[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10117-H10124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, there is an age-old drama that 
Americans have seen play out time and time again here in Washington, 
and I

[[Page H10118]]

know that some nights as they are watching TV and they click across C-
SPAN and they watch individuals come to the floor, they might think 
this is a rerun or they might think same song, second verse because 
they have to think that they have heard this before.
  I think probably their thoughts go something like this, that 
taxpayers are tired of seeing their hard-earned paychecks wasted by Big 
Government, and so the taxpayers say we are going to demand some 
spending reductions. The Republicans agree and the Republicans propose 
some spending reductions.
  Well, the Democrats just cannot stand to see those spending 
reductions. So they start the name-calling, and they come down and they 
say that any reduction that we want to make in spending, anytime we are 
going to slow the growth of spending, well, you know what, it is 
draconian, it is mean-spirited, it is cruel, it is heartless, it is 
cold-blooded. We all hear all the descriptive adjectives. They start 
telling virtually every man, woman, and child in America that these 
reductions will do terrible, awful things and that the Republicans are 
just mean, nasty people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is like clockwork. It really is like clockwork, and I 
think that I know why many times our colleagues across the aisle fight 
our efforts when it comes to fiscal responsibility, when it comes to 
reining in the size of the Federal Government, when it comes to 
reducing spending, when it comes to getting government off your back 
and out of your pocket. I think I know why the Democrats fight it time 
and time and time again.
  This government, this big, Washington-focused bureaucracy that spends 
your money out of your pocket, that you go to work and you earn, this 
government, this bureaucracy, is a monument to them. They spent 40 
years with an iron grip on this U.S. House of Representatives; and in 
that time, they constructed a vast monument to themselves called 
Federal Government bureaucracy.
  It is expensive, it is old, and it is a mismanaged monument that 
forces you, the taxpayer, the average, hardworking American family, to 
spend 6 months every year paying for it. Tax freedom day, look at some 
of the dates we have had in years past, July 4, June 30, June 28. You 
are working half the time to pay for government.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you something right now. This 
Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is working to 
change that. We want to change that. Democrats do not. It is that 
simple.
  So, tonight, we are going to talk a little bit about the budget 
savings we are working to pass in this House in a bill that is called 
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a good, solid plan from the 
Republican leadership. It is a plan that will put this government on 
track to reform; and in the end, the goal is to yield a savings for the 
American taxpayer.
  The bill that my colleagues are going to join me in discussing 
tonight is finding $53.9 billion in spending reductions over the next 
several years in a $2.4 trillion-a-year budget. Mr. Speaker, I want 
everybody at home to hear that: $53.9 billion, that is billion with a 
B, in savings, over several years of a yearly budget of $2.4 trillion, 
and that is trillion with a T.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not asking a lot. In fact, we should be asking 
for a whole lot more. The constituents in my seventh district of 
Tennessee want to see us reduce Federal spending more. They want to see 
more of these programs that have outlived their usefulness put on the 
table, reviewed, put into sunset, deauthorized, scaled down, or taken 
away.
  But I will tell you, I think that for many of the Democrats what we 
are proposing is too much. They cannot commit even to that. So tonight 
we are going to talk some about why we need to reform this government 
and why we need to make these spending reductions.
  At this time, I would like to yield to one of my colleagues who has 
joined us. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is going to join us 
and talk for a few minutes about Medicaid. We are hearing so much about 
Medicaid. We have heard the left say that we are slashing it, that we 
are cutting it; and you know what, in spite of all this talk, Medicaid 
will grow. We are not talking about cuts. We are talking about reducing 
spending, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
for yielding, and I do want to speak a little bit about the Medicaid 
program.
  The gentlewoman from Tennessee and the struggle that that State has 
had with their Medicaid program and TennCare, the cutbacks that have 
been necessary, she understands as well as anybody how important it is 
to make sure that these programs work the way they were intended to 
work, Mr. Speaker.
  As the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) points out, we are 
not talking about cutting anything. We are talking about reforming 
government. I mean, this Republican majority has a plan to reform 
government, to effect savings for our taxpayers and to spend their 
money wisely and efficiently and to spend it for those who have the 
need and to eliminate all this waste, fraud and abuse that is so 
rampant in government and certainly in the Medicaid program.
  But as the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) points out, 
this is no cut. The reduction in the growth rate is what we are talking 
about, Mr. Speaker. Medicaid, over the last 5 years and in this current 
fiscal year, is growing at 7.3 percent a year, 7.3 percent a year 
growth rate. So we have in this plan to cut that growth rate by three-
tenths of 1 percent, cut it from 7.3 percent to 7 percent over the next 
5 years.
  Today, in fiscal year 2006, before this cut, we are spending $200 
billion with a B on the Federal part of Medicaid. Over a 5-year period, 
in 2010, because of that 7 percent rate of growth, we will be spending 
$260 billion. So our colleagues on the other side, they want to say, 
oh, you are cutting, you are cutting to the bone, you are taking away. 
They call it Robin Hood taking away from the poor and giving to the 
rich.
  This program, Mr. Speaker, will continue to grow at a healthy 7 
percent rate, but we are talking about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. 
Yes, we are going to cut that. We are going to cut out this situation 
where people are gaming the system and it happens. It happens in every 
State, including my own.
  What is so tragic about that is that then you end up taking money 
away from those people, those pregnant women, those young children, 
those aged and infirm that really, really need our help. With this plan 
and these savings that we can effect, that is who the help will go to, 
exactly where it is needed.
  I want to take a little time to explain one thing that I think is so 
important that my colleagues and anybody who might be listening to 
these proceedings tonight understands very clearly.
  With long-term care in this country, we have a huge problem; and it 
is shocking when you find out that probably 70 percent of nursing home 
care is paid for with Medicaid dollars. Some of those people who are in 
long-term care facilities, a skilled nursing home is what I am 
referring to, they clearly are low income. They do not have the 
financial wherewithal once their Medicare benefit runs out, and it does 
pretty quickly; and they need to have that Medicaid benefit.
  But 70 percent of all expenditures for skilled nursing home care is 
coming out of the Medicaid program. Something is wrong with that, and 
what it is is people and maybe it is not the individual so much as a 
smart lawyer figuring out a way to game the system.
  So in this reform, Mr. Speaker, we are saying that if a person, an 
individual, has more than $500,000, I believe that is a half a million 
if my math is correct, if an individual has more than $500,000 equity 
in their home, then they are not going to be eligible for Medicaid to 
pick up the tab for nursing home care.

                              {time}  2000

  What is happening, and we are going to eliminate this, is that 
families, and I guess in a way I can understand their thinking, but it 
is just not right, they do not think about the fact that it is taking 
needed dollars away from people that really need this benefit.
  As an example, say mom or dad needs to go into a nursing home, a 
skilled

[[Page H10119]]

nursing home, and is going to be there for a long time. They may have 
$750,000 in equity in their home. So all of a sudden they figure out a 
way to transfer the ownership to a son or a daughter or a first cousin 
and let mom or dad rent the house and live in the house or pay out of 
their Social Security check.
  That is totally wrong. I think my colleagues understand that, and I 
think the American people understand that.
  So we, again, are not talking about cutting benefits to people that 
really need them. We are trying to make sure that in this reform we get 
the dollars where they need to be. That is really what it is all about, 
cutting out waste, fraud and abuse and spending the money efficiently 
and effectively. That is what we are doing.
  I really appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee for leading this 
hour and giving me the opportunity to talk about this. You see, I spent 
30 years practicing medicine and seeing some of these patients and 
writing prescriptions for those who need that Medicaid benefit. So I 
know how important it is to do it the right way, and I commend my 
leadership in the Republican majority for facing up to the problem we 
have.
  I can remember, and I will say this in closing, Mr. Speaker, when we 
were trying to bring some sense in solvency to the Social Security 
program for our needy seniors, the other side of the aisle said, Well, 
you know, you do not need to be doing this because the need is in 
Medicare and Medicaid. It is going to run out of money much quicker; 
you need to reform that. Why are you all spending your time on Social 
Security?
  So here Social Security seems to have been pushed off to the back 
burner, much to their satisfaction, and we are trying to deal with the 
problems of Medicare and especially Medicaid.
  Every one of our 50 States is suffering. Governor Huckaby, Republican 
Governor from Arkansas, and Governor Warner, Democratic Governor of 
Virginia, both agreed with a bipartisan governors' report that we need 
to do this. So this is what we are talking about.
  And with that, I will yield back to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, 
and he is exactly right. Medicaid needed reforms that would address 
some of the waste, fraud and abuse; reforms that would deal with the 
processes and procedures of the delivery of the program. Once we go 
through achieving these efficiencies, there will be individuals who 
truly need it, who will see a better delivery of service.
  These are flexibilities that the governors, the nonpartisan National 
Governors Association, have asked us to make. They are things we have 
worked with them on, and we are pleased to bring forward the type of 
reforms that will yield the efficiencies that are needed.
  Mr. Speaker, another colleague who is joining us this evening is the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), another member of my delegation 
who is a member of the Appropriations Committee. He has brought wisdom 
and expertise to the appropriations process and being certain that we 
are wise stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.
  I yield to Mr. Wamp out of Chattanooga, who is going to talk with us 
for a few moments about the work they have done in the Appropriations 
Committee as we work toward a Deficit Reduction Act that is going to 
help put us on track to achieve some savings for the American people 
through the reform process.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me and 
for her leadership and for all my colleagues on the floor tonight. I am 
encouraged as a member of the class of 1994, the class that came in 
with the new majority for the first time in 40 years, to see the 
passion and the focus that we now see again in the House with that same 
vigor for reform and responsibility that actually brought us here years 
ago. You can feel it every day here building steam, because the 
American people demand it, and we are carrying out an agenda now of 
reform and responsibility.
  Interesting for me, I do not come to the House floor to speak much 
except for specific legislation, but today you kind of hear mixed 
messages on the minority side. Half of them say, you are spending too 
much and the other half says we are not spending enough. What we see 
over here now is a very consistent message that we cannot spend this 
much, that we have an $8 trillion debt.
  Now, when we first came in in 1995 in the new class, our goal was to 
hold the growth of spending below inflation and let the economy grow, 
it was strong, so that revenues would surpass expenditures. And that 
happened and the budget got balanced. Seems like a long time ago, but 
it happened. For 3 consecutive years we held the growth of government 
spending below inflation, below the family's budget growth; and then 
revenues passed expenses.
  Then we were dealt a difficult hand. September 11 happened, 
challenges beyond our control, and spending escalated. And for several 
years in a row, it averaged 6 percent growth per year in discretionary 
spending, which was twice inflation, and it started slipping away.
  Sometimes it is easy to forget when something like Katrina happens, 
what was going on before Katrina hit, but we need to think back. I 
remember this spring I put out a press release after the House passed 
the budget and we then passed our 602(b) allocations for the 
appropriation bills to match that budget. I put out a press release 
that said, this is the most austere budget in the 11 years I have been 
in Congress, because it only grew nonsecurity discretionary spending by 
1 percent. Well below inflation, this budget. Not only did we pass it, 
we passed all the appropriations bills out of the House within that 
agreement by July 4, the first time in a generation that that had 
happened. We were marching towards fiscal responsibility with vigor.
  And then we went home for the August District Work Period, and 
Katrina hit towards the end and everyone focused on what the government 
did not do and we became insecure. But I think it is easy for some to 
forget how responsible we were going into that catastrophe.
  A little primer on this whole process for folks that are outside the 
Beltway, because sometimes we forget their language, is that the budget 
is broken down between discretionary spending that the Congress 
annually appropriates and annually oversees and mandatory spending, 
sometimes called entitlements.
  When my wife, sweet Kim, was born in 1964, two-thirds of all Federal 
spending was appropriated by the Congress with annual oversight, and 
one-third was mandatory, which is really made up of Medicare and 
Medicaid and pensions, mandatory spending programs, and interest on the 
debt, things that are fixed by previous law. And unless the Congress 
acts again, they automatically go out. They are indexed to inflation. 
People either qualify for them or they do not, but they automatically 
get the money. In 1964, that was one-third of all spending and 
appropriations was two-thirds.
  Today, it is the other way around: Two-thirds is mandatory and one-
third we still have discretion on. But if you take out national 
security and homeland security, the part of the discretionary budget 
that is left is only one-eighth of the $2.4 trillion annual budget that 
the gentlewoman referred to. So discretionary spending is now a small 
portion of it.
  That is why it is so important to have this budget reduction act. 
Because the mandatory spending is where fraud and abuse and waste 
creeps in over time because the Congress does not annually oversee it. 
It sets in, and people back home do not like it when people are 
cheating the government. But if we fail to act and they win, the status 
quo has prevailed and it gets worse.
  When we act, they say you are mean and cruel, but the people want us 
to tighten the belt of government, which creates efficiency. Any 
government program that has to tighten its belt will become more 
efficient because somebody has got their fingers on the buttons to make 
it more efficient to live with what they have.
  We have done well on discretionary spending, but we can do more and 
we will do more. But I come as a member of the Appropriations Committee 
to say that this majority is doing it. We are doing it like we were 
when we got here, again with vigor and commitment. I am excited.
  We have just been joined by another member of my class, and he was 
shaking his head as he walked across the

[[Page H10120]]

floor, because he can feel it. He knows it. We are focused on being 
responsible and reforming this government so that it works better and 
so that people can see us acting on what they would like to see us do.
  So I thank all of my colleagues that have come to the floor tonight, 
and the gentlewoman for hosting this hour. It is important that we 
unite and we bring people to this most important cause at this critical 
time. And I yield back to her.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his wise 
words and for joining us in this debate and reminding us we do hear a 
lot of rhetoric, as he mentioned. We have the Blue Dogs from the 
Democrat side, who have been coming to the floor demanding spending 
increases. Suddenly they are not so fiscally conservative.
  Well, it is like the story I used to read to my children, the Three 
Little Bears. It is almost as if you have to have it just right. Just 
right. And they are going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, 
because these are good, solid reductions and a good, solid plan for 
moving forward, a great first step.
  As we have worked through this process, we have heard from the 
gentlewoman from Virginia several times in regard to military issues 
and veterans' issues. She has such a heart for this and works so 
diligently on these issues, so at this time I yield to the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) to set the record straight about the 
appropriations and the funding for our veterans' programs.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for 
hosting this event tonight and for inviting us here to tell the 
American people exactly what is in this bill that we will all vote on 
tomorrow. I know that she joins me as a Republican in our belief in 
smaller government, personal responsibility, and accountability.
  This deficit reduction bill is an example of this philosophy. This 
bill creates a planned reform and savings for taxpayers. It is 
important that we set priorities and that we make tough choices.
  I also know the gentlewoman from Tennessee would agree with me that 
how we spend taxpayer dollars is one of our greatest responsibilities 
as Members of Congress, and that we need to spend smarter and wiser.
  It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that this plan is being 
misrepresented. Just Monday of this week it was represented on the 
House floor by Mr. Meek, and this was in regards to veterans' care, who 
said, and I quote, ``because the majority side has made a 5-year cut of 
$14 billion.'' That same night Ms. Wasserman Schultz said, and I quote 
``There is a proposal to cut $600 million in veterans' health care.''
  Mr. Speaker, the reality is in this deficit reduction bill there are 
no cuts proposed for veterans' health care. In fact, in the last 5 
years, funding has increased by 50 percent. In fact, the Veterans 
Committee was not asked to participate in spending reform. We 
recognize, we appreciate, and we value the service of our military 
members and our veterans, and we know that their health care and their 
benefits are critical and very, very important to them.
  On November 2, this House unanimously approved H.R. 4061, the 
Department of Veterans' Affairs Information Technology Management 
Improvement Act. This Act combines three information technology 
programs into one. Currently, benefits, health, and burial claims are 
handled by three separate IT departments. This was common-sense reform 
to turn these into one and will save the Federal Government $1.7 
billion simply by turning three programs into one. This is exactly the 
type of example which shows we are redesigning government, reforming 
programs, and saving taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, billions have been spent on IT systems by both the VA 
and Department of Defense, and these agencies still cannot share 
medical information. This is corrected in H.R. 4061.

                              {time}  2015

  The result of this reform is not only to save taxpayer dollars, but 
it provides a seamless transition for our servicemembers and makes the 
process easier. I know the gentlewoman from Tennessee is happy to hear 
that: save money, do it easier, and do something that makes sense. The 
Department of Defense and the VA will be able to share information on 
health records and claims for disability benefits.
  Also understand that these necessary responsible reforms are critical 
to be sure that important programs remain in place and are able to 
sustain themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for sharing her time with me 
today and being able to talk just before Veterans Day about the 
wonderful service of our veterans and our military.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentlewoman in a heartfelt 
thanks to our veterans, as she speaks about the fiscal stewardship and 
the common-sense reforms we need to put into these programs. It is so 
frustrating to veterans in my district when they get the runaround and 
cannot get a proper answer and go from one bureaucracy to another 
bureaucracy. To take three programs and roll it into one, as H.R. 4061 
has done, that is common sense.
  We hope to achieve efficiencies and save money on that program and 
the administration so it goes into programs and we get that money into 
programs that are so needed and so deserved by our veterans.
  Again, God bless those veterans. And I say God bless the gentlewoman 
from Virginia who has worked so hard on these issues.
  A leader on agricultural issues is the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King). He is going to talk about the agriculture bill and then will 
return to the floor to talk about what has been done through the 
agriculture appropriations process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for organizing 
this Special Order and her leadership.
  At this time I would like to address the Deficit Reduction Act. It 
seemed like it was heavy lifting for a lot of people in this Congress; 
it should not be. It should not be when you are going to reduce by one-
half of 1 percent the trajectory of the increase of Federal spending 
down range 5 years. I do not find that heavy lifting. I find that a 
piece of cake for somebody who has had to balance a family budget, a 
business budget, and meet payroll with my own employees for over 1,400 
consecutive months. We had to find a way to make it work, and we did 
not have a budget like this to work with, and we made it work.
  I want to talk about the agricultural aspect of this. First, we 
brought this package before the Committee on Agriculture, and we went 
for approximately 3 hours in debate, listening to demagoguery about how 
painful it was to squeeze down some of these categories within the 
agriculture budget. And this is over 5 years.
  One of those subjects is the commodity programs direct payments. We 
reduce that, the projected spending, by 1 percent. That is $1 out of 
$100. The actual effect out in the field is approximately one-twentieth 
of the payments going into a region like I represent where we raise 
corn and soybeans.
  The people that I represent there are fiscally responsible people. 
They watch their budget. They invest their dollars wisely and do a good 
job of marketing and managing, all because it is good business. That is 
what it takes to have black ink on the bottom line instead of red ink.
  I am very confident I can take this back and look my neighbors in the 
eye and say we did the best we can for the agriculture economy. We did 
the best we could for our agriculture producers. We pinched that down 
by 1 percent on direct payments.
  We are looking at WTO trade negotiations coming up in Hong Kong in 
December. We are talking with the rest of the world about how we want 
to really eliminate export subsidies, and we can do that without great 
pain to this country and reduce domestic subsidies and be able to get 
access to the developing world so we can sell our products.
  Our agriculture producers know they can compete with anybody in the 
world if they can get access to the markets without having punishing 
tariffs at every developing country in the world. We brought some of 
those people in as trading partners. We are going to expand that. But 
if that 1 percent here is a painful thing, then I am going to say

[[Page H10121]]

we are going to have one difficult debate when the time comes to adjust 
our long-term trade trajectory.
  By the way, there was not a single Democrat that would support any of 
this reconciliation package, and it became a partisan issue just to 
pass CAFTA. People in sugar said, no, it might take a teaspoon a day 
out of our markets. Possibly so. Aside from that, there was not even an 
argument that CAFTA was not good, but it became a partisan issue. I am 
watching trade become a partisan issue. I watched budget responsibility 
become a partisan issue, and I listened to criticism after criticism 
from the other side of the aisle about what we are doing to our 
producers during a time of need. It is always a time of need.
  But it is also a time where we have just pulled in the best 3 years 
in agriculture ever where I live. We have harvested the best crops in 
the last 3 years. Their overall accumulated value is more than it has 
ever been. We raised more corn and soybeans this year than any time in 
history, except last year, which was a record. That came upon a good 
crop for 2003. It is a good time to be responsible in agriculture, and 
I believe the producers will stand up and take this just fine.
  We minimized some of the damage to agriculture as well. Some money 
was left over in the watershed rehab program, and so we put that in our 
Deficit Reduction Act. The Conservation Security Program, I like that 
program. I spent my life in soil conservation. I have built more 
terraces than any Member of Congress, and I do not have to wonder who 
is second. More waterways, more watershed dams. I have spent my life 
protecting soil and water. I like those projects. We took no money out 
of any one that was qualified today, but were required to pull some 
money out down range in order to come with these savings that we needed 
to get, which is $3.7 billion out of agriculture.
  Skipping across some of these, the food stamp program, that probably 
consumed, out of 3 hours, probably 2 hours of the apportioned 
demagoguery for the day. It was how we could take food out of the 
mouths of babes, pregnant mothers, senior citizens, everybody you can 
imagine. I sat there and listened to that, and if I did not have a 
brain of my own to work with, I would have felt so guilty I would have 
crawled out of that room after they got done with me. The truth is when 
you look at it, we did not take any food out of anybody's mouth. We 
saved overall $844 million up to the year 2010.
  I went back and looked, how much waste do we have in food stamps just 
for the last year we have records. Well, $1 billion in food stamp 
waste. That is fraud.
  Mr. Gingrey spoke about how we will cut waste, fraud and abuse. We 
did that in the food stamp program, and we did not do it randomly. We 
realized there are States that grant food stamps to people who do not 
qualify for any other benefit. That is a pretty good sign it is a 
fraud. We conditioned it if they need another benefit, like TANF, it 
will qualify them for food stamps. Unless they do, we are not going to 
give them a bunch of food stamps because, likely, they are not 
qualified. Most of the States are that way. Iowa is that way. It works 
for us. We do not hear complaints because it is a responsible way to 
manage.
  The other side of the food stamp piece was we extended the period of 
time. When people come into this country legally, they pledge they are 
going to be self-sufficient. We say to them, under current law that 
means you do not get these benefits for 5 years. Then you can be 
unself-sufficient and we will help you out. We extend that time on food 
stamps from 5 years to 7 years. That picked up $275 million. We found 
our $3.7 billion without a lot of pain.
  I will not say it was easy, because I had to listen to 3 hours of 
demagoguery; but we did not hurt anybody, and we helped people and we 
helped the taxpayer.
  We have another way we can help this country. I have got to say this 
because agriculture is so susceptible to energy, but we have 406 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas out there under the Outer 
Continental Shelf. We are paying $14.50 per million Btus here in this 
country. In Venezuela it is $1.60 compared to our $14.50. The same with 
Brazil, Argentina, and most places on this continent; and we have got 
406 trillion cubic feet of natural gas right there next to the 
pipeline. All we have to do is move our drill rigs a little further to 
the east, sink them in the ground, hook the pipes up, and go to the 
same refineries and we can drive this price down. If we do so, we can 
cut fertilizer prices down and gas drawing prices down for our grain as 
well.

  Go up and drill in ANWR, fix the energy piece in all of this, and we 
are going to see a big difference in this country. This is not all of 
the work we need to do, but this is a bunch of the important work we 
need to do. I am looking forward to getting on with it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa truly is a great 
conservationist not only with the soil and the land in Iowa, and we 
love to say he gets his best information on the back of his tractor 
working his pastures, as we hear his good, conservative philosophies 
put to work in this House, as he talks about being a conservative and a 
conservationist in his spending, in his farming and in his love of the 
land and in his love of freedom. We are so pleased that he has reminded 
us and shown us how the Committee on Agriculture, again practicing 
fiscal stewardship, practicing what they preach, living it out to be 
certain that every single committee looks at their programs and says 
there is a better way for us to do this. There is a way to reduce this 
spending, and the American people are going to benefit.
  We have heard many times over the past several months from the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who has come to the floor and has 
talked with us about having respect for families and the family budget, 
about how important it is that we realize that taxes and fees are the 
largest part of a family budget and how the Federal Government should 
be sensitive to that and work to reduce that burden.
  I have asked Mr. Hensarling to join us tonight and talk with us for a 
few minutes about what happens if we do not pass the Deficit Reduction 
Act, where will we be if we do not pass this act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership in the area of government reform.
  Mr. Speaker, you have heard how important it is that we have a plan 
that is going to reform government, that will help achieve savings for 
the American people. It is so sad that the Democrats on the other side 
of the aisle, not one, not one has risen up to join us in this effort 
to try to reform government.
  We know that our Nation faces a number of challenges. We have 
Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. We have important programs, 
but they are growing beyond our ability to pay for them. Now we have 
had the devastating hurricanes hit. We know there are only three ways 
we can pay for all of this: one, we are going to pass debt on to our 
children; two, we are going to raise taxes on the American people; or, 
three, we are going to find smart ways to hold government accountable 
and decrease the rate of growth in spending and bring about reforms.
  Well, the Democrats have attacked all of our reforms. They claim that 
somehow these are massive cuts, notwithstanding the fact that the 
Federal budget is going to grow next year over this year in what we 
call mandatory spending that has most of the welfare programs growing 
next year over this year. TANF is going to grow. Medicaid, Medicare, it 
is all going to grow. But they attack all of our reforms, and they 
claim that they do not want to pass debt on to our children. Well, what 
does that leave us? That leaves us with tax increases.
  They do not like to talk about it, but it is the only other option on 
the table. In this case, massive, unconscionable tax increases that, if 
imposed on the American people, will leave the next generation with a 
lower standard of living than we enjoy, because the government we 
already have is growing beyond our ability to pay for it.
  Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve recently said, ``As a 
Nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of 
retirees that we will be unable to fulfill.''
  The Brookings Institute, which is no bastion of conservative thought, 
says expected growth in these programs,

[[Page H10122]]

speaking of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, along with 
projected increases in the debt and defense, will absorb all of the 
government's currently projected revenue within 8 years, leaving 
nothing for any other program.
  That is the Democrats' plan. That means no veterans funding. That 
means that beloved Pell grants are gone. All of this is gone because 
they refuse to join us in any of these reforms. The Government 
Accountability Office said in order to balance the Federal budget in 
the next 30 years, total Federal spending is going to have to be cut in 
half or Federal taxes doubled.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a chart that shows what is happening to the size 
of our government. This shows here the percent of our economy that we 
are devoting to government. Right now it is about 20 percent. Our 
revenues, which is this line here, runs pretty consistently between 18 
and 20 percent of our economy.

                              {time}  2030

  But the government programs that are in place today, not all the ones 
that the Democrats want to add, but the government programs that we 
have today that are on automatic pilot, without the reforms, if we do 
not reform them, if we do not achieve success in our vote for reform, 
in just one generation we are going to go from 20 percent of our 
economy devoted to government to 40 percent, Mr. Speaker, in just one 
generation.
  And that, Mr. Speaker, is the cost of it. Here we have the year 2005, 
and look at the tax increases on the average American family as the 
years go by. Again, what does that mean? It means in just one 
generation we are going to end up doubling taxes on the American 
people. And, Mr. Speaker, I just believe that that is absolutely 
unconscionable, particularly for a party that continues to want to 
preach compassion to us.
  Right now, right now, they want to cut the child tax credit in half. 
And that is their idea of compassion? That is what they are telling us. 
That is what their tax plan is. They want to reinstitute the death tax 
so that people have to visit the undertaker and the IRS on the same 
day. And that is their idea of compassion, Mr. Speaker? They want to 
bring back the marriage penalty. They want to punish people. They want 
to tax people extra because they choose to fall in love and marry 
somebody. And that is their idea of compassion? That is just what they 
want to do today.
  But what they want to do to my children and your children, my 3\1/2\-
year-old daughter and my 2-year-old son, they want to double taxes on 
them. An average family of four, what that means to them is that as 
they spend $11,000 a year in housing today, under the Democrat doubling 
of taxes plan, that will go down to $8,500. That means that although 
you may own a home, your children will not be able to afford one.
  When it comes to transportation, this average family of four spends 
about $5,300 today. But under the government plan where we double 
taxes, that will go down to about $4,000. Mr. Speaker, people are 
struggling to fill up their cars now. I suppose under the Democrat plan 
they will not have to worry about it because Americans will not be able 
to afford to buy cars anymore.
  Let us talk about food. The average family of four is spending about 
$5,300. That goes down to $4,000. The Democrats in their so-called 
compassion plan and fighting our reforms just took 3 months of 
groceries away from the average American family because they have their 
plan to double taxes on the American people. And, Mr. Speaker, the list 
goes on and on and on.
  We have a common-sense plan, a common-sense plan, to reform 
government and achieve savings for the American people. I mean, who is 
going to argue with the fact that we should not be giving food stamps 
to illegal aliens? Who is going to be arguing with the reform that we 
ought to quit paying twice the market rate for student loans? These are 
common-sense reforms. And, Mr. Speaker, as this debate continues to 
unfold, we have to remember what the Democrats really want to do, and 
that is massive tax increases that are going to leave the next 
generation with a lower standard of living than we enjoy, and that is 
unconscionable.
  Compassion, Mr. Speaker, ought to be measured by how we treat the 
next generation and how many paychecks we create, not how many welfare 
checks we create. Our reform plan will help create paychecks. We have 
already created 4 million new jobs in this economy. Theirs is more of 
the same: more government, more spending, tax increases for future 
generations. There is no compassion there, Mr. Speaker. No compassion 
whatsoever.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman from Texas for his comments.
  And he is so correct. If we do not take these steps to rein in 
spending, to reform government, to get on this plan that is going to 
reform this government and begin yielding a savings for the American 
people, we will see it go from taking 20 percent to 40 percent of our 
resources. Fiscal stewardship demands that we work to find a way to 
restrain the growth of government, to begin to roll it back. And it is 
not easy, as I said earlier. The Democrats spent 40 years building a 
monument to themselves, a great big bureaucracy; and it takes time to 
begin to break it apart.
  As the gentleman from Texas was talking, I was looking over a chart 
that had the 12 largest post-war deficits that we have seen in this 
country. Of course, one of them was 1946, when we were hard at war and 
fighting and coming back from World War II. Mr. Speaker, these other 
years, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1984, 1992, 1991, 1976, 1982, 1993, 1990, 
Democrat control. It is time for us to put this Nation on a track to 
reform government, to reduce the bureaucracy, to be certain that money 
is going into programs to meet needs at the local level; that money is 
not being soaked up by the bureaucracy that sits in these buildings 
around Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx), who is a leader in education on the Education and Workforce 
Committee, and she is going to talk with us for just a few moments and 
dispel a couple of myths pertaining to education funding and talk about 
what we are trying to do to be certain that young people have the 
opportunity to dream big dreams, dream big dreams and have great 
adventures and look forward with hope and opportunity to a future.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Blackburn) for organizing this Special Order again and for 
helping us bring the facts to the people of this country.
  She used a very nice word, ``myths.'' Some people could use much 
stronger words about the things that are being said about this Deficit 
Reduction Act. So I think she is being very kind. We need to set the 
record straight about what is being said about this bill and about what 
we are actually doing.
  The Education and Workforce Committee was given the task to find 
$18.1 billion in net savings. Of that $18.1 billion, we generated $14.5 
billion by making the Federal programs dealing with higher education 
more efficient and effective.
  I did serve many years in higher education. I was a community college 
president, a university administrator, dealt with higher education 
programs, with financial aid. So I understand these programs a great 
deal. And let me tell the Members just in summary what we did. We are 
helping the students and the families of this country tremendously by 
what we are doing. We are going to continue to increase student 
financial aid as college enrollment increases. We are going to see 
financial aid going up through increases in loan limits and reductions 
in origination fees. That is going to help students and families. We 
are going to end the practice that allowed some lenders to collect the 
minimum of 9.5 percent rate of return on some student loans.
  And yet the Democrats have fought these tooth and nail. They all 
voted against these measures. They do not want to help make access to 
higher education better for low- and middle-income students like we do. 
And that is what this is going to do. It is going to generate savings 
for taxpayers by eliminating waste and inefficiency, trimming subsidies 
paid to lenders, and place the aid programs on a stable financial 
foundation. We are going to put a complete and permanent end to 
practices that have allowed some lenders to collect the minimum 9.5 
percent rate of return on some student loans.

[[Page H10123]]

That is just simply unfair to the students who are having to borrow 
money.
  It will also reduce student loan fees by 75 percent over 5 years. 
Student loan borrowers today pay up to 4 percent in loan fees and a 3 
percent origination fee. We are going to reduce that origination fee to 
1 percent. It also is going to expand student loan borrowing by 
increasing the amounts for first- and second-year college students. 
This is going to be a tremendous boon to those students.
  It is also going to protect borrowers' credit by requiring lenders to 
report to all national credit bureaus to ensure students and graduates 
will be able to take full advantage of the good credit history they 
have earned through repayment of their Federal student loans. They 
cannot do that now, and it is a shame because they cannot build a good 
credit history.
  We also, through this bill, improve consumer protection and awareness 
by eliminating unfair rules that limit options for consolidation 
borrowers and providing borrowers more information about their loans. 
We want students to be responsible. We are going to help them be 
responsible.
  The Democrats are opposed to that. It is really mind-boggling to 
understand why they would oppose all these reforms that we are putting 
in. One would think they would want to help moderate- and low-income 
people get a higher education, but they keep throwing stumbling blocks 
up and saying we are reducing money; we are increasing the amount of 
money. We make it easier for the neediest students to participate in 
these programs by simplifying eligibility.
  I know when I conducted programs with financial aid, it took a 
college degree to fill out the forms. So it was a real problem. We are 
going to improve that.
  Taken as a whole, CBO estimates these reforms will save $14.5 billion 
over 5 years. That is money going into the pockets of the students and 
the families that we want to help and other taxpayers.
  Spending is out of control, Mr. Speaker. We cannot afford to keep 
increasing Federal spending at astronomical and unreasonable rates. 
Contrary to what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
purporting, we are not finding these savings on the backs of college 
students. We are going to help college students. These reforms will 
strengthen student aid programs and expand student benefits.
  Everybody needs to support this bill and know that they can go home 
and say to students trying to get an education, We are helping you with 
this.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina for her comments.
  She is exactly right. Reforming the process, reforming the way 
government does business, making it simple, being certain that we find 
another way to get government off people's back, out of their 
pocketbook, simplify the system so that the money gets to where it is 
needed, in this case, in education, getting that money into the student 
loan programs so that students are in the classrooms, so that they have 
access to those classrooms.
  We have been joined by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), and 
she is new as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. She comes 
with a State legislative background from the State of Ohio where she 
has worked on so many of the health care programs, the reform programs 
that were needed, and working with Governors. At this time she is going 
to spend just a couple of moments and talk about some of the reforms 
that were needed by the Governors and are addressed in this bill.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Blackburn) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to keep this very brief. I just came here 64 
days ago, and I served on the general assembly and I served on the 
appropriations committee. And I can tell the Members most States are 
seeing their budgets being crippled by Medicaid, and Medicaid is tied 
to the Federal programs. What we have done in this bill is we have a 
plan to reform government, to reduce spending, not just at the Federal 
level but at the State level as well.
  The gentleman from Texas's (Chairman Barton) program that addresses 
the eldercare with Medicaid will really help States initiate programs 
that truly take care of the elderly who are in need, but force people 
who are not in need who try to circumvent the system from circumventing 
that system. And that is so important. That is reforming government. 
That is reducing spending. That is getting rid of waste, fraud, and 
abuse. And that is a plan.
  Chairman Barton also has a plan for Medicaid savings on prescription 
drugs. That is important, because when I came from Ohio and when 85 
percent of our budget is crippled by Medicare and education, we need to 
have help at the Federal level to enact reforms at the State level that 
will allow us to feed our poor, feed our elderly, educate our children, 
and not bankrupt our system. That is what this act does.
  I am going to vote for it, and I want to applaud the leadership on 
the Republican side of this aisle for giving us a plan to reform 
government, reduce spending, and save our future.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlewoman for her comments.
  At this time I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), 
who is going to talk with us about the food stamp program and address 
some of the myths that we have been hearing about this program. This 
gentleman has done so much work in the agriculture programs, looking to 
be certain that we address the stewardship requirements that our 
constituents and citizens have for us.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for holding this 
special order tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, John Adams once said very simply, ``Facts are stubborn 
things.'' Somebody else once said that you can ignore the facts, you 
can deny the facts, but in the end, there they are. Tonight we are 
talking about the facts.
  I want to just share with my colleagues some information according to 
the Office of Management and Budget, because this is pretty shocking. 
Some of our friends on the left are saying, Well, it is because we are 
wasting all this money fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Well, maybe they are right, I do not know. Some of them say, Well, the 
reason we have a deficit problem is because of tax cuts. Well, I think 
we can dispel that myth, because let me just share with my colleagues 
some numbers from the Office of Management and Budget.
  Since 2001 through 2005, the inflation rate here in the United States 
has averaged a little more than 12 percent, total. We have increased 
spending on science, space, and technology by 21 percent. This Congress 
has increased spending on transportation by 24 percent. We have 
increased spending on unemployment benefits by 26 percent; general 
government, 32 percent; income security programs, or what we would call 
welfare and other programs we are going to talk about in a minute, have 
increased by 39 percent. Now, that is at a time when inflation has been 
a little over 12 percent, so it has increased at triple the inflation 
rate.
  Health care programs, we have increased by 42 percent just since 
2001; community development, 71 percent; housing and commerce, 86 
percent; international affairs, what some people call mostly foreign 
aid, has increased by 94 percent.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this area that we are just slashing and 
burning, education, has increased by 99 percent. The facts are right 
here, and if anyone would like a copy of the article, if they call my 
office, I will be happy to send them one.
  We talked about facts, and the gentlewoman mentioned food stamps. 
Now, listen, I think I speak for everyone on both sides of the aisle 
here in the U.S. House of Representatives and, frankly, I think I speak 
for all Americans, it is something we take pretty seriously. We do not 
want anybody to go to bed hungry here in the United States. But I am 
happy to say that this House, this House leadership, this Budget 
Committee and the chairman and the members of the Republican Caucus 
have a plan that will reform government and provide savings for the 
American taxpayers. Spending has been going up too fast, and we propose 
to do something about that.

[[Page H10124]]

  I came here in 1994, and earlier my colleague, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) talked about what we did in 1995 and 1996. One of 
the things we did that I will always be proud of is, we reformed the 
welfare system, and we put limits on welfare. We heard some of the same 
arguments back then, Oh, my gosh, people are going to be thrown into 
the streets, people will go hungry, this is going to be terrible. Well, 
let us look at what happened. We cut the welfare caseloads by 50 
percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I always said, and I really believe this, welfare reform 
was never about saving money. It was about saving people; it was about 
saving families; it was about saving children from one more generation 
of dependency and despair.
  Unfortunately, our friends on the left still believe in big 
government. They somehow believe that big government programs can 
really solve problems.
  Mr. Speaker, we believe people should not go to bed hungry.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time 
tonight. I will remind everyone that facts are stubborn things. We know 
we do not balance the budget by raising taxes and balancing it on the 
backs of hard-working Americans. You get this deficit under control by 
cutting spending and promoting economic growth and creating a bright 
future for future generations.

                          ____________________