Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great Floridian, the senior member of our State's Bar, a true gentlemen in every good sense of the word, and my neighbor. Clarence A. Boswell died on February 22, 2005 at the age of 102, and for 75 years of his life he actively practiced law in my hometown of Bartow, Florida.

Clarence Boswell was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1924, and with that admission he began one of our State's longest and most distinguished legal careers. During a time when lawyers tended not to specialize, Clarence Boswell distinguished himself as an accomplished litigator, an acknowledged expert in real estate, probate and trust matters, and a beloved adviser to businesses and families both great and small.

For 50 years Clarence Boswell was recognized in the Courthouse as the determined defense counsel for the railroad. Unknowing opponents were often surprised by the tenacity with which this soft-spoken, genteel southerner defended his client's interests. As a real estate attorney, Clarence Boswell handled some of the largest real estate transactions of his time, and was used by other attorneys as an expert witness on property issues. However, the traits that most endeared him to his clients were the effective, competent and calm counsel he consistently offered those passing through his office. A local judge once referred to Clarence Boswell as a lawyer's lawyer and a gentleman's gentleman.

In his community, Clarence Boswell was a charter member of the Bartow Rotary Club when it was founded in 1924. He served on the Board of Trustees of Erskine College in Due West, SC, and as that Board's Chairman. He was a life long member of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and served as the Moderator of that denomination's Synod. He was attorney for the Polk County School Board for forty years and was instrumental in the founding of Polk Community College.

Above all else, Clarence Boswell's greatest love was for his family and his wife of 63 years, his beloved ``Toggie''. He is survived by his two children, eight grandchildren and twelve great grandchildren.

Clarence Boswell was the last of a generation who were born into a time before the Depression, two great wars, I and the rise of the American Century. It was a generation of men who stood, bowed and wore hats, not baseball caps that they tipped to one another in passing and removed indoors. They were people who always presented a facade of innocence, who never spoke openly of certain things, and who detested rudeness and vulgarity. Now, I am not one who cries to bring back the ``good old days'' but with the passage of time, we have lost in this country many good things that once spoke of manners, respect, courage and honor. Today I pay tribute to one who represented those good things, Clarence Boswell.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, House Resolution 303 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2744, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006.

According to the rule general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution.

Under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.

The resolution authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to present for consideration this open rule for the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. As with most all appropriations bills, the Committee on Rules has once again afford the entire Chamber an opportunity to offer any amendment to this legislation that complies with the rules of the House.

Members of the House are permitted to come to the floor and bring forth any idea or change they wish to see in this legislation. I am pleased that rule provides a chance for all of our Members to express their views on how our Nation should prioritize spending in this area.

Article 1, section 9 of the United States Constitution says, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''

Our Founding Fathers established the role of the Committee on Appropriations to ensure that our Nation's spending is subject to oversight and approval by its elected representatives. The committee plays an important role in determining the wise use of taxpayer funds.

I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and his subcommittee for the tremendously difficult work this year in bringing the spending bill under its budget allocation. The Congressional budget is an important tool of the Congress, allowing us to establish priorities for the coming fiscal year. It is always encouraging to see the budget and the appropriations process work together in tandem, allowing Congress to ensure that our government acts in a fiscally responsible manner.

The Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations has reported out a bill that provides important resources to ensure that our Nation's farmers and ranchers remain competitive in the 21st century. The legislation enhances our ability to safeguard our food supply and addresses the nutritional needs of women and children and the most disadvantaged in our country. The bill also works to maintain and build fiscal discipline.

H.R. 2744 continues to fund important projects at a level consistent with fiscal year 2005, allocating nearly $17 billion plus $83 billion in total mandatory spending. At the same time, it addresses needs such as the protection of health and safety. In an effort to combat harmful pests and disease that

threaten America's food supply, the Food Safety and Inspection Service funding is increased by $20 million over last year, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service activities are funded at $16 million above last year's level, for a total of $829 million.

In addition, the Farm Service Agency's salaries and expenses are funded at the President's request of $1 billion, allowing the continued efficient delivery of farm and disaster programs that are so critical to wide swaths of our great Nation.

To unlock much-needed advances in agricultural research and allow American farmers to have the tools necessary to produce a safe and wholesome food supply, the Agricultural Research Service is funded at over $1.1 billion.

Additionally, USDA's Conservation Operations activities are increased by $26 million over the President's request, which allows farmers and ranchers to achieve important conservation and environmental goals as our Nation's farmers and ranchers are the original environmentalists in this country.

This appropriations bill is an excellent example of how Congress can attain fiscal discipline and still fund our priorities. H.R. 2744 funds programs over the President's budget request, increasing funding in strategic areas while maintaining a funding level consistent with funding for fiscal year 2005.

I am impressed with the work of the subcommittee, and I am certain the appropriations process this year will serve as a model of how we can achieve responsible and responsive funding simultaneously.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a congressional district in Florida that is among the top in the Nation in production of certain agricultural goods. I want to personally thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittee staff for their continued commitment and attention to the needs of all of American agriculture and Florida in particular, especially in the aftermath of the hurricanes that devastated much of Florida's agriculture last summer and fall. The Committee on Appropriations' work is greatly appreciated.

I also wish to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for his attention and dedication to the continued needs resulting from invasive pests and diseases that are affecting a number of crops throughout our country, including citrus canker affecting our citrus industry in Florida. I know that all of America's farmers and ranchers and consumers deeply appreciate the subcommittee's tireless efforts to assist our agricultural community.

I urge Members to support this fair and open rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) comments about hunger remind me of an old proverb. ``When there is food, there are many problems. When there is no food, there is only one problem.'' The gentleman speaks very passionately about that issue. It reminds me how fortunate we are that, because of the productivity of the American farmer and rancher, that Americans spend less of their disposable income on food than any other industrialized nation and our greatest threats in terms of childhood illnesses is obesity, not hunger. And I would not trade our problem for anybody else's.

It is clearly a huge issue. I am proud of the work the appropriators have done in allocating $900 million through the emergency bill for those who were ravaged by the tsunami that struck southeast Asia.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our distinguished majority whip.

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

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

Respecting the gentleman's right to get off his chest whatever he chooses to get off of his chest, I would point out that the appropriations process is far ahead of schedule, and we are on track to complete the program of passing the bills through the House before July 4.

I would also point out our appreciation to the gentleman for his support for the bill and recognition of the hard work the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and his subcommittee have put in to an outstanding agriculture appropriation bill, and appreciate the fact that, despite his misgivings about the process, he likes the work product that this committee has produced.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his comments. His passion for ending hunger in this country is laudable. This is a fair rule. It is an open rule. With the exception of those amendments that are legislating on an appropriations bill, anyone can come down here and have the opportunity to make their case for changes. So while Members have been here expressing frustrations about certain policy issues, there has been widespread agreement, including from the gentleman on the Rules Committee and including from the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member of the subcommittee. There has been a general agreement of support for the underlying bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has produced. I am glad to see that type of bipartisan cooperation that has not been given the credit that is due here in Washington.

This is a great bill for America's resources and for the conservation element that America's farmers and ranchers are so vital in participating

in. It provides the necessary framework for disaster programs and commodity programs that allow us to continue to provide the safest, cheapest, most wholesome food supply in abundance in the world with a very small percentage of our population; and it allows us to continue to be in the forefront of technology and research and development, continuing to be on the cutting edge of having greater production, greater yields on fewer acres in the most environmentally conscious manner possible, in addition to dealing with our nutrition issues, our women, infant and children issues and school lunch programs and the other important issues for our underserved in this country.

It is a great bill, Mr. Speaker. I encourage this entire House to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I am delighted to be here to talk about what is an important issue for the whole country, but it came to light in the aftermath of the hurricanes in Florida.

Immediately after Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne ravaged the Sunshine State, with the help of this Congress hurricane disaster relief assistance was provided to help our State recover from those devastating storms. And while many of those who suffered damage are still waiting for FEMA recovery payments, there were a number of questionable payments that have been made as it related to funeral expenses for hurricane-related deaths.

For example, the instance in Pensacola of a recovering alcoholic with cirrhosis of the liver, after Hurricane Ivan blew through town on September 16, the gentleman went on a binge ``due to misery,'' his widow told the Miami Herald. He never fully recovered and died of respiratory failure. His funeral expenses were paid by the American taxpayer.

A gentleman from Palm Bay, Florida, died of lung cancer 6 days before Hurricane Frances made landfall. The gentleman was buried before the hurricane made landfall. His widow said that FEMA damage inspectors came to her home and suggested she might qualify for funeral expenses. She said that she did not think her husband's death was related to Hurricane Frances. She had her husband's funeral paid for by the American taxpayers.

The Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security with a report that came out today echoed these concerns and called for two specific changes: a change that the Department should develop specific criteria and guidelines for determining if a death is disaster related, and a specific requirement that staff of FEMA provide for an analysis of each request and document the rationale for approval or disapproval of funeral-related assistance. This is an issue that is hugely important to Florida as we try to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and allow FEMA's limited resources to go to those who are truly in need.

We had offered a different approach to this as it related to medical examiners. With the work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), we were able to come to a resolution on the appropriate legislative language that solves this issue, and I am grateful to him for his leadership.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, how much time remains?

Madam Chairman, I want to just take that remaining time then to thank our delegation chairman, the gentleman from Fort Lauderdale (Mr. Shaw) for his efforts on this, and all of the other related FEMA issues; and thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). This is an important issue for the taxpayers, and it is important to make sure that people who are truly in need are assisted by FEMA and those who are not are not able to game the system. I appreciate the leadership of my colleagues.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 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 purposes of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 242 is a same-day rule. It waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules.

H. Res. 242 allows the House to consider the rule and conference report accompanying 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 or establishing a separate order relating to budget enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative we pass this same-day rule so that we may consider the congressional budget resolution today. Once the House completes consideration and passes the budget, we can send the budget resolution to the Senate. The Senate will then be in a position to consider, and hopefully pass, the budget resolution on Friday, before they recess next week.

I am pleased and excited at the prospect of the passage of this budget. For the first time since 1997, the budget includes reconciliation instructions to authorizing committees, calling for the reduced rate of growth of mandatory programs. Mandatory spending is the guaranteed spending that grows every year, mostly without reform or review.

It currently consumes 55 percent of our budget; and if it continues unchecked, it will reach 61 percent of the total Federal budget by 2015.

More than half of the government's spending today is essentially on automatic pilot. This is neither sound nor sustainable fiscal policy. Congress is on its way to losing control over the spending priorities that the people send us here to debate and review and vote on as entitlements squeeze the budget more and more. Reconciliation instructions are the critical step to beginning the process of getting mandatory spending back to a sustainable rate of growth.

These savings are an excellent precedent. My hope is that reconciliation instructions become a standard practice in this time of deficits. With budget deficits, it is imperative to get a handle on all spending, both discretionary and mandatory. This budget is an inauguration of true fiscal discipline in a period of restrained spending.

I want to commend the Committee on the Budget and its staff for their hard work through the night to get this budget resolution finished so that we may consider it today in preparation for the recess that the Senate intends to take next week. The House will be back to work next week.

The House Committee on Rules will be meeting later today to provide a rule for the consideration of the budget resolution. I am pleased that this same-day rule will help facilitate the timely deliberation of our budget. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this same-day rule so that we can move forward to the rule and eventually on to the conference report on the budget today.

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

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

To the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good friend and distinguished colleague, I can certainly understand the gentlewoman's desire to read the completed conference report. I would just point out that the same-day rule was passed last night in the Committee on Rules as an accommodation to the entire House so we can facilitate the work, enable the budget conference report to be passed out of the House so that it can go to the Senate; because the Senate, apparently in need of a respite from their legislative productivity of the last several weeks, will be taking next week off.

So in order to get the budget process moving and give the Federal Government and the American people a blueprint of our priorities, we wanted to move this as expeditiously as possible and out of consideration for all Members to be able to get home to their districts and have the budget conference report get to the Senate and be passed out as soon as possible.

I certainly understand the gentlewoman's concern. I would like to see the conference report completed as quickly as possible. We fully expect that it will be today. The Committee on Rules will meet again where the gentlewoman and our other colleagues on the Committee on Rules will be able to consider the rule for the consideration of that conference report.

As to the facts and figures in the budget, apparently they are available as we heard during the 1-minute speeches from colleagues on the gentlewoman's side of the aisle. There were a number of challenges and concerns and problems that were discussed in disagreement with the proposed budget, so I assume that some Members have

managed to find the facts and figures and statistics that they are using to urge opposition to the budget. Apparently those figures are available.

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

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

I certainly respect the views of the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who has worked very hard on the blueprint for the Federal Government. He enjoys an exceptional working relationship on the House Committee on the Budget. I think it has worked as well as that committee can possibly work under the gentleman's leadership and the chairmanship of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).

I would just say, as a conferee he is probably privy to more information about the status of the blueprint than I am, having been in the meeting and having been one of the three House conferees. Representing a third of our entire representation on that body, he certainly has had access to the information about the differences between the House views on the budget and the Senate views on the budget, and he has articulated them well.

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply point out the gentleman making up one-third of the entire delegation to the conference committee, the ranking member has certainly been a greater participant in that conference role than members on the majority side, other than the chairman and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I know there is some interest on the part of both parties about the schedule for today and tomorrow as it relates to consideration of the budget conference report. We are considering the same-day rule now allowing an hour of debate. We will take up the rule, and then of course be able to debate the conference report.

After consulting with the majority leader, I can say with a strong level of confidence that we will not have votes tomorrow. The Committee on the Budget chairman has indicated he will have a conference report ready to file within the next hour or so, and we would hope to consider this conference report later this afternoon and conclude votes for the week by late afternoon or early evening, giving Members an opportunity to return to their districts.

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

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

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

I just marvel that in this deep dark process that we are engaged in enough light has been cast to find all of the flaws in the budget. So on the one hand, there are tremendous problems with the budget that will be presented in the budget; and on the other hand, we do not know what is in the budget because there has been inadequate time.

I submit that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) was right when he said that this is a big deal, it is an important issue. Having a blueprint, having a budget resolution for the Congress is hugely important so that we may avoid the omnibus at the end of the year, which also is open to the criticism that it is difficult to find everything that is in it when we have to pass and manage the government in that way. And the budget resolution lays forth a blueprint that enables the Committee on Appropriations to do their work and enables the American people to know what the priorities of their government are for that fiscal year.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the sincerity of the gentlewoman from Texas. I would just point out that this is a tool that we are using to enable us to expedite the consideration of the budget conference report so that she can be with her constituents tomorrow to tell them all of her disagreements with our plans to reform Social Security.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, their reliance on the press reports is much more favorable to their side than it would be for ours and a much more reliable source of information than it would be in our case.

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

The gentleman is obviously very passionate about the views that he has on the direction this country should take, and I would encourage him to offer his new New Deal concept. But it is clear that his difference of opinion is about the substance of the budget, and this is a rule about the facilitation of consideration of that budget.

There was not a single person from his side of the aisle that voted for this budget in committee. There was not a single person from his side of the aisle who voted for this on the floor of this House. He knows that the Senate version differs greatly from the House version, and he knows that the House version differs greatly from the President's submission.

So there are three distinct visions out there that are being reconciled through this conference process that we will take up later today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is entitled to his opinion, and we are here to deliberate it on the floor, a criticism that he has leveled against us. We are deliberating it under the same-day rule. He will be able to make that same charge to me and my party when we debate the rule, and he will be able to, along with the others who have managed to find their facts and figures about all the terrible, awful, horrible, no good things this budget will do that they have expressed on the floor of this House, they will be back to deliberate it when we take up the conference report.

There are very wide differences of opinion between these two parties. The budget is the vision, the blueprint, the spending priorities of this government for the fiscal year. Not one of your party voted for it in committee, not one of your party voted for it on the House floor, and I would dare say not one of you will vote for the conference report. I cannot speak to that, but if I were a betting man, I think it would be a pretty safe bet.

It is a reflection of the difference in philosophy about where we ought to be going as a government, and we are judged by the American people on that philosophy in this body every 2 years.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) made reference to a vision of a new New Deal. I am fairly confident there will not be a new New Deal in this budget conference report because that is a difference in philosophy.

We have put together in negotiations with the Senate a spending and budget package that gets our arms around mandatory spending, around discretionary spending, that looks for savings through the reconciliation process and attempts through economic growth and development to put in place an economy that allows everyone to succeed and find their piece of the American dream. Apparently you all disagree, and that is your right, and we have hours of this floor debate to go through these disagreements.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, I voted for the same-day rule in the Committee on Rules, and, as I said earlier, it is to facilitate Members getting back to their district, like the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the other Members who have expressed an interest in being back to talk about the issues going on before this Congress, whatever those issues may be, and whatever the individual Members' opinion of the outcome of those votes may also be.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, the Senate is taking a respite next week, apparently from their labors of legislative productivity, whereas the House will be in session. Our goal, knowing that April 15 was when we would have liked to have had this budget done, our goal is to facilitate getting this process along and pass the budget conference report out of this body so that the Senate may consider it before they go out for a week, because, as the gentleman knows, we are moving into the appropriations season and it is important that the American

people and the Congress have a budget blueprint in place.

This is an important process that we have in place. It is important, as a Committee on the Budget member, to me and to the entire House that we have in place a working budget, something that the government has not had every year, but I believe it is important that we should. I think it is important that we reconcile our differences with the Senate and move this along so that the House and Senate can take it up.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman in his 30 minutes of debate has made the point that he is opposed to us facilitating consideration of this bill today so that Members can get home, and he has respectfully made his point. We have made ours.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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 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, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me some time. It is interesting to hear the comments of the distinguished minority whip and minority leader. But I am curious about something. I am curious how such a great party and the party that gave birth to some of the pillars of domestic policy in this country, has become the party of denial, the party of doing nothing.

When it comes to discussing Social Security reform, their answer is, do nothing. We have until 2040 or 2041.

When it came time to reform Medicare and even enrich and modernize the benefits available for seniors, their answer was vote against it. Do nothing.

And here today we are discussing a third pillar of domestic policy in this country that helps enrich the lives and provides a safety net for so many of those who are less fortunate in our society, and to put forward a reform proposal, and their answer is to do nothing.

Governor Mark Sanford, the Governor of the State of the ranking member of the Budget Committee, said the subject of Medicaid reform is important and timely. Our system, as currently configured, works fundamentally against the taxpayer and against the consumers in the form of Medicaid recipients and patients.

Governor Blunt of Missouri and Governor Granholm of Michigan agreed that the program is unsustainable.

Governor Vilsack of Iowa: ``If you do the numbers, they just do not add up.''

The South Dakota Governor, opening the legislative session, bemoaned the dramatic increases in how they are cutting into available funds for other folk, for other programs, and pointed out that the State health care program is growing at a 2 percent rate and Medicaid is going up at 18 percent, something that is unsustainable.

The Governors, on a bipartisan basis, have already, after this subject just coming forward weeks ago under the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa

(Chairman Nussle) and the Budget Committee, have already developed a plan that generates nearly $9 billion in savings, and that is the first draft.

How is it that the great party that stood for great opportunities to help those in need has gone into denial and said, we will not change a thing. Everyone agrees the rate is unsustainable. Everyone agrees the costs are eating up State budgets. Everyone agrees that there is tremendous opportunity for savings that can then benefit other important programs; but our answer is to do nothing, or to outsource the job to a commission. And if the pattern holds, when the commission, if it is appointed, comes back with their findings, they will besmirch the reputation of the members of that commission, particularly those from their own party who were selected in one form or another by the President or by the Congress. That is what happened with the Social Security Commission and the distinguished Senator Moynihan. Why would this be any different?

Why would the party that is so responsible for originating these grand ideas be so irresponsible about making them relevant to people of my generation or the distinguished gentlelady from South Dakota's generation? Why is that? Why would you outsource the responsibility to provide a solution?

It is an important step that the House Budget Committee took in directing the Energy and Commerce Committee to take a hard look at these programs and find savings. It did not specify where they would come from. It did not tell them how to do their job. It directed them to take a hard look at where 55 percent of our budget today is going in the form of mandatory spending. And a huge part of that is in the Medicaid program.

I would encourage all of us to agree that there is a problem and move forward with some commonsense reforms that include saving the taxpayers money when possible.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I am proud to be a part of the Committee on Rules, which reported out a very balanced rule that allows both sides to be heard on this issue.

The interesting thing about this issue is that there is agreement that the death tax should go away. There is disagreement about the numbers and the number of people for whom it should go away, our side believing that it should be totally repealed, the other side believing that there are a certain number of people who should be exempt from paying this. It is good to see that we have finally come together to recognize that the death tax is a killer for small businesses and family farms and ranches. I am glad that that is a bipartisan agreement, and I am glad that this rule reflects that.

A wise man once joked that there is always death and taxes, but death does not get worse every year.

With the death tax in place, that is not true. Each year that passes, many family-owned farms and businesses are subject to this tax. It is fundamentally unfair that death is a taxable event. Taxes have already been paid on the assets subject to the taxation under the death tax during the lifetime of the owners. It amounts to a second bite of the apple for the government.

With the repeal of the tax, more small businesses and farms will stay in the hands of those families. Currently, the death tax is a leading cause of dissolution. And we see this all the time in agriculture, that when the grandparents die they have to sell off a portion of the land so that the government gets their share so that they break up the very asset that made that farm what it was. They eliminate the opportunity for that next generation to participate even though they worked on it themselves, growing up, paying their way through school, helping to support all of the family efforts. That is a great cause of the loss of rural communities and small-time agriculture in this country, and I think that we can all agree that that is a shameful loss to our Nation. They form the backbone of our rural heritage.

The death tax is a virtue tax in the sense that it penalizes work, penalizes savings and thrift in favor of large-scale consumption.

In other words, if those same families had sold off everything and spent it, then they would not be subject to the death tax. But the fact that they made a decision to hold something, to build it, to grow it so that their children and grandchildren might have a farm to continue to cultivate the bread basket for the world in, then they are taxed. Where is the fairness in that?

Mr. Speaker, 87 percent of family businesses do not make it to the third generation. Unquestionably, the death tax plays a tremendous part in that statistic. This is especially true of businesses that are land- rich and cash-poor. That is what we call it in the South, Mr. Speaker, where you have all of your assets tied up in things. You cannot afford a brand-new car, you cannot afford a brand-new tractor, you cannot afford all the nicer things; but yet on paper you are quite wealthy, because you purchased land, you gave value to that land as time passes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we adopt the rule and continue forward with the repeal of this scurrilous tax on death.

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

I rise with great respect for the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and in agreement, frankly, with his final comments about this, his alternative to our budget, laying out a different approach, a different set of priorities for this Nation, and that is the beauty of this deliberative body. Frankly, it was the beauty of the fairness of the rule I believe that was crafted that allowed four separate approaches, four separate sets of priorities in budgeting to be debated and considered on this House floor.

But I must strongly oppose the Obey amendment. It authorizes higher, uncontrolled spending, while at the same time cutting national defense in a time when our soldiers and sailors and Marines and airmen and Guardsmen and Reservists are engaged all around the world, an unacceptable notion.

In addition to cutting our spending on national defense, it raises taxes by an estimated $18 billion for the next fiscal year. It does increase education

spending by $8 billion. It increases veterans spending and health care spending as well, but I would add that in a time when we are engaged in an unprecedented war on terror and waging a separate effort against growing budget deficits, that the level of growth laid out by the House Committee on the Budget's spending plan meets our national priorities, continues our commitment to veterans and education.

The Department of Education under the House budgets for the last 10 years, the Department of Education's spending has gone up 146 percent over the last decade. It is hard to argue that is an inadequate rate of growth. Veterans spending continues to grow. Investments in IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act have gone up dramatically higher than in the previous 10 years under a different management of this House.

This budget resolution that comes out of the House committee sets these priorities moving our Nation forward and protecting our homeland, investing in homeland security, investing in national defense and in our personnel who are in harm's way, and it maintains those policies of pro-growth that allows our economy to expand, that allows small businesses, medium businesses, and even large businesses to operate in a climate where they want to grow and hire employees and continue to open up new markets around the world, giving Americans new opportunities to move products and giving Americans the opportunity to achieve the American dream.

Congress has addressed extraordinary spending demands in the last several years. They bring us face to face with the reality that it is an unsustainable rate of spending growth, one that must be slowed. Last year's projected deficit was $521 billion, but we ended the year with a deficit of $412 billion, reducing that deficit by 20 percent. Although that number is staggeringly high, admittedly, this House-passed budget, the committee-passed budget, puts us on track to cut that deficit in half in 5 years. In doing so it makes some tough decisions, which is what we are paid to do around here.

It requires us to prioritize and make tradeoffs while ensuring that those highest priorities are fully funded and met, and in the House budget we identify that highest priority as being national security and homeland security. This amendment, the amendment we are debating today, cuts defense spending and we find that to be unacceptable in today's climate.

The budget slows the growth of mandatory spending by 0.1 percent over 5 years, from its current rate of 6.4 percent to 6.3 percent. I think that is an important fact. While we spend an awful lot of time in this Chamber talking about cuts, what we are doing is slowing the rate of growth. If someone were to offer workers a 6.3 percent pay raise, it would be a pretty good deal. The fact that these programs continue to grow at 6.3 rather than 6.4 percent is not throwing starving children into the streets. It is not taking food out of seniors' mouths. It is not wrecking our ability to be a compassionate and decent society, it is simply recognizing the simple fact that we cannot maintain the dramatic rates of growth we have been engaged in for the past decade and solve the deficit problem.

This budget resolution continues to make homeland and national security major priorities. Since September 11, Congress has spent nearly $1.9 trillion to provide for defense and homeland security, not including supplementals. Like last year's budget, this plan takes into account funding for the ongoing war in Iraq. The resolution budgets $50 billion to provide for the ongoing war against terrorism. The national defense budget continues the multiyear plan to enable our Armed Services both to fight the war against terrorism now and to transform itself to counter unconventional threats in the future. It fully accommodates the President's request for defense.

Mr. Chairman, the last time we made any real effort to rein in spending, that piece of spending in our budget that makes up 55 percent of the budget, was in 1997. That 55 percent is what we call mandatory spending. I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is very familiar with this. As an appropriator, he has seen his share of the budget in discretionary shrink over time, and it will continue to without us making important reforms on the mandatory side of the ledger.

This budget, again for the first time since 1997, instructs the authorizing committees, those committees with the greatest expertise in their areas of jurisdiction, through the reconciliation process to find $7.8 billion in savings for next year and $68.6 billion in savings over the next 5 years. What that means is we are putting the people who understand these policy areas best, we are putting them on the trail to find out the ways to help make those programs be the most effective and the most efficient. They know best the successes and failures in the myriad of government programs that are now on autopilot through the mandatory spending process.

It is estimated that if mandatory spending grows at its current pace, by 2015 it will consume 62 percent of the Federal government. I think it is an important piece of our budget that we begin the process of mandatory spending reform. That reform happens through the reconciliation process.

A number of the President's key initiatives supported in this budget include $40 billion for homeland security outside the Department of Defense; an additional $2.5 billion for Project BioShield to secure new vaccines against smallpox, anthrax and other deadly bioterrorist threats. These funds follow on the heels of massive increases over the past several years to make sure our Nation is prepared to deal with the terrorist threats we know are out there.

I support our budget. It is an important, thoughtful, prioritized budget that makes some tough decisions. I appreciate the gentleman's right to offer an alternative vision. That is what this is. This is a clash of visions, a clash of priorities that our Nation faces. Do we grow our way out of the deficit by fostering a climate that encourages people to find work and start businesses and grow existing businesses, or do we take the approach that we should tax our way out of the deficits? Do we fund our priorities? And what are our highest priorities? Our approach is our highest priority in a time of war is national defense, and our high priority in a time of increased threats from terrorism is homeland security.

We believe that it is important to follow the lead of other Presidents, other administrations, other Congresses that have found themselves budgeting in a time of war to make necessary trade-offs. The New Deal agencies when World War II came about did not continue to receive the same level of funding. In fact, it was President Roosevelt himself who curtailed and even eliminated a number of the agencies he created.

We recognize in our budget that we cannot continue to spend on the domestic side as aggressively as we had at a time of peace when we are at war, and to that end we call for a 0.8 percent reduction in nonsecurity domestic discretionary spending. While it is an important first step and it has not been done since the Reagan administration, it will hardly cause starvation and pandemonium in the streets at a 0.8 percent reduction. Nor will the directed reconciliation process to the authorizing committees do the same.

We make some tough choices. We admit that. We lay out our priorities, and we proudly defend them. And those priorities include investing in defense, caring for those most in need and creating an economic climate that allows people to succeed without raising the burden of taxation on them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished ranking member's suggestion that if we disagree we should vote against it, and I assure him that we shall.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the newest member of the Budget Committee.

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

The gentleman is right. It is simple. His amendment is not a complete substitute for our budget. It is simply reducing the amount of growth in defense, as he clarified for us, and increasing taxes.

He points out the eight-tenths of 1 percent reduction in nonsecurity domestic discretionary spending. Does the gentleman believe that in amongst the stacks of GAO reports that come across his desk as the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, our desk in the Committee on the Budget, that there is not eight-tenths of 1 percent? Eight-tenths of 1 percent in one's personal budget they lose on diet Cokes on the way to work every morning. Eight-tenths of 1 percent cannot be found in negotiating a better deal on computer equipment, office supplies, travel, increased financial accounting?

Spending for education, one that he pointed out specifically, has gone up 146 percent over the last 10 years, and now we are talking about shaving eight-tenths of 1 percent off. Pell grants, the President calls for them to go up. Our budget would allow for that. Fees for veterans are not even budgeted for in this. While the gentleman rightly pointed out the President's budget, the President's budget is not up for debate today, and this budget that the House will vote on later does not call for fees on our veterans.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Obey amendment and support for the underlying House budget.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to the Spratt amendment. I respect the ranking member and the work that he has put into the Budget Committee, but I have to clarify a number of points that have been made by the prior speaker.

This budget goes a long way toward laying out priorities for this Nation. We have through this process been afforded the opportunity to see a variety of different sets of priorities. Members have had the opportunity to vote on four different blueprints for this Nation, across the ideological and political spectrum. I think that is a healthy thing. I do not think that happens enough in this House where we have good solid debate like this. The differences amongst those priorities, though, are stark.

Our budget lays out a blueprint that invests in defense and invests in homeland security, two things that we find to be most urgent at a time when our Nation has come under attack recently and where we are engaged in conflict against terrorism around the world. We create in this budget blueprint an opportunity for policies to move forward that create jobs, that allow for continued economic expansion, that allow us to build upon the fact that homeownership is at its highest rate ever, that Americans are enjoying a lower tax burden that allows them to make decisions about their children's higher education, about their small business, about their opportunity to carve out their piece of the American Dream.

It does not raise taxes on those same small business men and women who are taxed at the individual rate because they are an S corporation, because they are a small business, because they are the neighborhood barber or diner or farmer. We lay out a policy that also calls for fiscal restraint, and we balance the approach to fiscal restraint on both the discretionary side of the ledger and the mandatory side of the ledger.

For those who are uninformed about Washingtonese, the mandatory side of the ledger now consumes over half of the Federal budget and soon will consume over two-thirds. It is on automatic pilot. You cannot get your arms around the deficit without tackling mandatory spending. Our side knows that. The other side knows that.

You cannot be serious about budget reform without simultaneously addressing discretionary spending and mandatory spending. We do that. We shave the rate of growth by one-tenth of 1 percent. Yet the New Testament is invoked on a regular basis from the other side's talking points to claim that there will be blood in the streets, that there will be mass pandemonium and starvation because one-tenth of 1 percent of mandatory spending's rate of growth has been shaven off.

On the discretionary side, we bring eight-tenths of a percent cut to programs that have experienced double-digit increases over the last decade. You cannot look at the spending history of this House and this Congress' budget in veterans, in students with disabilities, in HUD, in education, in

homeland security and defense and find anyone who has experienced real pain or real cuts in the last decade. There have been substantial increases. Our budget lays out that priority, investing in defense, creating economic opportunity and beginning that long process of making tough decisions, the decisions we are paid to make to get our arms around the deficit so that future generations are not burdened and that the current generation, current workers, current employers, current small businesses are not seeing their tax burden go up.

Vote for the underlying House budget and defeat the Spratt amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 154 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 our great Nation, and it is an honor to be here to begin the debate about the fiscal blueprint for our Nation, the priorities of our Nation.

House Resolution 154 is a structured rule that provides for consideration of 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.

Mr. Speaker, 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. This rule provides for 5 hours of general debate with 4 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by the gentleman of New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) or their designees.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution.

This rule makes in order four amendments which are printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Each is debatable for 40 minutes, the time equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the opponent.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, except that the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. It also permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency.

This is a fair rule. The Committee on Rules has allowed substitute budgets to be considered on the House floor. They range across the political spectrum affording Members of varying philosophies within each political party and across political parties an opportunity to support the budget they deem appropriate for our Nation.

Since before my time in this body, the Committee on Rules has consistently afforded the minority the opportunity for its alternative to be heard, with the only exception being the fiscal year 2003 budget when there was not a budget alternative offered. I am pleased this rule provides a chance for all our Members to express their views on how our Nation should prioritize its spending.

The congressional budget is an important tool of the Congress, allowing us to set priorities for the coming fiscal year. Therefore, this budget provides for America's most urgent needs. The driving forces behind this budget are continued strength, continued growth, and restrained spending.

The congressional budget is the ultimate enforcement tool, allowing Congress to clearly identify its priorities for how taxpayer dollars should be spent. It allows us in a time of war to ensure that our Nation's soldiers are sufficiently equipped. Prioritizing guarantees that our economy continues to expand, providing jobs and opportunities for more Americans each and every day.

Finally, this tool 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 budget ensures that our Nation remains strong in the face of terror. We continue the multiyear plan to enable the military to fight the war on terrorism now and to transform itself to counter unconventional threats in the future. This budget works to prevent attacks, reduce vulnerabilities, and improve readiness.

Continued economic growth is vital for our Nation to fund her priorities and give opportunity to her people. Today, the general consensus of both private and public forecasters is that the U.S. economy is in a sustained expansion with solid growth of real GDP and payroll jobs and with low unemployment and low inflation.

The speed and strength of the economic recovery of the last several years has been due in large part to the tax relief packages given to the American people along with the extension of that tax relief passed last year. These policies continue to promote sustained economic growth and job creation.

I am proud to be a member of the Committee on the Budget that this year reported out a historic budget that sets in motion a glidepath to cut the deficit in half both in dollars and as a percentage of gross domestic product in 5 years. This budget wisely targets both discretionary and mandatory spending in an effort to set priorities.

The Committee on the Budget calls for a reduction in total nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary spending. And for the first time since 1997, the budget includes reconciliation instructions to authorizing committees calling for the slowed growth of mandatory programs.

Mandatory spending is the guaranteed spending that grows each and every year, mostly without reform or review. It currently consumes 55 percent of the budget; and if it continues unchecked, it will reach 61 percent of the budget by 2015.

More than half of the government's spending today is on automatic pilot. This is neither sound policy nor sustainable fiscal policy. Congress is on its way to losing control over spending priorities as entitlements squeeze the budget more and more. Reconciliation instructions are the critical step to begin the process of getting our mandatory spending back to a sustainable level.

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

I am proud of the work the Committee on the Budget has put forward this year. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), the chairman of that committee, for pushing forward with fiscal discipline and bringing us this outstanding budget for consideration.

I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means in regard to the alternative minimum tax. The gentleman will be delighted to learn that this budget makes accommodation for a further AMT extension of relief so that middle- class Americans are not impacted by that AMT provision that originated in the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman from New York will be further delighted to know that the budget process allows the flexibility and the discretion for that authorizing committee to make those changes rather than having the Committee on the Budget direct them for them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

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

I thank the gentleman and the previous speakers for drawing attention to the looming crisis that impacts people my age in Social Security, the people who frankly have come to the conclusion that unless Congress acts sooner rather than later, there will not be that program and that dramatic and important action is needed. But coming back to the rule on the budget, which is the order of the day, it is also good to know that it is more about what reforms we will be taking up later this year are dominating the discussion, which I take to mean and assume to mean that the overall and underlying budget itself is a sound one and that the rule is fair.

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

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

This is a vigorous debate about the priorities that are embodied in our budget blueprint. But for the second day in a row now, we have had this characterized as a government without a conscience. Yet since 1995, we have seen dramatic and historic increases to IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Title I, historically high numbers. Veterans health care, $18.9 billion in fiscal year 2000, $30 billion today. Education numbers, up in double digits. HHS and NIH, doubled. That is not a government without a conscience. That is a government that has seen unsustainable rates of increases to discretionary domestic spending. This budget turns that corner and begins the process of slowing the growth in mandatory and discretionary but continuing to provide for those priorities, continuing to make those tough decisions in ways that have been avoided by prior Congresses.

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

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

I am delighted to provide the gentleman some facts. Fact number one, title I has grown 10 percent per year since 2000. Pell grant funding, grown 10.3 percent per year since 2000. No Child Left Behind funding, grown 40 percent. Special education since 1996 has more than quadrupled. Funding for IDEA has quadrupled since 1996. IDEA funded only 8 percent of the per pupil expenditure in 1994 and 1995. Now it is nearly 20 percent. The Education Department discretionary budget authority has increased 146 percent since 1995. Those are the facts.

Was there not a conscience in the Congress prior to 1995? Is a 146 percent increase unconscionable? The commitment to education, the commitment to health care, the commitment to the NIH, the commitment to defense and the commitment to policies that expand and grow our economy and give Americans tremendous opportunities have been embodied in our budgets and are embodied in this budget.

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

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

There will be that opportunity, this being the rule on the budget; but I will engage in a bit of discussion about the Social Security because I am one who will gain or lose a great deal, being someone who will reach that retirement age at that year of insolvency. And it is shocking to me that the party who gave us Social Security, and should be very proud of it and are, are almost in complete denial about the looming crisis that it faces and refuse to accept the fact that, regardless of which option we choose to solve the problem, that it is something that should be kicked down the road to future generations, to future Congresses, to future years.

And there is a stone wall of resistance to any discussion at all about for once Congress getting ahead of a big issue, for once Congress actually dealing with the problem before it is crashing down around our heads, for once Congress actually being bold and looking into the future beyond the next budget cycle, beyond the next election, beyond the next short-term problem and actually tackling it and dealing with it.

Anyone who has been through their freshman orientation upon being elected has a bipartisan group give them the long-term unfunded liabilities of this government, and we acknowledge that there are vast differences in the approach to saving Social Security. But, unfortunately, largely with one bold, brave exception in the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), there has been total resistance to have any constructive effort to bring about a solution to this problem.

I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I look forward to that constructive effort because we share that passion that those 55 and older, those at or near retirement, will not be impacted. But by golly, we have got an obligation to those people who are under 35 or under 45 or whatever number we finally arrive at, people who have time to plan and people who know, and all of us know, of all stripes, that there will be a problem in either 2040 or 2041 or 2042. We can argue over months and weeks all day long, but the point is we are not doing anything to take care of that first-year teacher, that first-year firefighter, that first-year soldier that all of us stand up on a regular basis and claim to speak for.

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

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

I would respectfully request that the gentleman give us the page number and paragraph of this budget blueprint that cuts the Witness Protection Program.

As the gentleman knows, the budget document is a broad blueprint for spending that directs the authorizing committees, those committees of members who have developed expertise in their areas, to find savings through reconciliation instructions. It allows Members like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) on the Committee on Ways and Means to best formulate those revenue measures that avoid AMT taxing; that allows members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to deal with the issues facing Medicaid program, which all of the Governors acknowledge is swallowing up State budgets; that allows the Committee on Agriculture to fund within their committee's jurisdiction those savings in a variety of programs.

This budget blueprint is a sound document that sets the course for our Congress and for our Nation for the coming year; and the cuts that the gentleman refers to are reductions in the rate of growth in those programs, with the exception of the reconciliation instructions, which are a remarkable and historic first step to this Congress restraining spending and funding priorities and simultaneously getting our arms around the deficit that both parties are understandably concerned about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The untrained observer would believe that we were debating a Social Security bill here this afternoon. In fact, it is the rule on the budget blueprint for this country for fiscal year 2006, a budget blueprint that does a number of things important to the American people.

It puts our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines and Coast Guard and Reservists and Guardsmen foremost, fully funding the President's defense request, budgeting for the continued global war on terror to the tune of $50 billion; prioritizing, even making tough divisions, something that we are loathe to do often in this process, but it is what we are here for, making tough decisions about priorities, priorities in government, priorities in households, priorities in our individual lives, something every American is accustomed to.

It continues to invest heavily in our Nation's defense and homeland security. But it also recognizes that these challenges that have come about since 2001 have also required us as a Nation to make some tradeoffs. And so for the first time since the Reagan administration, it calls for an eight-tenths of a percent reduction in nonsecurity discretionary spending. It directs the authorizing committees to find savings on the mandatory side of spending, discretionary being just over a third of the budget anymore; mandatory nearing two thirds, essentially on auto pilot.

So a balanced approach to finding savings in our government such that we may begin to get our arms around the deficits and cut the deficit in half in 5 years so that we do not shoulder young people just entering the workforce, school-age children, children not yet born with these massive debts. We begin the difficult process of fiscal restraint, something that is anathema to this body oftentimes, all too often.

It has been said in the context of the Social Security debate that the other side does not believe the solution to solving Social Security's problems is to privatize it. We do not believe the solution to Social Security's problems is to do nothing. We have led with our chin on this issue, and I am very proud of that effort; and I am proud of the manner in which we have conducted this debate because it will undoubtedly be an extensive debate occupying a good part of the 109th Congress.

It is an opportunity for this Congress to lead, to lead the American people to an understanding of an issue that is at a total insolvency point occurring in 2042, but its impacts on the Federal budget beginning as soon as 2008. And as a young person who will be impacted by that, it gives us an opportunity to look beyond the short term and be truly visionary in the great ways that this Congress is capable of being.

We have done a lot of great things over the past several years: doubling NIH, continuing to invest in research and cures and trials to make the human condition better. And, frankly, we have succeeded to the point that the reason why Social Security faces insolvency is because the life expectancy of Americans continues to grow. Every 5 years that pass, life expectancy goes up a year. This budget continues to fund our priorities, continues to invest in people, and continues to lay the groundwork for policies that allow people to pursue their own version of the American Dream, to find opportunity in a growing, expanding economy; that allows for job creation, that does not punish entrepreneurial spirit, that allows people to continue to invest in their businesses, to have more money in their own pocket to make decisions about their own children's future, about their own opportunities, and about their own hopes and dreams.

And with that I urge my colleagues to support the rule, which is a very fair and balanced rule, and to support the underlying budget produced by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's leadership in this effort. As he noted in his opening statement, we have spent a great deal in these past few years to secure our Nation in the wake of the September 11 attacks. But at the same time we were directing a huge new share of resources to those urgent needs, we were also continuing to keep pace in our domestic nonsecurity programs like education, health care, veterans, agriculture, a whole host of other issues outside of defense and homeland security that people associate with their government.

On 9/11, our priorities shifted as a Nation, but our fiscal priorities remained the same. We kept growing our domestic programs by the same levels we had been, the rate of which would have been unsustainable even without a September 11. Over the past decade, we have increased programs almost across the board, and in many cases doubled, tripled or even quadrupled the rate of inflation.

I say that because out of one side of the mouth of the opposition comes a plea for fiscal restraint and out of the other side comes a hue and cry at the devastating terrible cuts that are being beset upon the American people.

Let us look at what the impact of domestic spending has been over the past decade. A Mount Everest of increases in discretionary spending. As we can see, overall discretionary spending grows since 1994, a very steep line. With the exception of last year which was the first time in a long time that we began the process of slowing growth, on average we have increased discretion spending by 6.1 percent per year for over a decade.

Let us look at some of the key areas that make up that portion of the spending. In the last 5 years, the Republican Congress has increased education funding by an average of almost 12 percent per year. Over that same period of time, spending for the Department of Education has increased by 75 percent, almost doubling our commitment. In fact, aside from the newly created Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education has grown faster than any other Federal agency or Department during this period.

Let us look at some of the key programs that make up two-thirds of the Department of Education's budget. Title I, since 2000 title I funding for low-income schools has increased by 55 percent. Pell grants which help provide lower-income students with funding for college has increased by 57 percent over 5 years. And while this decision will be left up to the authorizing committee, the President's budget request called for increasing that amount that students are eligible to receive under this program.

Let us look at funding for our special needs students. IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, provides for those needs of our most important and sensitive children in the school system; funding has increased by 87 percent in the past 5 years.

In addition to increased funding, Congress also passed the No Child Left Behind Act which demands results in exchange for dollars. It works to forge a real link between education spending and classroom achievement while focusing resources on underperforming schools.

Now let us look at veterans, those men and women who have done so much to secure the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy and take for granted on a regular basis. I think that everyone should be proud of the commitment that we have made and continue to make in the area of veterans benefits.

Since Republicans took control of the Congress in 1995, tremendous strides have been made in improving benefits for our Nation's veterans through hefty increases. Budget authority since 1995 has increased 77 percent, beginning at $38 billion, ending up at $67.6 billion. A tremendous increase. In fact, that 77 percent increase compares to only a 40 percent increase over the previous 10 years.

Spending per veteran. Let us get right down to the veteran in your district. Spending per veteran since 1995, increased payments per veteran have gone up 103 percent compared with 43 percent during the previous 10 years. You could walk into any Legion Hall or VFW complex in America and be proud of that number.

Since 1995, we have increased VA medical care funding from $16.2 billion to almost $30 billion. And in 1996 and 1999, Congress expanded eligibility for medical care and as a result the number of veterans utilizing VA care has nearly doubled.

The Montgomery GI bill. Those veterans who return home and seek to improve their lot and develop their education skills, since 1995 Montgomery GI education benefits have gone from $405 to $1,004, an increase of 147 percent. And I will also note that prior to the Republican take over in 1995, under 40 years of Democrat control, there was no progress whatsoever on concurrent receipts. Now military retirees injured in combat or while training for combat who are 50 percent or more service disabled, are able for the first time in over 100 years to receive retirement benefits at the same time as their veterans disability compensation.

About a month ago, the Charleston Gazette ran this quote, and I will share it: ``Bush increased VA spending by 27 percent in his first term. As factcheck.org pointed out, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25 percent.''

The bottom line is that domestic discretionary needs have been met and continue to be met under this blueprint that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) presents today.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I wish to extend my gratitude on behalf of the entire Florida delegation to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Mike Rogers) for entering into this colloquy with us regarding a very crucial issue to Florida as well as this Congress.

Last fall the State of Florida withstood an historic four hurricanes causing enormous devastation and damage to property, waterways, homes and individuals' lives. I commend the relief efforts on the ground in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane as well as the willingness of Congress to step forward and offer meaningful relief to hurricane victims. But there are two issues for which the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency should recognize under their current statutory authority to effectively address Florida hurricane-related damage.

Congress appropriated funds to respond to the hurricane devastation through the Military Construction Appropriations and Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act 2005, Public Law 108-324, and the Emergency Supplemental of 2004, Public Law 108-303.

At this time, Madam Chairman, I yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), to ask how was Florida hurricane disaster aid reflected in the designation of FEMA disaster relief funds?

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.

I would ask the chairman, is it his understanding that the administration has the authority under the Stafford Act to remove debris from the private lands when it is in the public interest?

I thank the chairman for his time and attention to this most important effort. It is my hope that this colloquy brings clarity and direction to FEMA as it administers the critical disaster relief funds.

I thank my friend and colleague from Jacksonville and the successor to Tillie Fowler's great 4th District in Florida. And I appreciate the opportunity that you have given us all to share our feelings and our remembrances of this lovely woman.

And I think how sad it is that we so often save our kindest words for those that we love and care so deeply for until it is too late.

It is an honor to pay tribute today to a great Floridian, a woman who touched so many lives, including my own, and dedicated herself to making our State and our Nation a better place.

Congresswoman Tillie Fowler was a remarkable woman. She was an inspiration to us all, and she sought to bring out the very best in each and every American. Her optimism was contagious, as she brought a sunny disposition to the greatest of tasks and backed it up with a steel will.

Tillie was a public servant, in the truest sense of the word, who not only served her community in the Sunshine State but also her Nation. In the 8 years she spent in the halls of Congress, she earned a reputation as one of the hardest-working and most effective Members of this House.

After leaving this House, her service continued. In fact, I think it is a testimony to her abilities that some of her greatest challenges were given to her after she had retired from the House, as through her service she continued to support a strong and modern military through her chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board and every other difficult task that the Secretary could pass her way.

We all mourn the loss of Tillie Fowler. Her distinguished leadership and grace will be dearly missed and her accomplishments and her legacy will be with us always. Tillie blessed our Nation through her hard work and her generous nature. My thoughts and prayers are with her family, her husband, Buck, and her two daughters, Tillie and Elizabeth.

May we all be worthy of the honor that she bestowed upon this House, and may we all work hard to maintain and to follow that blazing trail which she cut through for us.