Providing for Consideration of H. Con. Res. 95, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (House of Representatives - March 16, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution sets the priorities of the Congress. It is a moral compass for what we stand for, what we believe in. It shows if our priorities are in the right place. It shows whether we are going to provide for the less fortunate or if we will continue to reward the rich and the powerful at the expense of people in need. The mundane minutia that are detailed as budget authority and outlays are actually the blueprints of our Nation. I do not like what the Republicans are building. They are creating a government without a conscience.

The Republicans control the White House, they control the Senate, and they control the House of Representatives. It is their agenda that determines the future direction of this country. That agenda includes slashing Medicaid, food stamps, education programs and veterans benefits. That agenda includes protecting tax breaks for the very wealthy in this country. That agenda also includes privatizing Social Security. Today, they will have an opportunity to put their vote where their rhetoric is. As we just heard, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) has introduced a bill that frames this issue plainly, that no payroll taxes may be diverted to privatize Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose privatization as do most if not all of my Democratic colleagues. The position of our Republican friends is not quite as clear. They say that all options are on the table and that they are open to listening to various ideas. They talk about the impending doom facing Social Security, creating a crisis out of thin air. They extol the virtues of Wall Street. They are desperately trying to find a way to make Social Security privatization more palatable. Their problem is that the more the American people learn about privatization, the less they like it. I believe that Social Security is a sacred compact between the Federal Government and senior citizens. It is an insurance program, a safety net intended to keep our senior citizens out of poverty. It has worked for 60 years. The privatizers want to unravel that safety net. They want to slash guaranteed benefits, run up trillions of dollars in debt and decrease the solvency of the trust fund. That is their plan.

Today we will have a chance to see if those privatizers have the courage of their convictions. So far, we have not seen that courage, because the budget resolution before us does not include the trillions of dollars in transition costs required to privatize Social Security. The Republican majority claims to support the President's privatization scheme. They say they want to do it this Congress. But they are not willing to put it in a budget.

Maybe the vote on the previous question will help them. If you believe as I do that we must not privatize Social Security, then you must vote ``no'' on the previous question. If you believe in privatizing Social Security, then you will vote ``yes'' on the previous question. It is that simple.

Social Security does face long-term funding challenges. Everyone recognizes that. As Democrats, we stand willing to work in a bipartisan way to meet those challenges. But we will not stand idly by and let the Republican majority destroy Social Security in the name of saving it. I urge my colleagues to say no to privatizing Social Security by voting ``no'' on the previous question.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Let me just say to the gentleman from Florida that we do not believe that the way to increase the solvency of Social Security is to decrease the solvency of Social Security. Everybody on our side of the aisle is prepared to work in a bipartisan way to increase the solvency of Social Security. What we are objecting to is this privatization scheme.

Let me also say to the gentleman, because he questioned why I said that the Republican majority of this Congress has a budget that will create a government without a conscience, the reason why I say that is because this budget would cut $5.3 billion from the Department of Agriculture, cutting food stamps and other programs that are vital to America's farmers. This budget would cut 21.4 billion from education, cutting student loans and higher education spending.

He brags about the increase in money for No Child Left Behind, but we never properly funded No Child Left Behind. And our teachers and our principals and our superintendents are screaming about the fact that we have passed an unfunded mandate to them.

This bill would cut $20 billion, mostly from the Medicaid program. It would cut $270 million in spending from section 8 and other housing and homelessness programs. It would cut money from the Witness Protection Program, $103 million from transportation. It would cut $798 million for veterans health care. It would cut the earned income tax credit. It would cut money for unemployment insurance programs.

I mean, this is why I say that this is a budget that creates a government without a conscience. We are turning our backs on people who need our help, and I think that is wrong.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Let me first say to the gentleman that only in Washington would one call a cut a reduction in the rate of increase in spending. The bottom line is that this budget is more than just a general blueprint. There are specific directions in this budget that not only cut to the bone but cut through the bone. And, again, I repeat that this is a budget that creates a government that will have no conscience, and it needs to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will modify this rule to provide that immediately after the House passes the budget resolution, it will take up H.R. 1330, the Social Security Trust Fund Protection Act. This legislation, introduced by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), would ensure that Social Security contributions are used to protect Social Security solvency by mandating that trust fund moneys cannot be diverted to create private accounts.

Mr. Speaker, while Members of this House may differ on what is the best long-term solution to ensure solvency of Social Security, I think we probably all agree that we need to protect the money that goes into the trust fund and that any diversion of these funds must be undertaken with great care. Private accounts do not help the trust fund solvency. In fact, it is estimated that they would cost the system more than $5 trillion. H.R. 1330 will give us an opportunity to vote up or down on whether we want the Social Security trust fund to be used to pay for these fiscally irresponsible private accounts.

Let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the budget resolution, nor will it change the process by which it is to be considered. But a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote to prevent the siphoning off of the Social Security trust fund to pay for private accounts.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the RECORD immediately before the vote on the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov