Something that is lost in this debate is that it is not even a net cut. It is only a Washington, D.C. cut when you are going up 7.3 percent instead of 7.5 percent and accused of making cuts. This is a budget that meets the needs of our national defense. It creates a climate of opportunity and growth for small businesses and individuals who are working every day to be a part of the American Dream and to achieve their goals that they have set out to achieve and take risks and seek capital and take on new employees and buy

equipment. It allows them to continue to do that.

It has an eye towards future generations. It is not a budget about today or about the selfishness of one generation over another, but looking ahead multiple generations and saying, how do we deal with problems that we know nonpartisan experts in these areas, the comptroller general, think tanks of all shapes and sizes and stripes say in 2040, you have a major problem in Social Security. What are you going to do for that first year, teacher? What are you going to do for that student who is graduating from high school this year who will retire years after the system has become insolvent if we fail to act?

On this side you see a variety of opinions, in fact, even clashing ideas about ways to address the problem. And on the other side there is silence. The party that gave us a pillar of domestic policy is in denial about a problem that will affect future generations, and I believe that is a tragedy.

This budget is a budget for today, tomorrow, and decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, all time on our side having expired, I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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.

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, 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. 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, we stand for growing the economy; and to speak about that, let me yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the distinguished chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee.

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. 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. Speaker, how much time remains?

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

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. Speaker, I yield a minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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. Speaker, I yield a minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, every Republican Congress has its winners and its losers, and no where is that more apparent than in the budget. Looking at this budget, we could clearly see that those losing far outnumber those winning. The winners are millionaires and billionaires who will benefit from repeal of the estate tax, the credit card companies who make billions off of bankruptcy legislation, and oil and gas companies given subsidies by the energy bill while oil is at $55 a barrel.

The losers in the budget are anyone who relies on Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and our Nation's veterans desperately needing health care funding, families with seniors who depend on Social Security, and any family that might have a child in need of a student loan.

Those are the winners and losers chosen by this budget, and each and every one of America's hardworking men and women are in one of these two categories.

I would ask my fellow Americans, which category do you fall into? If you are a millionaire, a billionaire or a senior executive at a major credit card company, insurance company or pharmaceutical company, chances are very high you are a winner. Likewise, if you are a foreign financial institution, you are likely a winner, because you will be granted even more opportunities to buy your own piece of America's skyrocketing debt.

On the other hand, if you are part of the hardworking American middle- class, you are likely one of the many who will lose out. The debt your children will have to pay likely exceeds the amount of money you have saved for their college education. Gas prices will continue to rise as your tax dollars go to fund incentives for oil companies. And the benefits and programs that your parents and relatives depend on to make ends meet, as well as the resources that your children will depend on to get funding for a college education, are being slashed in order to give more of your money to the winners, a group which should be easy to recognize at this point.

Now, if you are a member of the working class or the working poor, or if you are a single mother, there should be no doubt in your mind; of course, you are a loser in this budget. And, likewise, if you are a senior citizen, you depend on Social Security, middle aged, a young person counting on Social Security to be there when you retire, you lose out more than anyone in this budget.

In fact, just as Republicans scheme to privatize Social Security and decry that financial crisis with the right hand, they have been raiding the Social Security surplus since Bush took office with the left. I believe that as of this budget, all of the Social Security surplus will be gone.

Remember all that talk about the lockbox? Well, I guess the lock has been broken. We do not need a security camera to see who has been getting away with all the loot. On this President's watch, fiscal year 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, every penny of the Social Security trust fund has been spent to finance deficits for a 4-year total of $635 billion. That is billion with a B. That is a staggering betrayal of the trust given by the American people.

And what about the new budget resolution that we consider today? It spends 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. This budget, when projected over the next 10 years, spends a total of $2.6 trillion from the Social Security surplus. That is the retirement security of America's middle class. And they have the gall to wonder why so many fiscally responsible Democrats have objected to these irresponsible tax cuts that benefit the rich.

I think it is time that we slowed things down and explain to our friends across the aisle what fiscal responsibility is and what it is not. Fiscal responsibility does not include giving away the store, regardless of whether the consequences will be in 5 years or 10 years or 20 years. It means to look and plan for the future so there is an opportunity available for generations yet to come.

Being fiscally responsible does not mean mortgaging the future of this country on the backs of our children and grandchildren. It means providing adequate funding for schools and health care and retirement security.

It does not include asking the American people to pay for the tax cuts given to the millionaires and billionaires. It means giving a break to folks who work hard day in and day out to put food on the table for themselves and their children.

And, most of all, being fiscally responsible does not include robbing the Social Security trust fund blind.

So, as I am sure everyone can see with this budget, the people who need our help the most lose out.

It does not have to be this way. There was a choice. The Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) would have made us proud and protected the core principles that we say we fight for in this institution, such as great schools, good jobs, secure retirements and quality health care.

It would have brought the budget back into balance by 2012 and reinstated the budget enforcement rules to protect Social Security and increased our commitment to education, protected our Nation's veterans and eliminated the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. That is the kind of budget I wish we were considering. That is the kind of budget that the hardworking men and women of America want from their Congress. They want a fair approach that gets us back to fiscal sanity.

Much like the President's Social Security proposal, this budget is the wrong bill at the wrong time and will hurt a vast majority of our Americans, and I urge all my colleagues to defeat this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for a response.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me close this debate by urging Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can modify the rule to allow the House to reject this flawed budget conference report and require the House Committee on the Budget to produce a new Federal budget that does not raid the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, since President Bush took office, Republican budgets have spent every penny of Social Security trust surplus in order to finance the deficits and pay for their tax cuts.

While the President travels the country trying and failing to convince Americans that privatizing Social Security is a good idea, his tax cuts continue to pile up the IOUs in the Social Security trust fund.

We need a budget that will bring back budget enforcement, to protect the Social Security surplus and return the budget to balance by 2012.

The Spratt budget would put us back on the path to fiscal solvency and that is the kind of budget America needs and deserves, not the budget before us today.

Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can protect Social Security and begin restoring some fiscal sanity to the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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.