[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 153 (Thursday, November 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10542-H10545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             POINT OF ORDER

  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, does the speaker not have to address you and 
not a group or an individual?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members they 
should address their remarks to the Chair. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. KINGSTON. My point is that we can all live in the fantasyland of 
Disneyworld or the United States Capitol, and when a bill that is 
increasing Medicaid goes up $66 billion and people can call it a cut 
because they did not get their way, that it did not go up 7.3 percent, 
it only goes up 7 percent. You can find any excuse to vote no, and I 
guess in the fantasyland of Washington, D.C., you can call that a cut. 
But the reality is, all these posters and easels that are out in the 
halls of the Rayburn, the Longworth and the Cannon building are just 
fantasy. Here is a chance to actually reduce spending and you are 
barking at it and saying no.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) to address the fantasyland of this Mickey 
Mouse budget.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, this evening we are here to consider a bill 
known as the Deficit Reduction Act. And only here in a Republican-led 
Congress could something be called a deficit reduction act that adds 
$20 billion in new debt to this Nation's budget. Not only does it add 
$20 billion in new debt, but it also has nothing to do with paying for 
disaster relief. It is about cutting programs that matter to our 
children, our working families and our seniors to the tune of $50 
billion. It is about approving $70 billion in new tax cuts. I was not 
real good in math back in high school, but I think anybody can figure 
that one out. $50 billion in cuts, $70 billion in new tax cuts equals 
$20 billion in new debt. And what is being cut? Student aid, $14.3 
billion. As the father of a 17-year-old that is approaching college, 
like so many parents across this country, I am concerned about being 
able to pay for my child's college education. Parents all over this 
country tonight are concerned that the Republican leadership are 
proposing $14 billion in cuts for their children's college education. 
Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor, the disabled, the 
elderly being cut by $11.4 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about my America. In Arkansas, half the 
children are on Medicaid. In Arkansas, 8 out of every 10 seniors in 
nursing homes are on Medicaid. In Arkansas, one out of every five 
people are on Medicaid, and this Republican-led Congress, tonight, 
plans to cut Medicaid $11.4 billion. And if that is not enough, they 
are going to cut agriculture programs $3 billion. My farm families back 
home in East Arkansas cannot afford these kind of cuts as they simply 
try to do what they do best, and that is provide a safe and reliable 
source of food and fiber for America's families.
  You know, as this debate unfolded tonight, as I was sitting here, I 
could not help but think about Matthew, chapter 25, verse 40. ``I tell 
you the truth. Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers 
of mine, you did for me.'' That is what I learned growing up in a 
little country church just outside of Hope, Arkansas, Midway United 
Methodist Church.
  Eight trillion dollars is the Nation's debt under this Republican-led 
Congress, the largest deficit ever in our Nation's history for a fifth 
year in a row. In fact, this Republican President and this Republican 
Congress has borrowed more money from foreign investors and foreign 
banks in less than 5 years than the previous 42 presidents combined. It 
is hard now to believe that we had a balanced budget from 1998 to 2001. 
Contrast that to today, when we are borrowing $907 million a day, 
sending $188 million a day to Iraq, $33 million a day to Afghanistan. 
This plan does not reflect America's values. This plan does not reflect 
my values. Vote no on this and vote yes to the Blue Dog 12-point plan 
which none of these Members are cosponsoring.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I have not memorized all of Matthew, but I 
am pretty sure he did not like calling kids Nimrods. I yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, actually I am going to come to the well of 
this House tonight to celebrate, not besmirch the gentleman's youth nor 
certainly his wisdom. The gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from 
Texas, it is you, of anybody in this Chamber tonight, it is you and the 
millions of your generation that you represent in this Chamber, in this 
people's House that we ought to be concerned about. You are the ones 
that should be passionate because you are going to get stuck with the 
bill.
  I thank both the gentlemen. And there has been a lot of heated 
rhetoric in here tonight. Let us talk at least a shred of truth. What 
this bill does is suggest that for a person to be Medicaid eligible has 
to have less than 3

[[Page H10543]]

quarters of $1 million of net worth. Now, is that harsh folks? Let us 
get real. Who out there in the real world believes that that is overly 
harsh, that to be on a welfare program, to be nursing home eligible, 
you have to have less than 3 quarters of $1 million worth of net worth? 
Not the world that I came from.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the head of the Blue Dogs.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I guess that there is enough hot air that 
comes from this place to float any balloon, and I wish I was making up 
what I am about to say. But if you go to the www.publicdebt.treas.gov, 
you will find the things that I am about to say are there on the 
government Web site from the United States Treasury. The record is 
simply this. In 2002, this Congress raised the debt ceiling by $450 
billion. In 2003, by $984 billion. In 2004, by $800 billion, and in 
this budget reconciliation process, there is another $781 billion of 
debt increase, amounting to $3.01 trillion, all of which is done in the 
last 4 years.
  Now, I speak tonight as an American. We only have one dollar. We only 
have one Treasury. And for either party to claim some sort of mantle of 
financial responsibility here is absolutely ridiculous. No American 
political leadership in the history of this country has borrowed as 
much money as quickly as this Congress and this administration in the 
last 4 years. This is not an argument. This is fact. Go to 
www.publicdebt.treas.gov if you do not believe me. And what this means 
to us as Americans is in 2000, we had $50 billion a year out of the tax 
base that was available for education, for health care, for veterans. 
It is not available now because it is going to interest. I say what has 
happened is we, the Congress, and the administration, or you, the 
Congress and the administration, have levied a $500 billion plus tax 
increase on the American citizens over the next 10 years in the form of 
interest payments that you, in the majority, have built up over the 
last 4 years. That is not an argument. Go to www.treas.gov. That is a 
fact. Now, you might not want to admit it, but that is what has 
happened.
  Now, if that is not bad enough, 85 percent of this money that has 
been loaned to us and we have borrowed in the name of every man, woman 
and child that is a United States citizen, 85 percent of it has come 
from people that are not U.S. citizens. It is so bad right now that if 
China attacked Taiwan we would have to borrow the money from China to 
defend Taiwan. What kind of sense does this make?
  I am telling you, the Treasury reports that they are going to borrow 
$171 billion this quarter, the first quarter of 2006. And you come here 
with a reconciliation process that you say is cutting and then you turn 
around and stand up and say how much is being increased. I do not know 
which one it is, but I know that at the end of the day, this 
reconciliation process increases the deficit, not decreases it. And the 
American people want one thing, and I do not care whether it is 
Democrat or Republican, they want a government that works for them, not 
against them, and they want a government that does not enslave them in 
debt. What has happened here over the last 4 years is unprecedented. 
The amount of money that has been borrowed in our name by basically 
you, the majority, and the White House. It is not an argument. This is 
a fact. It is absolutely sickening. We are now, February 9, I want the 
American people to understand, February 9 are bringing back the 30-year 
bond. We have to because we owe so much money to primarily now 
foreigners.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, we were down here on the floor talking 
about this bill one night. I got an e-mail from a gentleman out in 
California, identified himself as a liberal Democrat. And he said, your 
House speech got it right. Programs started with the best of intentions 
will eventually outlive their usefulness, but their built-in 
bureaucracies have political champions that will not let these programs 
die ever.
  Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are seeing. We have before us a 
deficit reduction plan that would put us on a track to reforming 
government and yielding a savings. It is a good solid plan. It is a 
good solid start. Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle do not 
get it. Ronald Reagan had it right. There is nothing so close to 
eternal life on earth as a Federal Government program. And the reason 
that is true is because these folks built a bureaucracy to themselves 
out of 40 years of Democrat control and they have had a choice and they 
have chosen to support the bureaucracy. They have chosen not to reduce 
those programs even when Democrat governors of our own State in 
Tennessee say the Medicaid programs have to be reformed. They choose 
not to support those.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. MURPHY. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, some people want to scare others that this budget cuts 
services for needy Americans. Medicaid is one of those areas where 
facts are distorted. This bill increases Medicaid spending by $9.7 
billion the first year alone. It continues to increase Medicaid 
benefits for people who need them. Savings come from reducing Medicaid 
fraud like New York where there is $18 billion in fraud. It prevents 
wealthy families with more than $750,000 in home equity from earning 
Medicaid benefits they don't need. We incorporated many of the changes 
that the National Governors Association has asked for with 
unprecedented flexibility.
  We have to keep the Medicaid system from driving itself into fiscal 
oblivion. There is nothing compassionate about playing politics with 
people's hearts. We want to be sure that the Medicaid system is here 
for people today and tomorrow. That is why we need to give the 
Governors the flexibility they ask for in this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, earlier the gentleman from Indiana said that 
budgets are about choices. Unfortunately, here is what they mean when 
they say choices. They are asking the wealthiest Americans to choose 
between realizing their investment profits through dividends or capital 
gains while they are asking the poorest Americans to choose between 
health care or heating their home. That is the kind of choice that is 
being imposed by this budget. That is not a profile in courage. It is a 
profile in cowardice.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the Rules Committee the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have listened to Democrats and 
Republicans decry deficit spending. We have listened to Democrats and 
Republicans talk about the need to bring about reform so that we can 
ensure that those who are truly in need are able to have those needs 
addressed. No one in this institution wants to pull the rug out from 
anyone who is desperately in need. We know that the most effective way 
to ensure that those needs are met is to do what everyone knows has to 
be done. We have to bring about meaningful reform. Anyone who will 
stand in this Chamber and claim that the Medicaid program is free of 
any kind of abuse, that the food stamp program is free of any kind of 
abuse, that everything that we are looking at in this budget 
reconciliation bill is free of any kind of abuse does not understand 
the operations of the Federal Government.
  We know that these programs are filled with that kind of abuse and it 
is absolutely essential that we bring about this reform. Democrats and 
Republicans alike, Mr. Speaker, have the opportunity to bring about 
reforms to ensure that those who are truly in need have those needs 
met.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) who lost everything in Katrina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in south Mississippi tonight,

[[Page H10544]]

the people who have electricity, who might be at a VFW hall or a parish 
church hall, who are living in two- and three-man igloo tents waiting 
for Congress to do something, have absolutely got to think this place 
has lost their minds. The same Congress that voted to give the 
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans tax breaks every time. Every time. 
Without a tax break. Out of the goodness of their hearts, no? To help 
their big contributors.
  Who is kidding who? The same America that are spending 4 to $6 
billion a month in Iraq where, by the way, 4,000 Mississippians are 
fighting tonight, 15 have already come home dead, a dozen more have 
been to Walter Reed, who never asked the Iraqis for an offset are 
suddenly saying in the name of the poor folks in Mississippi who lost 
their houses, poor folks in New Orleans whose houses were flooded, we 
can't do this unless we have to hurt some other Americans to help some 
Americans? Suddenly after taking care of those who had the most, we 
have got to hurt the least. To help the folks in Mississippi?
  Folks, this is insane. I have sat here. I remember the vote. May 9, 
2001. I remember a President who said he could cut taxes, increase 
spending and pay down the debt. We are $2.4 trillion deeper in debt 
than that night. I did not vote for that. Almost all of you did. I did 
not vote to tell the folks who make hundreds of millions of dollars a 
year, you deserve a tax break. You did. I voted for offsets for the war 
in Iraq because, yes, we went to war. My goodness, kids from 
Mississippi are dying there. I have got a kid who lost both legs 
volunteering in my office to answer the phone to help folks who were 
hurt in Katrina. Mississippi has paid their dues. Why should they have 
to pay their dues twice?
  This is an emergency. The one time you borrow money is when you go to 
war and for an emergency. And so, now you have to have an offset? Don't 
tell me you are being fiscally responsible. I sat here for 5 years and 
watched you take a budget surplus and run it into $2.5 trillion of new 
debt. So let's put these things in perspective. Yes, I was told the 
Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction and they are getting ready to 
use them.
  Yes, I was told that you could cut taxes, increase spending and 
balance the budget. But this is the cruelest lie of all, that the only 
way you can help the people who have lost everything is by hurting 
somebody else.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, America's heart and America's wallets have 
been opened for those who have been so devastated on the gulf coast 
just as they were a year ago for those Floridians who suffered four 
storms. It is a tragic thing and we are very sorry for the loss and the 
continued suffering that goes on. There have been a number of things 
discussed this evening as part of the kickoff of this debate about 
being truly serious about reducing the size of our deficit.
  I began by talking about the myths. All around America, the people 
who would be discussing what is going on here would have to find that 
something is odd about a budget that goes up 7 percent every year but 
is labeled a cut. They would find it an interesting juxtaposition that 
the only thing mean and ugly about what is going on in here has been 
the rhetoric. The action is to eliminate the waste from all of these 
areas, including FEMA. Including those areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge this House to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Putnam

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Putnam of Florida:
       Add at the end the following:
       Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment considered as adopted under the 
     first section of this resolution shall be modified as 
     specified in section 5.
       Sec. 5. The modification referred to in section 4 is as 
     follows:
       Page 13, strike lines 5 through 11, and insert the 
     following:

       ``(a) Eligible Households.--The Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) is amended--
       ``(1) in section 5----
       ``(A) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a); and
       ``(B) in subsection (j);
     by striking `receives benefits' each place it appears and 
     inserting `in fiscal years 2006 through 2010 receives cash 
     assistance, and in any other fiscal year receives benefits,';
       ``(2) in section 5(a) by adding at the end the following:

     `Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act except 
     sections 6(b), 6(d)(2), and 6(g) and section 3(i)(4), 
     households in which each member receives substantial and 
     ongoing noncash benefits under a State program funded under 
     part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 
     et seq.) provided for purposes of shelter, utilities, child 
     care, health care, transportation, or job training, and that 
     have a monthly income that does not exceed (before the 
     exclusions and deductions provided for in subsections (d) and 
     (e)) 150 percent of the poverty line, as defined in section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2)), for the forty-eight contiguous States and the 
     District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands of 
     the United States, and Guam, respectively, shall be eligible 
     to participate in the food stamp program.'; and
       ``(3) in section 5(j) by adding at the end the following:

     `Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (i), a State agency 
     shall consider a member of a household in which each 
     household member receives substantial and ongoing noncash 
     benefits under a State program funded under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
     provided for purposes of shelter, utilities, child care, 
     health care, transportation, or job training, and which has a 
     monthly income that does not exceed (before the exclusions 
     and deductions provided for in subsections (d) and (e)) 150 
     percent of the poverty line, as defined in section 673(2) of 
     the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), 
     for the forty-eight contiguous States and the District of 
     Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands of the United 
     States, and Guam, respectively, to have satisfied the 
     resource limitations prescribed under subsection (g).'.''
       Page 331, at the end of line 13, add the following: ``Such 
     method shall provide that not less than 25 percent of such 
     funds shall be allocated among States the population of which 
     (as determined according to data collected by the United 
     States Census Bureau) as of July 1, 2004, was more than 105 
     percent of the population of the respective State (as so 
     determined) as of April 1, 2000.''.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the amendment addresses two issues, food 
stamps and Medicaid transformation grants. On the issue of food stamps, 
it ensures that recipients of noncash TANF benefits will continue to be 
categorically eligible for food stamps and it addresses high growth 
States with regard to Medicaid transformation.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in 
support of the Deficit Reduction Act. The legislation we have before us 
is built on the simple notions of reforming government and achieving 
savings.
  If ever there was a vote in recent history that defines the 
difference in the two parties--this is it.
  We are the party of reform, the party of a more efficient 
government--the other party is one of more government, more spending, 
and more taxes.
  The Democrats have tried to use catchy rhetoric to describe what we 
are voting on today. They don't want to talk about the facts.
  The front page of last Tuesday's Roll Call said it all . . . ``This 
fall is not the time for Democrats to roll out a positive agenda,'' 
said a House Democratic aide.
  Instead of a positive agenda, they have resorted to using words like 
``cuts'' and ``slashing programs,'' and called this important plan 
``rotten to the core.''
  But once you peal back the rhetoric and look at what is in this 
legislation, you realize why they only have cute slogans.
  They don't want to talk about reforms that will save and strengthen 
Medicaid.
  Reforms largely taken from proposals offered by the bipartisan 
National Governor's Association that was led by Democratic Governor 
Mark Warner.
  They don't want to talk about supporting first responders by giving 
them bandwidth they so desperately need.
  They don't want to talk about a 50 percent increase in LIHEAP.
  They don't want to talk about ensuring that benefits paid for by 
taxpayers don't go to illegal immigrants.
  And of course they don't want to talk about lowering the cost of 
student loans.
  I could go on and on--but in the end, this legislation delivers 
common sense reforms that will achieve real savings and reduce the 
deficit.
  What about that, Mr. Speaker, is rotten to the core?
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.

[[Page H10545]]

  The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________