[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 153 (Thursday, November 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10537-H10542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H10537]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4241, DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 
                            2005--Continued
                              {time}  2108

  Messrs. CARNAHAN, AL GREEN of Texas, WYNN, RUSH, PETERSON of 
Minnesota, ISRAEL and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. BEAUPREZ, HEFLEY, WELDON of Florida, SOUDER, POMBO, SHUSTER, 
MACK, Mrs. KELLY and Mrs. BONO changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, 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. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, this is an historic evening, an evening when 
we have come together to truly chart the course for the Federal 
Government's spending over the next number of years.
  House Resolution 560 provides for consideration of H.R. 4241, the 
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is the 
first time since 1997 that such a measure has come this far. The rule 
provides 2 hours of debate and a motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  As a member of both the Rules and the Budget Committee, I am pleased 
to bring this historic resolution to the floor for our consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, most all Americans rely on the government to provide 
security for themselves and their families, for their Nation. After 
defense, though, expectations vary widely about what Americans expect 
out of their government. But those expectations, whatever they may be, 
they all are rooted in the common need, the common expectation that 
whatever government does, that it be done wisely, prudently, 
efficiently, without waste or abuse of their hard-earned tax dollars.
  The congressional budget process is a chance to ensure that our 
government behaves in a fiscally responsible and responsive manner to 
provide opportunity and security for today and for future generations.
  In my first term in Congress I was appointed to the Budget Committee. 
I was pleased that this assignment would afford me the opportunity to 
receive the full scope of all the programs that exist, all the 
agencies, all the departments that fall under the umbrella of the 
Federal Government. But I was shocked when I got on that committee to 
learn how little control Congress actually exerts over spending in many 
of these agencies and programs.
  Discretionary spending, that portion of the budget that consumes all 
the sound and fury that a Congress can manufacture, makes up less than 
half of total spending, half of the total budget.

                              {time}  2115

  Mandatory spending, entitlement spending, that spending that is on 
autopilot, accounts for 54 percent of the total budget and, if left 
unchecked, in a decade will consume nearly two-thirds, or 62 percent, 
of total Federal spending.
  I have been dismayed at how Congress has allowed its voice to become 
fainter and fainter when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars on 
entitlement programs. It is time that this Congress take responsibility 
for the entire spending picture. We cannot avoid the tough decisions. 
It is our job to set the priorities of government and then fund them 
appropriately. It is our job to practice thorough oversight of the 
programs and agencies that consume our tax dollars. We must find the 
waste, the fraud, the abuse in the programs and blaze a trail to 
smarter, more responsive government.
  Anyone watching the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina would agree that 
government was neither smart nor responsive. The time has come for this 
House to reassert its role and take back control of both discretionary 
and mandatory spending.
  This legislation is another step towards smarter and more confident 
government. The congressional budget resolution called for a reduction 
in discretionary spending; and for the first time since 1997, it 
included deficit reduction instructions to authorizing committees to 
find and achieve mandatory savings for a more accountable government. 
It does this by finding smarter ways to spend and by slowing the rate 
of growth in the Federal Government.
  Eight different authorizing committees have worked hard to find these 
savings within their individual jurisdictions through regular order, 
through individual members practicing their individual expertise, 
through their individual interests on their authorizing committees. 
Regular order was used to develop this plan for a smarter government, 
and I want to commend those chairmen and all those committee members, 
not just the Budget Committee members, not just the Appropriations 
Committee members, but the entire House who participated in this 
process and, through their aggressive oversight, identified nearly $50 
billion in inefficiencies.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), our 
budget chairman, and his ranking member and

[[Page H10538]]

all the members of the Committee on the Budget of the House for their 
hard work, for preparing the deficit reduction package.
  I look forward to passing this reform bill and reaffirming sound 
oversight and fiscal accountability here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I once said that budgets are moral 
documents. They reflect our choices, our priorities and they most 
clearly define our values, as a government and as a Nation.
  Today's 5-year budget reconciliation is no different, and that is 
exactly why the Republicans in the House are worried. They are worried 
that the American people will see that they have sold out our American 
values.
  So it should come as no surprise that it has taken a week of 
intraparty fighting in the Republican Conference and one false start to 
get the bill to the floor. Why? Because they cannot muster the votes in 
their own party to get this budget passed.
  One of my Republican colleagues captured it best in yesterday's CQ 
Daily when he said, ``If the Republican Party cannot stand for 
responsible spending, then we stand for nothing at all.''
  I agree with him on that point; and as this Republican leadership 
continues to flail and flounder, there can be only one conclusion drawn 
from this budget reconciliation, that this majority has come to stand 
for nothing at all, except for making the rich richer while the rest of 
America pays the bill.
  Because at its core, that is what this budget does, and it is what 
the budget was intentionally designed to do, cut vital programs and 
increase the national debt in order to create tax cuts for the rich and 
the superrich.
  I and many of my colleagues in this body, both Republican and 
Democrat, see nothing at all responsible about this agenda, and neither 
will the majority of the American people.
  This budget reconciliation is not worthy of the ideals of this 
Nation. If it gets out of the House tonight, this Congress should be 
ashamed.
  Republicans call this the Deficit Reduction Act, when very shortly 
they will actually increase our already-obscene deficit by another $5 
billion by passing the tax cut bill. Republicans will claim on the 
floor tonight that they are reducing the deficit, but it is a 
deception.
  Do not be fooled by their Enron-style accounting. The majority 
deliberately chose to separate this bill from its planned package of 
$56 billion in tax cuts for the rich, more than half of which goes to 
the superrich, those with incomes over $1 million a year.
  Without missing a beat, they are trying to finance the tax cut, as 
well as the skyrocketing debt, on the backs of the poor, the disabled, 
the elderly, and the middle class. As a result, working Americans will 
pay more and get less.
  For instance, the budget will cut student aid programs by $14.3 
billion, which will make college more expensive, or totally 
unaffordable, for you and your children and will ensure that literally 
millions of students will not have the means to achieve a higher 
education.
  Until earlier this evening, they were even planning to cut the school 
lunch programs for poor children and food stamps for needy families. I 
would ask, whose values are these? They certainly are not mine, and 
they are not the values of the hard-working families that I represent, 
which leads me to a very important point that I need to make here 
today.
  Three months ago, a stunned Nation watched as the national horror 
that was Hurricane Katrina unfolded on our television screens. No one 
could believe that this kind of widespread suffering could happen here 
in America. It was a sobering moment for this Nation. It was the moment 
that we understood that America had forgotten our moral responsibility 
to provide for the security and welfare of all our fellow Americans.
  I would ask my friends in the majority, in the wake of that 
realization, how can we cut the very programs that the victims of 
Hurricane Katrina will depend on to rebuild their lives? So that the 
richest among us can be even richer?
  Unfortunately, this majority sees fit to pull what little these 
victims have left right out from under their feet.
  The result of this budget will be the denial of affordable medical 
service to those who have nowhere else to turn and the creation of 
unprecedented health care premiums for those who can least afford them.
  Child support services are cut as well, making it harder for working 
parents to raise their children.
  I would ask my fellow citizens, have we learned nothing? Is this the 
America that you believe in?
  Last year alone, the salary of the major corporate CEOs increased by 
just an average of 30 percent. This year, the oil companies are making 
the highest profits in history. In fact, over the last 4 months alone, 
Exxon Mobil has earned just shy of $10 billion in profits, and middle-
class Americans at this time can no longer afford to fill their cars 
with gas.
  As the winter approaches, middle-class families in the Northeast are 
having to choose between paying their skyrocketing heating bills and 
buying food for their families, and it is only November. All the while, 
the majority is making it harder for your children to go to college and 
more expensive to get decent health care for your family. I cannot 
think of anything less American than this. I cannot think of anything 
more out of touch with the values of our families.
  After all, no responsible parent in America would fail to provide 
their children food and clothes or an education just so they could 
afford to buy a boat or take a trip, but that is the moral equivalent 
of what this majority seeks to do here today; and it is a subversion of 
every value we hold dear, because as Americans we meet our 
responsibilities. We take care of our families. We pay our bills, and 
we should demand the same thing from this Republican government.
  That is why I am asking my colleagues to oppose this rule and 
strongly oppose this bill, because the budget sells out America. I 
would ask, if we accept this, what will be next? If we say that it is 
acceptable to slash education, health care, trade protection, senior 
medical coverage, affordable housing, student loans, foster care and 
family planning, if we agree to abandon all fiscal responsibility and 
further increase the already record national debt, just so that we can 
orchestrate one of the biggest giveaways to the rich, then what will be 
next?
  I know if we band together America can do better than this. We can do 
better than turning the American Dream into a privilege for the few, 
instead of a right for all. We must do better, and we need to start 
today by rejecting this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida, not only for his leadership but also working so diligently 
with the Budget Committee, including the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), our great chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight is an opportunity for the Republican majority to 
meet the demands of this great Nation when we talk about the ability to 
have a plan that will help control spending, where we can move forward 
to make sure that we better the circumstance that this country is in.
  Earlier this year, this Congress began engaging Governors from all 
across this great Nation about ways in which we could make Medicaid 
spending and Medicaid programs work more efficiently across this 
government. I participated with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) in 
meetings with Mark Warner, who is a Democrat Governor from Virginia, 
and Tom Vilsack, who is a Governor from Iowa. We talked about ways that 
this Congress could go about giving the Governors more flexibility and 
the ability to manage those processes and programs that they have in 
place.
  The Budget Committee, as a result of work that has been done by other 
committees, one-eighth of the bills which we bring tonight simply talk 
about

[[Page H10539]]

ways that we can make sure that the spending that is done tonight is 
done more efficiently and more effectively, but done in a way that will 
create better services to the American public. What we find now, as we 
come to the floor to do the things that literally Governors all across 
this country have asked for, the flexibility to run their programs 
without just giving them waivers, but to let them run their own 
programs, we are told we are cutting services to poor people and how 
mean we are.
  The truth could not be further from that which is said, Mr. Speaker. 
The fact of the matter is that we are going to put more money than ever 
in Medicaid that will allow States the opportunity to take care of 
their problems.
  I am proud of this bill tonight. I support it, and I hope that the 
American people see it for what it is, a great opportunity to save 
money.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget reconciliation is a Republican raid on 
student aid: over $14 billion in cuts to Federal student aid programs, 
cuts that add $5,800 to the costs of the average student's education, 
$5,800. That is a lot of money for any family, especially the poor and 
the working poor.
  Actually, cutting student aid is a very clever new military 
recruiting tool because by discouraging students from attending college 
for financial reasons, their only choice is often to join the military.
  Nearly 50 percent of military recruits come from lower-middle-class 
to poor households. Mr. Speaker, in the year 2004, nearly two-thirds of 
Army recruits came from areas where the median household income is 
below the U.S. average, where joining the military is the only way to 
learn a trade or pay for school.
  The raid on student aid becomes a military draft through the lack of 
opportunity.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before we get too deep into this debate, let us go ahead and 
straighten out three myths.
  Myth number one is the myth of the cuts, because only in Washington 
and only in the other side's rhetoric is a reduction in the rate of 
increase considered a cut. When growth rates are going from 7.5 percent 
to 7.3 percent or from 6.3 to 6 percent and programs are getting more 
dollars the next year than they got the year before, that is not a cut.
  Myth number two, that it is mean. What could be mean about demanding 
that services to people who need them the most are administered 
effectively, wisely, and efficiently? Is it waste in programs that 
administer to our most needy and our most vulnerable, the worst kind of 
waste?

                              {time}  2130

  Do we not have a special obligation to root out those dollars that 
have been directed to the people who need them the most but are not 
finding their way there because of inefficiencies in our government?
  And, thirdly, that this is somehow part of an overall scheme that is 
tied in with preventing tax increases. There are two separate packages 
moving. You have an opportunity, you have an opportunity to vote 
against keeping the tax rates where they are and allowing them to rise. 
You have an opportunity to do that. But you have a separate 
opportunity, through regular order, through the ordinary process, 
through all the individual committees, to also take a stand to correct 
and rein in mandatory spending that is out of control and is gobbling 
up the Federal budget. You have that opportunity.
  Two separate votes. You can be for savings and still vote to let 
taxes go up on another day, but do not try to have it both ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett) to elaborate on these points.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Federal spending is just too 
high and basically it is in danger of spiraling out of complete 
control. But American families are really better off if they are able 
to keep more of their money to decide to spend it as they see their 
needs fit. But only when excesses and unnecessary spending are 
identified and eliminated will that happen. And that is really the 
responsibility of both sides of the aisle.
  The bill before us began with $34 billion in savings. We have another 
$15 billion roughly in savings on top of it. This will not fix our 
mandatory spending problems right away, but it is a first step in the 
right direction.
  Unfortunately, opponents on the other side of the aisle have been 
spreading lies about it when they say there are cuts in the Medicaid 
funding program. In fact, the reform program includes a 7 percent 
increase in spending for Medicaid. Programs like Medicaid simply cannot 
sustain themselves without any reform. No one can argue that Medicaid 
is a completely 100 percent efficient program. Reforms are necessary to 
protect the program and protect the services that are provided to the 
people who receive them. Right now, around 53 million Americans receive 
the benefits of this program. It is a State-Federal partnership. And 
unless reform is done now, we will see that program become disabled and 
cripple the States and eventually lead to bankruptcy.
  One area we see this is in prescription drugs. Time and time again, 
the Federal Government overpays for prescription drug benefits. And 
unless reform is made in this program, we will see that program crash 
as well.
  The other side has lied with regard to student loans as well. There 
are no cuts in the student loan program under this budget reform plan. 
That is another lie of the other side of the aisle. As the number of 
college students increases, the student loan program will grow as well. 
Under this bill, student financial aid will continue to increase as the 
number of kids in colleges increase. Financial aid actually goes up 
through increases in loan limits and reductions in origination fees.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  (Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, my young friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam) 
knows very well that his constituents and most Americans understand 
that when you reconcile a budget that you have two sides of that 
budget, the spending side and the tax side. I would agree with many 
things that he says, that spending has run out of control. It certainly 
has run out of control in the last 5 years since this administration 
has been in and the Republicans have controlled the Congress and the 
White House.
  Americans also understand that we need to balance our books. They do 
it in their homes. They do it in their businesses. They do it in their 
local governments. That is the problem that most of us have with this 
process that is going on here.
  Today we are looking at a spending cut bill that is somewhere in the 
neighborhood of $50 billion, give or take a few hundred million. 
Tomorrow we are going to look at a revenue reduction bill that is 
somewhere in the range of $60 to $70 billion, depending upon what the 
Rules Committee reports out. In any event, what we will have will be an 
increase in the deficit, money that will have to be borrowed by the 
American people to cover those differences.
  The American people also understand that this United States 
Government has an $8 trillion Federal debt, that we have about a $500 
billion annual deficit, the highest in the Nation's history. We have 
the largest trade deficits in the history of the Nation. We have got a 
very expensive and controversial war in Iraq. We have got the highest 
gas prices in the history of this Nation. We have got interest rates 
that are going up on a monthly basis.
  Mr. Speaker, the economic model has suffered, and it is time to put 
it right with a bipartisan summit called by the President of the United 
States.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just point out that the gentleman has two votes coming up, 
one where he can do something about the spending and one where he can 
make clear the position on either raising taxes or not raising taxes. 
There are two separate and distinct votes. He cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).

[[Page H10540]]

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I believe that I will agree with our Democrat colleagues on very 
little this evening, but one thing I do agree on, Mr. Speaker, is that 
this is a debate about values. We value the family budget. They value 
the Federal budget. We value accountability. We value efficiency and 
rooting out waste and fraud and abuse. They value more government, more 
bureaucracy, more dependency. And that is the difference, Mr. Speaker.
  We all know that there is a fiscal hurricane coming towards America. 
The General Accountability Office said if we do not start this process 
of reforms and start it today that within one generation, we will have 
to double taxes on the American people. Mr. Speaker, that is simply 
unconscionable.
  Our friends on the other side will say we simply cannot cut 
government spending. Well, I wish, in fact, that we were cutting 
government spending, but instead, the Federal budget is going to be 
greater next year than last year. Mandatory spending is going to be 
greater next year than last year. Food stamps will be up. Medicare will 
be up. Medicaid will be up. That is falsehood.
  They tell us there is no waste, fraud, abuse, duplication in the 
Federal budget. Yet this is a Federal budget that in the past has paid 
five times as much for a wheelchair in one bureaucracy than another 
because one would competitively bid and the other would not. This is a 
bureaucracy that has paid VA benefits to dead people. And the list goes 
on.
  We will hear from the other side that tax relief is somehow the 
problem for all of our fiscal woes. Yet we have cut taxes and tax 
receipts are up and 4 million jobs have been created.
  And, finally, we will hear about compassion, Mr. Speaker. But where 
is the compassion in doubling taxes on our children in one generation, 
taking away jobs, taking away hope, taking away opportunity from those 
who are most vulnerable, those who do not vote, and those who are not 
yet born? There is no compassion in that, Mr. Speaker.
  We must pass this reform package.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cardoza).
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my presentation, I want to 
just say I cannot believe the comments from the gentleman who just 
spoke.
  Today, the national debt stands at over $8 trillion. That is more 
than $27,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. This fiscal 
mess is a direct result of the policies put in place by the leadership 
of this Congress and the Bush White House.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle want the members of the 
Blue Dog Coalition to join with them in their latest efforts to run the 
deficit even higher. Mr. Speaker, that will never happen. It is time 
for real reform, not more of the same. The Blue Dog Coalition has put 
forward a comprehensive 12-step program that would dig America out of 
its fiscal mess.
  Remarkably, our Republican colleagues have criticized the Blue Dogs 
for not supporting their sham reconciliation program, even though 
several of their original programs are put in the Blue Dog 12-step 
program. After refusing to reach across party lines to negotiate a real 
deficit package, the Republicans now accuse the Blue Dogs of 
partisanship.
  Are you all serious? My friends, you have abandoned fiscal 
responsibility and your way is not working. America has had enough. I 
have had enough. Each Member of Congress has a certain piece of these 
cuts that they hate the most, whether it be child support or Medicaid 
or food stamps. But ladies and gentlemen, for me it is personal. This 
bill includes several provisions that will reduce foster care 
assistance and services. This bill cuts foster care-related funding by 
$600 million a year. Our Federal budget is nearly $1 trillion a year.
  Ladies and gentlemen on that side of the aisle, are you serious in 
telling me that you cannot find any budget cuts that do not affect 
abandoned children? Are you telling me that you cannot find anyplace to 
pay for your tax cuts that does not affect abandoned and abused and 
neglected children?
  Ladies and gentlemen, I have two children that I adopted out of 
foster care. When I told them about these cuts, they told me, ``Daddy, 
don't let them do it.'' Ladies and gentlemen, they told me, ``Daddy, 
don't let them do it.''
  This is not the right place to cut, ladies and gentlemen. You have 
not consulted with us. This is not the right package. You need to 
change the way and the direction that you are going.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Blue Dogs are stuck in the dog box of their leadership. They need 
to get off of the porch and bring a plan to the table. The chairman of 
the Budget Committee testified before the Rules Committee, asking that 
a substitute be made in order. The 12-step plan was still stuck 
someplace else. The Blue Dogs were still on the porch. The Blue Dogs 
were still locked in the box. They did not come forward with an 
opportunity to present their own plan.
  They are free to criticize ours. We are big boys and girls. We are 
going to stand by this plan, and we are going to move it forward 
because it is important that we back up what their rhetoric is, which 
is that mandatory and entitlement spending is eating up this budget and 
somebody has got to do something about it besides just bark.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me 
this time tonight.
  I have spent 30-plus years as a CPA, professional background. I know 
a little bit about budgets, and we work them from two sides. One is the 
revenue side; the other is the spending side. Tonight we are talking 
about spending. To put the spending in perspective, it is a 5-year plan 
that reduces that spending by some $50 billion, which is a lot of money 
under any circumstance. But spending over that 5-year period in 
mandatory spending will be $8.5 trillion. If we do the math, that is 
not quite a rounding error. It is just a little bit more than a 
rounding error in the overall spending. So what we are hearing in the 
rhetoric on the other side is that America is on a razor-thin edge of 
disaster, a \1/2\ percent razor-thin edge in mandatory spending.
  Yesterday's USA Today showed what spending will be like in 2050, a 
time when my children and grandchildren will be trying to bear this 
burden that we are currently after. Albert Einstein said the most 
powerful thing in the universe is compound interest, and that is great 
if you have got a savings account that you are adding to periodically 
and you are rolling that interest in there. But compound interest on 
the spending side is a disaster of biblical proportions. We will see in 
2050 what compound spending growth will do.
  What we are doing tonight with this original first step, modest first 
step, is to try to rein in the growth of Federal spending. It is not 
cuts, as my good colleague from Florida has said. It is simply a 
reduction in the growth of spending. Everybody can spend it any way 
that they want to.
  I would ask that we keep our comments tonight in a manner that 
behooves this body that we stick with the facts and that we be 
responsible for things we say here tonight. It is important. This is an 
important debate.
  Families cannot operate at a deficit. Small businesses certainly 
cannot. My clients certainly could not. About the only entity that can 
is the Federal Government. And because the Federal Government can 
operate at a deficit does not mean that it should operate at a deficit.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her 
leadership.
  I am absolutely amazed at you boys over there. I wonder what you are 
going to be when you grow up. For you to come to this floor and attack 
the Blue Dogs on fiscal responsibility demonstrates an unparalleled 
display of ignorance, stupidity, or just down-hard foolishness. I do 
not know which.

                              {time}  2145

  You stand there and say we are increasing spending, but we are 
cutting spending. I do not know whether you cannot add or subtract. I 
do not know

[[Page H10541]]

what your problem is. But I can tell you this, and you can be cute, you 
can be smart, and you may even pull this off, son, but I tell you one 
thing, you are young enough, you are going to have to live with it. You 
are putting a tax on the next generation that they cannot pay and they 
cannot repeal it, and you are going to have to live with it.
  Do not ask for my time because I will not yield.
  I can tell you this: you are going to suffer the consequences just 
like everybody else in the next generation and those to come 
thereafter. And I cannot believe that you have the audacity to come to 
this floor with this assault on women and children and try to portray 
it, as this other Howdy Doody-looking nimrod said, that he wanted to 
talk about family values and values. That is unprecedented in this 
House.
  I have the time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. BERRY. I yield to the gentleman from California.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair, is it 
appropriate for Members of this House to address the Chair or address 
their remarks to other Members?
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the Blue Dogs were referred 
to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair advises all Members 
that they should address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, as I do proceed, let me continue to tell you, 
if you cannot take it, go home. Do not do this to our children and 
grandchildren. You cannot take it, you are not man enough to pass these 
rules and pass these laws and build this dam on our children and 
grandchildren until they cannot carry it any longer.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that 
remarks should be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my apologies for besmirching the reputation of the Blue 
Dogs. It is clear that their bark is still in place, though their bite 
is lacking.
  Mr. Speaker, that was quite a performance, and I respect the 
gentleman's passion; but I do not respect the fact that he chose to 
personalize the debate, an important debate about the future of our 
Nation. I do not like the way that he characterized me; I do not like 
the way that he characterized the gentleman from Texas. It seems to me 
that the sensitivities about the reputation of the Blue Dogs is where 
the thin skin really lies.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget is about the future and this organization 
has created the impression over a number of years of fiscal 
responsibility; and yet time after time after time when given the 
opportunity to truly do something about it, they just fade away. They 
just go back to the porch. Instead of taking the tough votes, instead 
of bringing real reform and making government work better so future 
generations of men and women and businesses and children and all 
aspects, instead of guaranteeing a bright future for all Americans, 
they just choose to talk about it.
  The gentleman is right when he said that our younger generation is 
going to be most impacted by these fiscal decisions. They are. That is 
why we are here today to try to do something about it. They are here 
today to just talk about it. Where is their plan to rein in the 
overarching growth of Federal spending? What are they going to do about 
the fact that entitlement spending takes up over half of the budget and 
will soon take up two-thirds? Where was their plan about what they were 
going to do for these same women and children, as if the country was 
only made up of women and children, that benefit from these programs, 
what about all Americans? What were you going to do about this 
generation and future generations' retirement security? The same thing 
you were going to do about this, just talk about it, but not actually 
take the tough votes to do anything about securing their future.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I think there is one thing we can all agree 
on tonight, and that is the deficit is too big. But the question is 
what are we going to do about it. There are only two ways we have a 
deficit, Mr. Speaker. Either we spend too much, or we tax too little.
  I know that the people of the Second District of Indiana do not feel 
like they are taxed too little, and I do not think that they are a 
whole lot different from the rest of Americans. The fact is we spend 
enough money around here. What we do not do is prioritize.
  We have heard and will continue to hear a whole lot of rhetoric that 
we are slashing spending.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is we are not cutting spending at all. Today 
we are simply slowing the future growth of government. The truth is 
that Medicare spending will grow next year. Food stamp spending will 
grow next year. Student financial aid will grow next year. Now, I 
understand that only in Washington smaller increases are considered 
cuts; but even by Washington standards, our efforts today are modest.
  When you cut through all of the rhetoric, what we are doing tonight 
is slowing the growth of government over the next 5 years from 6.4 
percent to 6.3 percent. That is one-tenth of one percent. That is 
equivalent to a family making $50,000 a year finding savings of $50 a 
year. Anyone who says we cannot find savings of one-tenth of 1 percent 
has no serious interest in making government more efficient, has no 
ideas other than to raise taxes on the economy and American families, 
and they only want to use how much we spend rather than how well we 
spend as a measurement of success.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that spending money is 
easy and managing money is hard. Anyone serious about reducing the 
deficit by returning to fiscal sanity and starting to make government 
more self-sufficient will support this rule and support this bill. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to do so.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin to tell my 
Republican friends how disappointed I am, and I want to speak to why 
you are seeing so much passion on this floor tonight from Democrats, 
and especially from Blue Dog Democrats, of which I am a proud member. I 
am going into my fourth year here, and every year it has been the Blue 
Dog Democrats, not the Republicans, who have been at the forefront of 
trying to rein in deficit spending. It has been Blue Dogs who have been 
at the forefront to put forward pay-as-you-go.
  You say we do not have a plan. We have a 12-point plan. We have tried 
to institute pay-as-you-go principles from day one. We have begged, we 
have pleaded with the President of the United States to meet with us to 
make sure that we rein in the deficit. So when you see Blue Dogs coming 
down here mad as hell, you have to understand that the reason we are 
mad is because we are not going to stand idly by and see the hypocrisy 
of a party that squandered billions and billions of dollars in surplus 
in the last 4 years and then come down here and say you are leading the 
fight to cut deficits, when you have done more than any President, any 
party in modern times to add to the deficit. And then the worst thing 
you want to do is to squeeze in a tax cut of $70 billion and then to do 
it on the backs of those that can least afford it.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, back in Indiana when a tree falls on your 
house, first you tend to the wounded; then you start to clean up; then 
you sit down and figure out how you are going to pay for it.
  Well, tonight, thanks to the leadership of Speaker Hastert, in the 
aftermath of having spent over $60 billion in 6 days to meet the real 
needs of the families and communities affected by Hurricane Katrina, 
tonight Congress is going to figure out how to pay for it.
  In the Deficit Reduction Act, Congress will achieve more than $50 
billion

[[Page H10542]]

in savings over the next 5 years to offset the extraordinary cost of 
Hurricane Katrina. While this is an important first step in restoring 
fiscal discipline, there is still work to be done. As has been said by 
my colleagues in the Democratic Party tonight, with an $8 trillion 
national debt, with more spending on hurricane relief just around the 
corner, it is imperative that we not only pass the Deficit Reduction 
Act but that we move immediately on to the other serious work, to look 
for an across-the-board cut in this year's budget, ensuring that the 
cost of Hurricane Katrina will be borne by the entirety of our Federal 
priorities.
  We must do more, but we dare not do less. Tonight we will do that 
which is of first importance: we will begin the process of putting our 
fiscal house in order. President John F. Kennedy said it best when he 
said: ``To lead is to choose.'' And this is such a moment.
  Tonight, whatever the outcome of this vote, this is a moment of 
truth, where we will set aside the rhetoric on this blue and gold 
carpet, and the American people will see for themselves who in this 
Congress is willing to make the tough choices in tough times to put our 
fiscal house in order. Bring the vote, and I urge my colleagues of 
goodwill on both sides of the aisle to adopt the Deficit Reduction Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Bean).
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. One of 
the reasons I came to Congress was to bring a real-world business 
perspective to government. In the business world, accountability is 
survival. In this Congress, it is a catch phrase usually directed 
elsewhere.
  Demands for personal responsibility or corporate accountability 
abound, but rarely congressional accountability or fiscal restraint. 
Instead of sticking to the motto, If it is worth doing, it is worth 
paying for, this administration and this Congress have turned the 
largest budget surplus in history into the largest deficit in history 
with a reckless borrow-and-spend profligacy. It should be no surprise 
then that today's so-called Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 actually 
increases the budget deficit, fails to fix the broken budget process, 
and does nothing to reduce America's dependence on foreign capital.

                              {time}  2200

  I will oppose this irresponsible budget package which does not 
include pay go spending controls. We must pay as we go. It is a simple 
concept with a proven track record. The budget enforcement rules of the 
1990s were an important part of getting the budget back into balance. 
The pay-as-you-go rules were tested and they worked. Accountability in 
government should be more than a catch phrase. It is time for us to say 
the buck stops here.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to show you a picture of a place I 
think all of us know. It is Disneyland, the Magic Kingdom, the Magic 
Castle where fantasy is real. And we go down and we all pretend to be 
boys and girls for the day.
  Well, here is another place where fantasy becomes reality. It is our 
office building, the United States Capitol. Only here can you call a 7 
percent increase a cut. And what are the lap dogs, I mean, the blue 
dogs barking about? What I am saying is, when you increase the budget 7 
percent----

                          ____________________