[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 153 (Thursday, November 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10620-H10645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has
42\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) has 44 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing tonight with 30 pieces of
silver, but we are dealing with tax cuts. And the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) would like to explain in non-biblical terms
where the 30 pieces of silver have gone. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an outstanding member
of the Ways and Means Committee, to share with us his views.
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the gallant fight that he has put up all
year on these issues as well.
Let us, me, say something tonight that we ought to start this debate
with. For everybody who is watching, for the Members that are here in
this Chamber, as you listen to this debate, these are the people who
began the year with what we all thought to be the worst idea of this
Congress, and that was the argument to privatize Social Security.
Now that is the context in which we have moved to the next round of
their proposals. Nobody who is watching should kid themselves tonight.
This is about a tax cut for the wealthy, dividend and capital gains. I
defy anybody on the other side to challenge the following statement:
Half of this proposal tonight with tax reconciliation included, half of
the dividend and capital gains cuts will go to people who make more
than $1 million a year.
{time} 2300
Now, we brought that up the other night at the Ways and Means
Committee. That was not a fact that was challenged. That was accepted
as part of the debate. So we are going to talk about dividends and
capital gains cuts at this moment, and then I want to draw attention to
those 148,000 men and women in Iraq who serve us with honor and
distinction every single day.
You know what their reward was? Two months ago, the Humvees arrived.
The body armor is starting to arrive. But you know what? Only in this
Congress, with this Republican leadership, could they declare there is
a crisis in Social Security after they have ripped $1.3 trillion out of
the budget. The answer to not having Humvees, not having body armor:
let us have another capital gains cut; let us have a dividend cut.
The title of this Congress is, we are rich and we are not going to
take it anymore. Everything we do here is for the strongest, most
powerful.
I asked the other night at the committee, does anybody ever read the
gospel of Matthew? To clothe the naked, to feed the poor and to provide
dividends and capital gains relief to the
[[Page H10621]]
rich? Because that is where we are going with this debate.
This is about what is happening to the middle class tonight. They are
going to cut student loan opportunities. The Senate is going to cut
Medicare. Medicaid comes up before you know it. All of this is being
done so they can shoe-horn a rigid, intransigent ideology.
There is no flexibility with the modern Republican Party. Everything
they do is to satisfy a constituent group in America called the
wealthy. Every step they take is to reinforce the separation of class
along budgetary lines.
Vote down this proposal tonight and stand up for those men and women
in Iraq and get them the equipment that they need.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) to share with us some of the reforms that
the poor will have to suffer under.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we are with the rubber-stamp
Congress again.
Over the past 4 years, Mr. Speaker, the number of Americans living in
poverty has grown by 5.4 million people. The number of Americans
without health insurance has increased by 6 million people, and the
number of Americans who are living in hunger has grown by 5 million
people in the last 4 years.
Now, this is the time that the Republicans chose to cut funding for
programs that help families escape poverty, access health care, and put
food on the table. Did we not learn anything from Katrina?
The bill before us cuts Medicaid, food stamps, child support
enforcement, foster care, student loans and every other plan that helps
people on the bottom. It is lucky we are going to get to vote about
this right after midnight. So in one day we can cut the living
daylights out of the poor, and then we will bring out the gifts for the
rich.
We are going to have a bill tomorrow with tax breaks for capital
gains and dividends. Over half of those benefits, as we just heard,
uncontested by the other side, they stand there with a straight face
and say we have to cut food stamps so we can give a tax break to people
making more than $1 million. I mean, why do they have to give them a
$100,000 tax break next year? What is that about, when you are saying
to people we are going to take away your food stamps, we are going to
take away your child care? Listen, lady, you leave your kids at home
and you get out and get a job. But what about some child care? Well,
that is not our problem. You figure it out, dear.
330,000 mothers are going to be sent out to work with not one thin
dime of child care support. For a bunch who says leave no child behind,
you are so shameless.
I remember, what was it that Welch said to McCarthy, Don't you have
any decency left over there at all, that you would come in on the same
day and vote these cuts, and right behind it, or, well, you let us go
home and sleep for 6 or 7 hours. I understand you think that will
separate and the public will never know because it will all be wrapped
up in one day.
The American people are not stupid. They know we ought to vote this
down.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
How is this working? I mean, we have made some serious accusations
about what these people are doing to the poor, and we have not heard
from them; and three of us have spoken. I mean, is the public not
entitled to hear something in response to what we say they are doing to
the country? I am asking, if they do not want to speak, then I would
like to yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from
California who might share our concerns about the poor and believe that
those who God has blessed should be sharing some of those blessings
with the rest of our citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the rest of the time remaining to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
We were told during this debate on Social Security that we could save
Social Security by privatizing it, and the American people got it and
said no. We were told by the Republican Congress and the President that
we could cut taxes and still be fiscally responsible; and today we have
the largest deficits we have ever seen, and the American people are
beginning to get it. We were told that if we went to Iraq we were
saving America from mass destruction; and today we know it was a
misrepresentation and deception, and the American people today are
getting it.
Today, we are being told that we have to cut $12 billion in health
care for seniors, disabled, and children. We are being told we have to
cut $14 billion from students who are trying to go to college. That
amounts to about a $5,800 cut in student loan programs for each and
every middle-class American child who wants to get a college education.
We are being told we have to get $5 billion out of the enforcement
programs that would compel deadbeat dads to pay their child support,
and we are being told we have to cut $600 million out of foster care
programs that rescue abused and neglected children from dangerous
households.
We are being told we have to do that for what, to reduce the deficit?
To pay for the cost of Katrina? And guess what? The American people get
it. It is not going to be for that. It is going to be for this, the tax
cut that will do what we see here.
Every one of those cuts I just talked about, those children, those
seniors, those disabled, they fall here. They have incomes up to about
$40,000. They represent over half of America's tax-paying families.
They will get out of this tax cut that we will see come up tomorrow or
soon thereafter 1 percent of this tax cut. Who gets the lion's share?
That over-50 percent lion's share will go to this percentage up here,
one-fifth of 1 percent of all American tax-paying families. That is the
folks who make $1 million or more.
The American people are getting it. Unfortunately, too many people
here in this House of Representatives are not.
We cannot pass this type of fiscally irresponsible budget and tell
the American people we are doing good for them. We have got too many
good men and women in Iraq fighting for the freedoms that we say we are
trying to uphold, and here we are giving money to the wealthiest
Americans.
Vote against this reconciliation bill and get it for the American
people.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume
to respond to just say I have had a chance to check out Matthew in the
Bible, and I want to let you know that Matthew was referring to Jesus's
speech to people.
Jesus did not say raise a bunch of taxes, create 1,000-page tax code,
hire millions of government workers, build hundreds of big white fancy
buildings, stick them in there, create a system, pass a bunch of
mandates, a bunch of regulations, all sorts of paperwork, measure your
compassion by increases only in order to feed the hungry and clothe the
naked. He said you do it as an individual.
So do not measure compassion by government. Measure it by what you
are willing to do for the least of your brothers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Crenshaw), a member of the committee.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I
hope tonight we can all join together and take this historic step
toward getting our financial house in order.
We took step one when we lowered taxes and let people keep more of
what they earn, and millions of Americans benefited from that. When
they felt that bump in their paycheck, they could be free to save that
money for retirement or they could invest it in the stock market or
their small business or they could buy something for the family or make
a down payment on a brand new home, and it worked. People went back to
work. The economy is moving again. Four million new jobs were created.
Tonight, we are taking step two. We are going to get a handle on the
way we spend money around here. We are going to reform the way we spend
money because that is what we need to do.
We have got to tighten our belt just like every family has to do from
time to time. We have got to set priorities. We have got to make hard
choices because we all know that government
[[Page H10622]]
needs money to provide services; but it seems to me right now, at this
very moment, government needs something more.
Government needs discipline to rein in spending. Government needs
courage to make the right decisions even when they are hard; and
government needs a commitment to reform itself, to reform the way it
spends money, to make sure that every task of government is
accomplished more efficiently and more effectively than it ever has
been before, because if life is going to change in this country, life
has to change in Washington.
This bill takes a giant step in that direction. I urge your support.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, what have America's children ever done to
the Republican Party? Because if one looks at this budget bill, one can
only conclude that children have somehow wronged House Republicans. Why
else would there be an all-out assault against our Nation's most
vulnerable and their families.
This Republican budget guts vital services for New Jersey's working
families and those across the country. For a party that talks about
family values, in this bill Republicans walk away from nearly every
responsibility we have as parents and legislators.
What type of value cuts more than $14 billion in student loan
funding, increasing the costs of college for American families by
$6,000?
What type of value could deny 6 million children the health care they
need, adding to the 9 million children who are uninsured?
What type of value decimates Federal funding for child support
enforcement by $5 billion, allowing deadbeat parents to avoid their
responsibility?
What type of value leaves an estimated 270,000 children without child
care while cutting foster care by over $500 million?
What type of value forces 300,000 low-income families to lose their
food stamps?
What type of value increases the deficit by over $100 billion,
leaving our children and our grandchildren to repay tomorrow the tax
cuts we are giving to the wealthy today?
The chairman talked about the bureaucracy that failed the people of
the gulf coast. It is your Republican administration that failed them
and fails them tonight.
This is compassionate conservatism. Vote down this immoral budget,
and let us work together to enact a budget such as the Democrats
offered previously that truly reflects the values and the priorities of
all the American people. Together, America can do better.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of the committee.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have allotted, I want to talk about
one of the important reasons why this bill needs to be enacted, and
that is with regard to the reforms we have in Medicaid.
Currently, Medicaid provides medical care for 53 million Americans at
a cost exceeding $300 billion each year. It is a great program; but
Medicaid is already the biggest item in many State budgets, exceeding
elementary and secondary education combined. If unreformed, Medicaid
will bankrupt every State in as little as 20 years, absorbing 80 to 100
percent of all State dollars.
{time} 2315
Because of these stark realities, the bipartisan National Governors
Association has stated that serious Medicaid reforms are needed. The
Deficit Reduction Act, which we vote on tonight, takes an important
step in that direction by slowing the rate of growth in this valuable
program.
Currently, Medicaid grows at a rate of 7.7 percent per year, as
indicated by this chart, making it one of the fastest growing programs
in the government. The plan included in this legislation tonight
reduces the Medicaid rate of growth over the next 10 years from 7.7
percent a year to 7.5 percent annual growth rate. While this is a very
small change, the bill includes necessary reforms to address the
problem before it is too late.
The plan provides greater flexibility for our States and its
governors. Under the current program, governors cannot tailor Medicaid
benefits to meet the needs of the people. Under the new plan, they can.
The most irresponsible thing we can do at this time, Mr. Speaker, is
to do nothing. I urge the Members to vote for this bill.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time.
It is interesting that the good friend on the other side wants to
quote the Bible. Let me simply remind him that the Good Samaritan says
that we are, in fact, our brothers' and sisters' keepers.
This budget, which causes an offset not on taxes and the rich but the
offset on the backs of those in Hurricane Wilma, Hurricane Katrina,
Hurricane Rita, what would you give to the answer of those who are
going to be evicted in 2 weeks from hotels because this government says
it has no money? And then we add insult to injury by cutting Medicaid
$11 billion, student loans $14 billion, food stamps another $796
million, and we throw the crying mothers and the hungry babies to the
streets.
This is a budget that cries for shameless disgraceful attention to
the other side of the aisle.
Why are we mad, Mr. Speaker? We are mad because the American people
are suffering the brunt of the inconsistencies of the other side of the
aisle who want to give taxes to the rich and do not want to give
equipment to the soldiers, but they want to break the backs of
Americans.
Vote ``no'' on this budget reconciliation and send us to victory in
2006 so we can take back America from these people who do not
understand.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us perhaps the most important piece of
legislation that we will vote on all year, H.R. 4241, the Budget
Reconciliation Spending Cuts Act. This $50 billion of spending cuts
have turned everything we believe in as a country on its head. The
Republicans are actually asking the poor, the downtrodden, the disabled
and the young to sacrifice on behalf of the rich. I want to emphasize
that these cuts are not meant to free up money to rebuild the gulf
coast. In fact, many of these proposed cuts will actually hurt those
affected by Katrina. Overall, the plan before the House will increase
the deficit and the national debt.
From a Homeland Security standpoint, H.R. 4241 proposes to cut
funding for the COPS program by $480 million and to remove important
funding for local firefighters by $215 million--cuts of 80 percent and
30 percent, respectively. As ranking member of the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, I am outraged
at the fact that its provisions seek to break the promise of putting an
additional 2,000 border patrol agents on the job in 2006, as promised
in landmark intelligence reforms passed late last year and endorsed by
the 9/11 Commission. The budget provides funding for only 210 agents.
Overall, the plan before the House will increase the deficit and the
national debt.
In the Homeland Security Committee, we completed a markup of a border
security measure, H.R. 4312, that proposes to enhance the way our
Department of Homeland Security protects our international borders and
ports of entry. The cuts contained in the legislation on the Floor will
render this measure a nullity if there are no resources available to
execute its provisions.
From a healthcare perspective, there are 45 million Americans living
today without any health insurance at all, but this budget cuts $11.4
billion over 5 years from Medicaid, and $46 billion over 10 years. The
budget includes a proposal to expand enrollment in high-deductible
health savings accounts would actually increase the number of Americans
without insurance by 350,000. It also includes language which allows
States to increase premiums and decrease coverage to children. This
bill decimates health care funding for children, the elderly, and
people with disabilities and making it even harder for families to
afford nursing home care.
As founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, as a
person who understands the value of our Nation's youth, and as a mother
of two children, I really want to bring focus on the effect this bill
will have on our nation's children. If you have children who are in, or
who are considering going to college, I want you to listen to this:
this republican spending cut will place an added burden of $7.8 billion
dollars directly on our students over the next five years. This is
accomplished. through added fees of $4.8 billion, and increases of
interest rates. A typical student borrowing money for college could pay
up to $5,800 more. This is in the face of college costs up over 7
percent this past year alone.
[[Page H10623]]
Allow me to cite some of the specific cuts I, and our constituents
across the country, find so objectionable:
Medicaid--The bill cuts Medicaid spending by$11.4 billion nationwide.
Student Loans--The bill cuts spending on student loan programs by
$14.3 billion over 5 years.
Food Stamps--The bill imposes cuts to food stamps of $796 million
over 5 years, affecting nearly 300,000 people.
Child Support--The bill cuts $4.9 billion from child support programs
over 5 years. Custodial parents will receive $7.1 billion less child
support over 5 years and $21.3 billion less over 10 years.
Foster Care--The bill cuts $397 million from foster care over 5
years.
These are some big numbers, and we politicians love to throw around
big numbers, but often times it is difficult to understand the true
impact of what these numbers mean. Let me break some of these numbers
down to what they will mean to my State of Texas, because the devil
really is in the details for this legislation.
One program the Republicans are trying to cut is Child support
enforcement. It is said that for everyone $1 the government puts in to
collecting money from de ad- beat dads, the family receives $4 back In
Texas, this bill will cut $411 million from child support enforcement
in the next 5 years.
In Texas, this bill will cut $110.2 million from Elementary and
Secondary Education. This breaks down to $52.8 million for education
for the disadvantaged, $18.9 million for special education, and $34.7
million for school improvements.
In Texas, this bill will cut $6.8 million in vocational and adult
education--in other words, job training.
In Texas, this bill will cut $5.9 million from Low Income Home Energy
Assistance. This program helps poor families heat their homes, not
forcing a family to choose between paying heat and groceries. This bill
is projected to cut 3,600 recipients from this program next year.
Nearly 600,000 people will lose the program nationwide.
In Texas, this bill will cut nearly $1 billion from WIC, the
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. Eighteen thousand
recipients will be cut from this program in Texas.
In Texas, this bill will cut $45.5 million in Children and Families
Services, including Head Start and Services for Abused and Neglected
Children; 2,000 children will be cut from this program next year.
In Texas, 4,700 people will lose their housing vouchers as a result
of cuts offered in this bill.
In Texas, this program will cut $2.8 million from the Maternal and
Child Health block grants, which provide money to support the efforts
of our public health departments to reduce infant mortality, improve
prenatal care for pregnant women, provide child health prevention
services, and more.
In Texas, we have 400,000 students borrowing money for school. For
the typical student borrower, new fees and higher interest charges in
this bill could cost each student as much as $5,800.
This is not how we take care of our own in Texas, and this is not how
we do things in the United States. The Republicans are launching an
unabashed attack on the American way by slashing funding towards those
that are most vulnerable. And don't you be fooled. These spending cuts
aren't meant to offset the costs of rebuilding the gulf coast, these
spending cuts are meant to offset tax cuts that will benefit the rich.
Mr. Speaker, we can not allow the burden of the $70 billion in tax
cuts to be placed on the backs of our Nation's neediest families. The
decision to vote up or down on this legislation isn't a blurry line
involving political ideology; it isn't a debate of republican vs.
democratic philosophy. This is black and white. This cut hurts the
children, it hurts the poor, it hurts the old and it hurts the young. I
am strongly opposed to this legislation, and I implore my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to vote against these unreasonable cuts.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, it is all politics.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), member of the committee.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, as we take up the Deficit Reduction
Act, I think there are a few things that Americans should know. This
bill has been demonized, demonized by those who want to ignore the
growing Federal deficit, the waste, the fraud, and the abuse that exist
in several Federal Government programs. But we all know that
entitlement spending is growing at nearly three times the rate of
inflation and that we simply cannot sustain that growth.
Entitlement spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and
Social Security make up 54 percent of the government spending now, and
it is projected to double in the next decade. Medicare is growing at
over 7 percent annually and Medicaid is at 8 percent annually.
There are no easy answers to this problem, Mr. Speaker, but if we do
not act on these programs now, they will only grow worse.
The Deficit Reduction Act simply starts with the most obvious,
commonsense reforms to save taxpayer dollars by finding waste and abuse
in entitlement programs and eliminating them so that the funds that we
put into these programs go to people who really need them.
In my State of Kansas, a pharmacy recently received a Medicaid
payment of $1 million for eardrops that only cost $1.95. Mistakes
happen, Mr. Speaker. But in a program that is growing at an
unsustainable rate, we need to do all that we can to eliminate waste,
fraud, and abuse.
The Deficit Reduction Act takes a very important first step to pay
for entitlement spending by making common-sense reforms to outdated
programs so that we can help those most in need instead of enriching
those who abuse the program.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Deficit Reduction Act.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House, and I ask unanimous
consent that he be allowed to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of the so-called savings from
Medicaid come from higher cost sharing, reduced services, or barriers
to sick people getting care and old people and people just scraping by
having their needs met. But mostly they come from kids.
Fully half of the people affected by the reduced benefits will be
children, and many of them will be children with special needs and
disabilities. These are the kids with spina bifida, cerebral palsy.
These are the kids with developmental disabilities and autism. These
are the kids with mental illness. These are the children that need a
full array of medical support and rehabilitative services. These are
the kids where the care demands are endless, where families need help
to support them and care for them. Parents of special needs children
know that. They know that the idea of cost sharing for these kids so
that they do not overutilize services is ridiculous.
One of Medicaid strength for all children, but particularly special
needs children, has been the benefit known as EPSDT, or early and
periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment. That is a lot of words for
one simple concept. Screen kids early. Find and diagnose their health
problems. Give them the care they need. Give them eyeglasses. Give them
mental health services, give them physical therapy. Make them into the
healthiest individuals possible. Let them realize their full potential.
But this bill changes that. It takes away these services for millions
of kids with family incomes just above the poverty line. It takes away
benefits. It imposes premiums and cost sharing that we know will be
barriers to care. In fact, CBO estimates the savings because people
will not get the care they need. What kind of sense does this make?
I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act, is not
about reducing the deficit. If that were the concern of the majority,
they wouldn't be cutting taxes for the wealthy and adding to the
deficit for all Americans.
This bill is not about taking on the special interests who can afford
to give up some of their corporate welfare. You don't see provisions in
this bill that take away overpayments for HMOs. You don't see any
provisions asking the big drug companies to give a fairer price to
Medicaid.
This bill isn't about helping Children's Hospitals or providers that
serve the uninsured get better support. Instead, this bill requires
them to take inadequate payments when managed
[[Page H10624]]
care enrollees end up in their emergency rooms. This bill asks them to
absorb lost dollars because they either have to eat the cost of
copayments that poor kids and persons with disabilities can't afford to
pay--or else turn them away without giving them the medical care they
need.
What this bill is about is putting the burden of reducing Medicaid
expenditures on those least able to bear it. Fully three of every four
dollars this bill ``saves' in Medicaid come from higher cost-sharing or
reduced services ir barriers to care for the people who need help the
most.
Who are we talking about here? This is going to have the greatest
effect on low-income children. Fully half of the people affected by the
reduced benefits will be kids. And many of those children are children
with special needs and disabilities.
These are kids with spina bifida and cerebral palsy. These are kids
with developmental disabilities and autism. These are kids with mental
illness.
These are children that need a full array of medical, support and
rehabilitative services. These are kids where the care demands are
endless, where families need help to support them and care for them.
Parents of children with special needs know that.
They know that private health insurance, even if they could get it,
doesn't have the services these kids need. They know that the idea of
cost-sharing so that services aren't overutilized for these kids makes
no sense.
One of Medicaid's strengths has been the benefit known as EPSDT, or
early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment. That's a lot of
words for one simple concept. Screen kids early and find and diagnose
their health problems, and then give them the care they need to treat
them. Give them eye glasses. Give them mental health services. Give
them physical therapy. Make them into the healthiest individuals
possible. Let them realize their full potential.
This bill changes that. It takes away these services for millions of
kids, with family incomes just above the poverty line. It takes away
benefits. It imposes cost sharing so that there will be barriers to
getting service.
So what if their family is struggling to exist on a little over $1000
month. Let's ask them to pay 5 percent of that in cost-sharing. If they
can't afford it, and it keeps their kids from getting services, well
it's just too bad.
What kind of sense does this make. Noone benefits if kids don't get
the health services they need to grow up as healthy and productive
individuals.
The Republican majority tries to justify this by saying copayments
haven't been increased for years. That is a bogus argument. The fact is
low-income people spend an increasing portion of their income on out-
of-pocket medical expenses. A recent study showed that between 1997 and
2002, their out-ofpocket obligations increased twice as fast as their
incomes. That's the relevant point.
This bill also puts some heartless barriers in the way of moderate
income seniors who need nursing home care. People who innocently help
their children or their grandchildren by giving them some small amount
of their savings, or people who unselfishly give money to their church
or to charities, find themselves unable to get Medicaid help when they
need it.
They are accused of transferring their assets to get Medicaid to pay
their nursing home bills. At the very point when they are desperately
in need of Medicaid help, they get penalized for a transfer that might
have occurred 5 years ago. They haven't got the money to pay for their
own care. They can't get Medicaid. What will happen to them? And if
they do get into a nursing home, what will happen to the quality of
care that nursing home can provide if they aren't being paid? Is this
the way we want to treat our seniors?
This bill deliberately tries to evoke the fear of illegal immigrants
to take benefits away from needy people. With food stamps, the rhetoric
is about illegal immigrants, but the reality is that immigrants who are
here legally, and have been in the country legally for 5 years, get
food stamps taken away. Why? Because the Republican majority evidently
feels they can take help away from them with impunity because they are
powerless.
It is similar in Medicaid. This bill imposes a requirement of
documentation of citizenship that is going to block many needy citizens
from getting necessary care. In order to be covered, people will have
to document their citizenship with passports or birth certificates.
Many poor and elderly people don't have those papers available. So they
simply won't be helped.
There is a pattern here. Whether we are talking about arbitrarily
taking food stamps from legal immigrants or putting barriers to care in
front of sick children, this bill takes its savings from people who are
the most vulnerable and in need of help.
They haven't got high priced lobbyists to argue for them. They're not
getting special treatment and big tax breaks. They are just at the end
of the line, relying on our health care programs.
If you've got a conscience, if you've got compassion, you cannot
support this budget reconciliation bill. Stand up and insist on finding
a fairer way. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, what we have going on here tonight is a huge
con game. That is what the Republicans are playing on the American
public. A re-con-ciliation game. What they do, these Republicans, is
they cut the money from Medicaid. Sixty percent of all seniors are on
Medicaid in nursing homes. One third of all babies born in the United
States are born on Medicaid. They are cutting student loans. They are
cutting money from food stamps for poor people.
They tell us they want to reduce the deficit. But, no, their money
goes over to the ``ways and means'' Republicans who are giving a $50
billion tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Fifty-three percent of
the dividends of the capital gains breaks go to the fat cat
Republicans. And then because they are not happy with that, they borrow
another $7 billion for more tax breaks, increasing the deficit, which
will bring them back here next year with crocodile tears about how much
they care about the deficit, which will bring them back to the poor
people, seniors in nursing homes, one third of all babies, student
loans, for more tax breaks to give away to the wealthiest in America.
It is a re-con-ciliation game they are playing. They do not care
about the deficit. They only care about these Republican fat-cat
millionaires who are getting this money after all of the programs for
the poorest seniors and children and students in America are cut as
they increase the deficit, a con game where they increase the deficit
while taking the money from the poorest in our country.
Vote ``no'' on this re-con-ciliation con game where the crocodile
tears will be shed for the rest of the night about how much they care
about the deficits when all it is, is a way to transfer money to every
millionaire in America. Vote ``no'' on this con game.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the only con game we have here in the House
this evening is from the other side of the aisle. We have cons and
cons.
Have I made my point? Have I made my point? Do we hear enough
hypocrisy from the left on this budget? Do we hear enough shouts and
screams about how we are hurting people?
What we are trying to do is save future generations from mountains
and mountains upon mountains of debt. And what we are trying to do is
reform the budget. The only con has been perpetrated through rhetoric
here on the House floor, Mr. Speaker.
The deception is saying that we should do nothing, that we should
allow our government to continue on this massive growth rate that 40
years of Democrat control provided this country.
I think it is wrong to leave future generations in debt. I think it
is right to step forward and reform much-needed programs in this
country to ensure that Medicaid is available to future generations,
that student loans are available to young people. We must reform these
programs to make sure they are available in the future. Not to look the
other way, not to provide more tax increases, not to provide for a
larger, more intrusive government.
Let us stop the con, Mr. Speaker. Let us provide for budget reform
and reconciliation. I thank the gentleman for this moment to ensure
that no future cons are provided here tonight.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
To respond to the gentleman, he may be too young to remember, but 5
years ago, we bequeathed the Bush administration a surplus of $236
billion. This is what has happened in the last 4 fiscal years. The
statutory debt ceiling of the United States has been raised to
accommodate the budgets of the Bush administration to the tune of $3
trillion.
[[Page H10625]]
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan
for yielding me this time.
Hurricane Katrina exposed poverty for what it is. It reminded us that
poverty ensnares Americans who work hard, who pay their taxes, who play
by the rules. Yet on the wages they earn, millions of Americans are
falling further behind. They often cannot afford health care. They
cannot afford child care. They cannot afford transportation, and they
cannot afford our indifference.
I cannot understand how less than 3 months after Katrina, Republicans
can take Medicaid away from people who need it. Medicaid is not a
luxury. It is a lifeline. It does not pay for luxuries. It pays for
health care and nursing homes. Medicaid does not protect some of us; it
protects all of us. Disability, job loss, disappearing pensions,
natural disasters, aging parents. If one is an elderly American living
in Ohio, they must be living at or below 64 percent of poverty to
qualify for Medicaid. What is an elderly American who earns $5,800 a
year going to do while she waits for Medicaid to help her?
Time and again, Republicans feed on programs for the poor to finance
tax cuts for the rich. It does not matter if the Nation is paying for a
war, rebuilding after a hurricane, running up record deficits, or
bleeding jobs right and left. Their policy is always the same: cut
programs for the poor, give tax breaks to the rich.
When this bill was considered in the Commerce Committee, I offered an
amendment to leave Medicaid funding alone and, instead, eliminate $20
billion in overpayments to insurance company HMOs. Republican
leadership said no. They want to take care away from people who
desperately need our help, but they do not want to eliminate bonus
payments to insurance company HMOs. And the President agrees. He said
he would veto the bill if we touch those HMO payments. But he is fine
with our cutting Medicaid. I guess the elderly in nursing homes do not
make political contributions to the President.
Mr. Speaker, it was the American people, not the insurance company/
HMO industry, who hired us. Vote ``no.''
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
{time} 2330
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on the issues we are debating tonight,
Republicans can only see numbers on a page; they are blind to the
people whose interests they are sacrificing to protect tax cuts for the
wealthy.
This bill provides fewer services to fewer people. That is a cut.
This Republican bill allows States to impose higher copayments and
premiums on Medicaid beneficiaries who are on Medicaid precisely
because they are poor. Take, for example, people who are chronically
ill. Most people with diabetes, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's or other
chronic conditions are dependent on multiple medications. Once you
charge higher copayments for their medications, they will start to skip
their drugs. Studies have shown that doubling copayments by the
chronically ill will reduce their use of prescription drugs by 8 to 23
percent.
When people on Medicaid can no longer afford their medicines, when
they cannot afford to call a doctor, they do not disappear, they do not
get well, they just get sicker or they go to the emergency room.
The CBO has concluded that 80 percent of this bill's so-called
savings from raising costs to beneficiaries comes from decreased use.
In short, you are just taking health care away from people who need it.
Moreover, you are cutting health care services to Medicaid
beneficiaries and calling it reform. Immoral and inhumane would be
better and more accurate words.
This bill strips health care from all types of Medicaid
beneficiaries, from children and their parents, the disabled, the
elderly and the chronically ill. No amount of Republican rhetoric can
hide that truth. America can do better. Vote down this bill.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, these are the same arguments we heard before
we reformed welfare and unlocked 30 million Americans from the
dependency of government.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of
screaming from the Democrats from the extreme left saying that they are
mad, and even some personal insults tonight which is, frankly,
unfortunate. I think it is because Democrats, I guess they think if
they say it loud enough and scream loud enough, they can hide and drown
out the facts.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard tonight, they loudly scream against the
high deficit, and then they do not want to do anything to reduce the
deficit. Right here we heard leaders of the Democratic Party loudly
criticizing tax cuts. Those are horrible. But let me quietly quote what
they said just 2 days ago about some tax cuts.
Let me quote, for example, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
about a $10 billion tax cut over 5 years offered just 2 days ago. He
said: I ask that the amendment be passed by unanimous consent. So 2
days ago he liked that tax cut. But wait, there is more.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who we heard a little
while ago screaming to try to drown out the facts, said 2 nights ago
about tax cuts: Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone is going to oppose
this cut, like the other ones.
Mr. Speaker, they cannot speak from both sides of their mouths.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I think this evening is really a very sad moment for our
country. I think that we have hit, unfortunately, sadly, a new low.
This Republican bill can be summed up as follows: tax cuts for the most
privileged in our country come first. That is their priority, and what
is on the other side of this? What is on the other side of this? Child
support enforcement and Medicaid, which is the safety net of health
care.
Mr. Speaker, who bears the burden of this? Where do these cuts fall?
On the most vulnerable people in our society. America can do better
than this. This is not just a cut in program. This is a cut in our
moral fiber. This is a cut. It cuts to who and what we are as a
society. This is wrong. This is wrong, and I think many of my
colleagues on this side of the aisle understand that as well.
We are asking Americans at the bottom of the scale of our Nation to
bear the heaviest burden, and the tax cuts deliver almost 80 percent of
their benefits to the top 3 percent of our people. That is not who and
what we are. We can do so much better. I urge all of my colleagues to
stand up for what the best of the American people is all about, and
that is not in this bill.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), one of the eight very distinguished committee
Chairs who worked on the bill.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his good work on
this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from this side of the
aisle about what this is about today. Let me tell Members what this is
about. This is about reforming programs that are important to the
American people, but they do not always work properly. They do not
always reach the people that the programs are intended to reach; and
these positive reforms which are a modest, a tiny percentage of the
$2.5 trillion that this government will spend next year, more than
$12.5 trillion over the next 5 years, to save $50 billion is not a very
big percentage.
I would say to my colleagues, Where is your plan to reform programs?
Where is your plan to achieve savings? What are you doing for the
American people, the American taxpayers? And, yes, even the people who
depend upon the programs that you claim to so strongly support. And yet
you will do nothing to protect the programs by
[[Page H10626]]
putting in the reforms that are necessary.
I will tell you where their plan is, it is locked up. And I will tell
you why it is locked up, because what that plan primarily consists of
is raising taxes on the American people. The reason they want to raise
taxes is because they are opposed to the effort to do what has done
wonders for our economy in the last few years, and that is to extend
the tax relief that we have provided to stimulate the economy, create
jobs, bring the unemployment rate below 5 percent; and they have done
nothing except wait in the wings to raise taxes on the people of this
country. That is what this is all about.
That is the party of spending. They will not come forward with any
savings. That is the party of taxes, the tax and spend Democrats, the
same way they have always been. That is why we are here today with a
responsible plan in response to this abuse that they would sit here and
attack modest reforms of important programs and suggest that, as a
result of that, they can sit back with nothing and wait for the
opportunity to raise taxes yet again on the American people.
The last time they were in power, the last thing they did was to
impose the largest tax increase in history on the American people, and
we should not ever allow them that opportunity again. That is what they
are trying to achieve here by bringing down this plan, and they should
not be allowed to succeed.
Let me talk briefly in the time remaining about the reforms we have
made in important programs under the jurisdiction of my committee.
First of all, we have approached this across the board. We have
achieved fair savings in farm programs which keep the programs intact.
We have achieved savings in conservation programs that make those
programs work better. We have achieved savings in research for
agriculture. We have achieved savings in other areas that are
important. And, yes, we have also achieved savings from the food stamp
program: one-half of 1 percent of the $180 billion that will be spent
on food stamps in the next 5 years is what we are hoping to achieve. It
is less than one-half of 1 percent. It will affect less than 1 percent
of the 24 million Americans that receive food stamps. And it is
targeted at whom? People who are not citizens of the United States who
signed a document that said they would not become wards of the State
and who by virtue of having been in this country for more than 5 years
are eligible to apply for United States citizenship and avoiding the
savings we are attempting to achieve by not giving food stamps to
people who are not citizens of this country.
Secondly, we say that under the food stamp program if you are
attempting to achieve food stamp benefits through a particular State's
programs, you ought to qualify for real welfare programs like the TANF
program. The bridge from welfare to work ought to be sustained, but it
ought not be abused by those who would do so. Those are the savings we
want. They are good reforms, and we ought to pass them.
We are here today in a good faith effort to continue putting the
Nation's fiscal house in order. Some have questioned the need or the
degree to which mandatory spending should be reduced. I would remind my
colleagues that mandatory spending today takes up almost 55 percent of
the total federal budget and, if left on its current path it will,
within a decade, consume 60 percent of the federal budget. Clearly, it
is unrealistic to think we can meet the pressing challenges facing our
Nation without reducing Federal spending and redirecting priorities.
The House and Senate agreed to reduce mandatory spending by $34.7
billion earlier this year to start reining in mandatory spending.
Paying for hurricanes and other disaster assistance--in addition to
addressing the threat of international terrorism here and abroad--has
necessitated targeted reductions in spending by all authorizing
committees, including agriculture.
Eight House Committees were instructed to put together a reform
savings plan to reduce the growth in mandatory spending over the next
five years to reduce spending and address some of the Nation's most
pressing financial needs. The committees were asked to do more and I am
pleased to report that the committee on agriculture headed this call
and reported out savings above the $3 billion we were originally asked
to find.
From the beginning of this process it was the goal of the House
Agriculture Committee that no single program should bear a
disproportionate share of the spending reductions. The committee's
final recommendations are balanced terms of the impact they will have
on the many diverse interests that will be affected by this reform
savings plan.
The Agriculture Committee's savings plan includes an overall
reduction in mandatory spending of $3.48 billion over five years (FY06-
10). The savings package includes reductions in a variety of programs
under the committee's jurisdiction including commodity, conservation,
energy, rural development, research, and food stamp programs.
There are some who have suggested that food stamps take a
disproportionate share of the spending reductions. This is simply not
the case. While food stamps comprise nearly 60 percent of the
agriculture committee's mandatory spending, they account for only 19
percent of the total savings under the package. The proposed reductions
account for less than a half a penny for every dollar spent on the food
stamp program.
Under the agriculture's reform savings plan, eligibility requirements
are harmonized between Federal assistance programs so that food stamp
benefits go to those truly in need.
By tightening the categorical eligibility for some temporary
assistance to needy families (TANF) recipients as well as the
eligibility requirements for non-citizens, this legislation ensures
that the Nations most needy will continue to receive this Federal
assistance.
When an individual enters the country to become a legal permanent
non-citizen, an affidavit is signed indicating that they will not
participate in programs such as food stamps; however, this is not the
reality. Under current law, non-citizens are eligible for food stamps
after five years of resident status. The house agriculture committees
savings reform plan extends this time requirement to seven years.
This provision will not affect children non-citizens. Non-citizens
who are 60 years old and above and are currently receiving food stamp
benefits on the date of enactment will not be affected. Additionally,
non-citizens who have submitted their citizenship application by date
of enactment and currently receive food stamps would still be eligible
to receive food stamps.
After five years, non-citizen residents can apply for U.S.
citizenship. If approved, they can apply for food stamps immediately.
If someone chooses to remain a non-citizen, that choice will result in
a longer waiting period to qualify for food stamps.
It is essential that the House approves a reform savings plan. While
all government safety net programs--including agriculture--need to be
sustainable, the burden of addressing the nation's budget pressures
needs to be broadly shared in order to be effective. Let me also say
that in an ideal situation we would have had the support of the
minority in moving this reform savings plan forward, However, in the
absence of bipartisan cooperation, it is incumbent on those of us who
are privileged to serve in the people's house that we address the
budgetary problems facing the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support
the deficit reduction act.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman who said our budget is
locked up, well, here it is. It is right here on the table. We
introduced it several months ago. It will go to balance in the year
2012 and accumulate about $200 billion less debt than theirs.
As for tax and spend, his is tax and borrow, Mr. Speaker. For the
last 4 years, the debt ceiling has been raised four times by $3.15
trillion under your administration and your watch.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my Republican
colleagues do not want to get close to the facts. What are the facts?
First of all, when this administration came into office, there was a $2
trillion surplus. Now we have increased the national debt by $3
trillion, and they have spent the $2 trillion besides. No wonder they
do not want to talk about the facts.
They are cutting $11.4 billion out of Medicaid. Why are they doing
so? To fund additional tax cuts. The richest 0.2 percent of the country
has already gained an average of $103,000 from the Republican tax cuts,
but the Republicans have a fine program: they are going to cut funds
for women, poor children, individuals with cystic fibrosis and other
chronic diseases, elderly widows in nursing homes, and others who rely
on Medicaid.
If this bill passes, the following will happen: in 1 year alone,
110,000 Medicaid beneficiaries will lose coverage
[[Page H10627]]
due to the new burdensome health care premiums imposed by this bill;
destitute elderly will be denied needed nursing home care right when
they need it the most. These provisions will force many seniors out of
homes that they may have lived in for decades, and those elderly
persons who try to help their families to pay medical bills or go to
school are going to be penalized.
Children will be hurt. According to CBO, half of those affected by
higher cost-sharing and half of those affected by reduced benefits will
be children. Those with disabilities will be particularly hurt by the
newly allowed State benefit cuts and increased cost-sharing. They
already pay a greater portion of their income for out-of-pocket medical
expenses than privately insured individuals with higher income.
The simple fact of the matter is this bill is going to take from
those who have the least and give to those who have the most and the
smallest needs. This is an outrageous piece of legislation.
The simple fact of the matter is my Republican colleagues are
entitled to their own opinion, but they cannot have their own facts;
and the facts say this is a bad proposal. It is going to hurt the poor.
It is going to benefit those who have no need.
{time} 2345
This is an outrageous piece of legislation, and it should be rejected
by this body. And I would point out that one of the reasons for these
cuts in benefits is so that there can be a tax cut. I would remind my
good friends on the Republican side that one of the interesting things
about this piece of legislation is that when all is said and done, it
is actually going to increase the deficit.
There is no question that the cuts proposed by the Republicans will
harm beneficiaries. First, according to the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO)'s November 9th study on the bill as it left the Budget Committee,
of the $11.9 billion in cuts to Medicaid, 75 percent--nearly $9
billion--is due to provisions that hurt beneficiaries. These cuts will
have harsh effects, reducing needed care and causing millions to lose
coverage and benefits. For example:
The vast majority (80 percent) of the savings from cost-sharing
increases come from forcing beneficiaries to cut back on their use of
healthcare services. Some six million children from families with
incomes just above the poverty line would lose all current Federal
cost-sharing protections if this bill is adopted. This bill would offer
children who live just above the poverty line significantly less
protection than in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The
remaining savings from cost-sharing come from $300 million in payment
cuts to providers over five years.
Half of those affected by the reductions in benefits--so called
``benefit flexibility''--will be children. By 2015, five million
individuals, including 2.5 million kids, will face benefit cuts. Most
of the services that beneficiaries will lose in the reduced benefit
packages would be for mental health, certain therapies, dental, and
vision. There will also be new restrictions on the amount, duration,
and scope of services covered.
Benefit reductions result in $18 billion in Federal savings over 10
years. The actual magnitude of lost coverage, however, will be much
higher over those 10 years, closer to $32 billion, when you count the
State share, because CBO only considers Federal savings. Therefore, the
total benefit-related reductions would be nearly twice as high.
New premium charges will force hundreds of thousands more who are
covered today to drop their coverage. A full quarter of the savings
associated with new higher premium charges come from individuals no
longer being able to afford Medicaid. In 2015, for example, 110,000
enrollees will lose coverage because of premium increases. And, for
those elderly citizens lucky enough to own the home they live in, the
Republicans want to force them to sell it in order to get care.
Second, the numbers tell only part of the story. Examine, for
example, the hurtful effect these changes will have on individuals with
disabilities. Over the past number of years, individuals with
disabilities have made significant gains in improving options for
community living. Would we really want to enact legislation that would
force people, who were previously able to live in their community, to
live in institutions? Because that is exactly what this Reconciliation
package will do.
The healthy among us do not need extensive health services, but those
with disabilities and chronic illnesses such as diabetes, multiple
sclerosis, spina bifida, schizophrenia, and AIDs, do. The
Reconciliation package allows States to cut critical benefits that
these individuals need, with the burden placed on those who need the
most care.
Together, these changes will only result in more individuals with
disabilities being forced back into institutions, rather than enabling
them to live in the community. Increased costs and decreased benefits
for individuals with disabilities will leave them with no other option
but to return to an institution where they can get needed medical care.
Those with disabilities who are under Medicaid already have higher
out-of-pocket medical expenses than higher-income, privately insured
people, even with the current protections the program offers. Out-of-
pocket costs consumed an average of 5.6 percent of the incomes of these
beneficiaries in 2002. On the other hand, privately-insured adults with
incomes over $19,140 spent 0.7 percent of their incomes on out-of-
pocket medical costs. Individuals with disabilities already have their
incomes stretched to the limit. In 2004, a national average rent for a
modest one-bedroom unit consumed more than the entire monthly payment
(109.6 percent) for a person receiving SSI.
In addition to these increased out-of-pocket expenses, the working
disabled may find they must sell their homes if they wish to continue
receiving the needed long-term care services provided under Medicaid
that enables them to work. And it is difficult to keep people in the
community if they are forced to sell or mortgage the home they reside
in.
According to CBO, Congress could achieve $20 billion in savings by
simply not overpaying Medicare HMOs. Yet these provisions are nowhere
to be found in the Republican legislation. Clearly the profits of
health insurers are protected while the poor and working families are
squeezed to fund Republican tax priorities.
The Republican solution to the hard economic times facing many
families is to charge them more for their health care, take away needed
benefits, and make it easier for States not to cover those in need.
Rather than provide States with the tools to slash coverage and
impoverish more families through higher medical expenses in order that
their tax cuts for the wealthy may stay intact, Congress should seek
ways to join with the States to shore up healthcare coverage for our
most vulnerable citizens.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the Education and the Workforce Committee
has contributed to this effort, and I yield to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Price) for 2 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Republican. I
am proud to be a Member of the party of Lincoln, who knew and
understood that you cannot build up the poor by tearing down the rich.
The class warfare being waged by the other side belittles a once-proud
party.
What we are trying to do here is to renew our commitment to hard-
working American taxpayers, reforming the process, cutting red tape,
and setting priorities. This is smart spending, and it is what we
should be doing in every area of government. And contrary to what our
colleagues say, there is more money for education.
We know and understand how difficult it is for some to get funding
for college. I, myself, was the recipient of student loans during my
education, and this bill gets more money to students. It simplifies the
process, gives greater flexibility, and protects taxpayers. There are
no cuts. Student aid money increases. All you have to do is look at the
numbers. Increase in Federal loans, increase in Federal grants,
increase in Federal work study money, and increase in education tax
benefits. That is more money, that is not less.
We are providing common-sense proposals to reform and strengthen
student aid for education. That is more money for students. To
characterize this as anything else is demagoguery and deception and
does a disservice to all Americans. I urge all of my colleagues who are
truly concerned, truly concerned about education, to support this
positive move in the right direction with more money for education.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would challenge any Member who votes for
this budget to answer just one question: name one, just one religion in
the world that preaches the values of asking the most from those who
have the least and asking nothing from those who have the most. Sadly,
that is what this budget does.
This budget is an assault on the faith-based values of American
families. It is about mean-spirited cuts in college student loans and
harmful cuts in health care for low- and middle-income working
families. Why? To pay for Katrina? No. To reduce the deficit? No. This
budget increases the deficit.
These cuts are being made tonight to pay for tomorrow's $220,000 tax
cut and
[[Page H10628]]
dividend tax cuts for those making $1 million a year. That is right.
But it is wrong.
If the House Republican leadership thinks this budget truly reflects
American values, it proves just how sadly out of touch they are with
the values of average working families.
All the fig-leaf sound bites in the world will not hide the sad truth
that this budget is an assault on the dreams of middle- and low-income
working families, dreams of decent health care, a college education,
and a better life for their children: the American Dream.
The congressional architects of the three largest deficits in
American history once again tonight fail the test of fairness and
fiscal responsibility.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, someone on the other side has said we have hit
a new low tonight. I certainly agree with that. I have never heard so
much hypocrisy and hyperbole, and I doubt that the American public has
either.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues today because Federal
spending has been out of control. Just because former Congresses and
Presidents have foolishly increased spending does not mean we must
continue along this destructive path in the future.
This Congress must become a better steward of taxpayers' dollars, and
we must do it now. Contrary to what our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are saying, we are not finding these savings on the backs of
college students. These reforms will actually strengthen student aid
programs and expand student benefits.
Republicans are proposing rational solutions that will increase
student benefits and expand college access without expanding the
deficit.
The Deficit Reduction Act provides key benefits to students including
lower loan fees, higher loan limits for borrowers, low market-based
interest rates, new loan flexibility, and a simplified financial aid
process. Our constituents deserve to send less of their hard-earned
dollars to Washington and spend more on their families, businesses, and
dreams. It is the taxpayers' money we spend and we must be accountable,
meticulous, frugal, and effective in the ways the Federal Government
spends money. This budget reconciliation bill does just that. And on
behalf of all of my hard-working constituents, I hope that all of my
colleagues join me in supporting this great bill.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the budget reconciliation
process is supposed to be about reducing deficits, enacting fiscal
discipline, and setting priorities.
Yet the Republican majority's reconciliation package, you have heard
it all tonight, fails to meet any of these goals. It fails to reduce
deficits. Instead, it adds $20 billion to the Federal deficit. It fails
to enact fiscal discipline or move us toward a balanced budget.
Instead, it will continue to borrow from foreign countries to meet our
basic obligations, further increasing our debt and leaving it to be
repaid by our children and our grandchildren. And it fails to set
priorities that benefit millions of average Americans.
My constituents in Philadelphia and in Montgomery County are all
hard-working Americans. In fact, all hard-working Americans deserve for
us to do better than we will tonight. So I say vote ``no'' against this
budget because voting ``no'' is a vote for fiscal responsibility. Vote
``no'' on this budget, and by doing so, insist that we make the right
investments to build a safer, stronger Nation. Vote ``no.''
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) from the Resources Committee.
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take on just a little bit
of a different tone about this bill that provides a plan to reform our
government to really add some savings here. And I want to talk about
the subtitle B, section 6, which allows for mining claims, et cetera,
to be utilized for our rural communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Resources Committee provisions
contained in this title. If you oppose the budget bill because of this
title, then let me just say patently straight out you are against rural
America.
My home State is Nevada, and it has 85 percent of the land owned by
the Federal Government, and there are few places that are more rural
than Nevada. My western colleagues know what I am talking about because
they are largely in the same boat that I am in.
In the western United States, where a majority of the land is owned
by the Federal Government, our rural communities depend on industries
like the mining industries for their basic survival.
My colleagues from the East tell me that western communities should
not be so dependent on one industry for their survival. Well, in this
case I would agree with them. Today, we have an opportunity to show our
support for diversifying rural economies by giving rural western
communities a second chance at survival after one of these mines
closes. We are giving them a chance to keep their economic base and to
give their families hope for the future.
Contrary to the misrepresentation that you have heard from opponents
of mining, this is not about putting national parks up for sale or a
massive land grab or building K-Marts on every mountain top. This is
about sustainable economic development for rural communities that
otherwise would have no options when mining companies leave. These
provisions will provide jobs and money for schools, law enforcement,
hospitals, and other vital services and communities after a mine
closure.
I urge my colleagues to disregard the half truths and misinformation
they have heard about these provisions, stand up for rural America,
stand up for this bill, and pass this very important piece of
legislation.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it has been a difficult year for our
country: a brutal hurricane season, this government's inadequate
response, leaving thousands homeless without power or a roof over their
heads, energy costs skyrocketing, poverty on the rise, the recently
passed mark of 2,000 troops killed in Iraq, an ongoing insurgency,
little good news coming out of the country.
Americans want leaders who put the public interest first, who put the
American people first when we face difficult national choices.
I look at this legislation with its cuts to student loans, food
stamps, health care, child support enforcement, and I wonder, could
this Congress possibly be more out of step with what the American
people expect from their leaders right now. Most Americans saw Katrina
and the extraordinary poverty and problems exposed and asked where did
we go wrong. What can we do to get this right?
I look at this legislation, to $70 billion in tax cuts planned for
the wealthiest Americans, and I wonder, why is this Congress not asking
the same questions.
I have deep reservations about this legislation, about the values
that would motivate such a terrible response to our times. It runs
counter to our better nature. It does not reflect the moral
responsibility of our government and our obligation to the people of
this great Nation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton), the very distinguished chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and ask unanimous consent to allow him to control
the time for the purposes of yielding.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of very
quick comments on the process. I had the privilege to attend a National
Governors Association Conference early
[[Page H10629]]
last spring on the issue of Medicaid reform, and Subcommittee Chairman
Nathan Deal was with me at that conference, and Ranking Member Dingell
and, I believe, even subcommittee Ranking Member Brown was at that
conference. And the Governors, on a bipartisan basis, said they wanted
to work with the House Energy and Commerce Committee to help reform
Medicaid this year.
They supported legislative action. Mr. Deal and I said we would be
happy to work with the Governors to try to come up with a bipartisan
package. Ranking Member Dingell, at that conference, I cannot remember
his exact quote, but it was something to the effect that it would be
over his and the other Democrats on the committee's dead political
bodies that they tried to do anything to reform Medicaid.
And they have been true to their word. I do not believe any Democrat
on my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, voted at any level
to help reform and improve and maintain the integrity of our Medicaid
program, which is one of the most important health care programs in
this country for low-income and senior citizens, low-income Americans
and senior citizens.
Today, the House will make important reforms in telecommunications
and Medicaid in the title provided by the committee I chair, the Energy
and Commerce Committee. By going to conference with the Senate, we also
keep hope alive for a critical energy policy--safe and limited crude
oil production from the Alaskan north slope.
The legislation before us effectively sets Thursday, January 1, 2009,
as the day America goes all digital. The analog television signals that
have come into our homes over the air since the birth of TV will end
the night before, and a great technical revolution that has been in the
making for years will finally be complete.
In June 2004, at my first DTV hearing since becoming chairman of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, I announced that expediting the DTV
transition would be a top priority. I also noted that the 85-percent
loophole in current law is delaying the consumer benefits of digital
television and preventing the clearing of broadcast spectrum for
critical public safety and wireless broadband uses.
The DTV legislation brings needed certainty to allow consumers,
broadcasters, cable and satellite operators, manufacturers, retailers,
and government to prepare for the end of the transition. It includes a
strong consumer education measure. And it helps ensure that all
consumers have continued access to broadcast programming, regardless of
whether they use analog or digital televisions, or whether they watch
television signals broadcast by a local station or subscribe to pay-TV.
We're also here today to consider Medicaid reforms. Medicaid is a
victim of its own success. The program has grown so expansive that it
is unsustainable in its current form. The Nation's governors understand
the grim future of Medicaid without reform. They tell us that Medicaid
will begin to bankrupt the States unless some reasonable reforms are
enacted. They were Democrats and they were Republicans. They came to us
and told us what they needed done, and we did it.
Our proposal contains common-sense reforms and will help fix some of
the flaws in the current Medicaid program to ensure that it can
continue to be the safety net that protects our Nation's most
vulnerable citizens.
The reforms in this legislation include allowing States to charge
basic co-pays to higher income beneficiaries, reducing Medicaid
overpayment for drugs, and providing States with the flexibility to
tailor their benefit package to meet the specific health care needs of
beneficiaries. We'll also make it difficult for lawyers to hide assets
so wealthy clients can pretend to be poor enough to qualify for
Medicaid coverage of nursing home services.
We were tasked in the budget resolution to reduce the growth of
Federal spending. However, these changes are the right thing to do,
regardless of the budget implications.
I recognize that some critics will argue that even the most modest
reforms will hurt the poor. I would submit to you that Medicaid in its
current form is already hurting the poor.
Between 2002 and 2005, 38 States reduced eligibility; and 34 States
reduced benefits. This year, hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries are
losing Medicaid eligibility or facing reduced benefits because of State
action. This committee will not stand by and do nothing while Medicaid
slowly collapses.
The reforms we are offering today will help to save the program while
at the same time protecting the poorest of our society. In fact, most
provisions in the legislation include additional protections for the
most vulnerable recipients, such as children, pregnant women, the
disabled, the mentally ill and those in hospice care.
It is perplexing to me that so many who say they care the most, want
to do the least. If you want Medicaid patients to lose health care, the
best thing to do is nothing.
I want fairness and efficiency from Medicaid, and a vote for reform
is a vote to save it. A vote to keep what we have is a vote for waste
and for bankruptcy. It is a vote to cut health care for those who can't
afford it, and certainly can't afford to lose it.
We also can't afford to keep locking up our critical energy
resources. A small, small part of ANWR was set aside by Congress
twenty-five years ago for consideration as an energy resource. We have
learned since then just how great those resources are. Today's gasoline
prices would go down if we produced in ANWR. Dropping ANWR is ignoring
what Katrina taught us--we need diversity of energy supply.
I will vote for this bill today because it includes the right set of
reforms and saves the taxpayers money. Let's get to conference with the
Senate and come back with ANWR.
{time} 0000
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. Let me observe that, first of all, the gentleman is dead
wrong. I said that that particular package of reforms was not something
which was acceptable. I encouraged the Governors to reject it and I
urge you to reject it. I have never supported it. But I have never said
that reform of Medicaid would pass over my dead body.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I have the utmost respect
for the gentleman from Michigan. But at that first conference with the
Governors there was not any package on the table. We were talking
concepts. There was no package on the table. It was just the concept.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Deal).
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
A lot has been said tonight about people losing coverage under
Medicaid if these reforms go in place. I would like to call the reality
of today to attention. If you want to lose people from Medicaid rolls,
just do nothing. The status quo is doing that very adequately.
Tennessee is having to remove over 200,000 from their Medicaid rolls.
Missouri is removing over 100,000. In the last 3 years alone, 37 States
have had to reduce eligibility, and 34 States have actually had to
reduce benefits. The Governors are crying out to us to do something. If
we don't do something, they can no longer sustain their portion of the
requirement of paying their part of Medicaid. That is the message that
they have sent to us on a unanimous basis. All Governors, both Democrat
and Republican across this country have said, please reform the
program. It is in dire need of reforms in order to be sustainable.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), Telecommunications
Subcommittee chairman.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Telco Subcommittee, I want
to focus for a second on the DTV provisions. Last year the Congress
passed the 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act, which contained a
sense of Congress saying that the Congress must pass comprehensive DTV
hard date legislation this session and that any delay would delay the
ability of public safety to get much-needed spectrum for
interoperability. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking a significant stride
towards fulfilling that commitment that we made to public safety. The
legislation before us sets a hard date of December 31, 2008, for the
end of the DTV transition, at which point the broadcasters will return
their analog spectrum. Setting such a hard date will enable public
safety to get access to that spectrum for interoperability, spectrum
that it was promised way back in 1997. It will also enable the auction
of the remainder of that spectrum for advanced wireless services.
Moreover, it will give consumers adequate notice and time to get
ready for the transition and this legislation sets aside a portion of
the spectrum proceeds to fully fund a robust digital-to-analog
converter box program.
The legislation also included a provision that I helped author with
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from
[[Page H10630]]
New York (Mr. Towns) to set aside $500 million of the spectrum auction
proceeds to assist State and local public safety agencies in acquiring
interoperable communication systems. That amendment enjoyed widespread
support within the public safety community. I would urge my colleagues
to support this bill so that we can, in fact, see this provision
enacted.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce reconciliation package consists
of two components. There is a Medicaid reform package and there is a
digital television transition package. Both of those packages have
widespread support outside of the halls of this body. Cumulatively,
together, they are going to change the baseline for Medicaid from a
rate of growth of a little over 7.3 percent to 7 percent per year for
the next 5 years, and in terms of the digital television transition
package, expected to raise in the neighborhood of $10 billion and put
America on a digital broadcasting and receiving footing beginning
January 1, 2009. Both components of the package are worthy of support.
I would hope we could support those components in this package.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address comments made by distinguished
Chairman regarding a provision of the bill that addresses the FCC's
proceeding on unlicensed operation of wireless broadband devices in the
vacant broadcast bands, commonly known as ``white spaces.'' I thank the
Chairman Barton for recognizing the importance of additional unlicensed
spectrum.
Unlicensed, wireless broadband devices have spurred entrepreneurship,
technological innovation and phenomenal new capabilities for the
country. Hot spots in coffee shops and airports, and wireless access in
homes and offices, have made it easier and easier for people to access
the Internet. These unlicensed uses have generated billions in new
business for U.S.-based manufacturers, retailers and providers.
However, these devices could do more to bridge the digital divide and
bring more broadband choices to consumers if they could operate in
spectrum below 1 GHz, (spectrum below 1 GHz propagates over greater
distances and through tougher obstacles than does the spectrum being
used by today's unlicensed wireless broadband devices).
Mr. Chairman, I know you are aware that in some smaller markets, only
a handful television stations are actually operating. In some rural or
suburban markets, there may be dozens of TV channels available for
other uses. Nationwide, the white spaces offer hundreds of megahertz of
spectrum for unlicensed wireless broadband devices to operate in. In
its white spaces proceeding, the Commission proposes to allow
unlicensed devices to operate in those spaces where the spectrum
allocated to broadcast television stations is not being used, subject
to the additional condition that the devices do not cause harm to
licensed television broadcasters and certain other users of the
spectrum. The Commission's proposal outlines possible noninterference
requirements.
In response to the Chairman's point on preventing harm to broadcast
signals, I would note that interference should be easily avoided,
because ``smart'' unlicensed devices identify frequencies in use with
``listen-before-talk'' technology and similar capabilities. Developers
and producers of equipment for wireless broadband operation in the
white spaces have every incentive to demonstrate that their equipment
is designed so as to prevent interference to television signals, where
such signals are actually being transmitted. The reward of preventing
interference is tremendous; the risk of being forced to exit a market
because of an engineering mistake is equally weighty. The Commission
has had this proceeding open for over a year, and meanwhile, innovation
that could occur to deploy broadband to a greater number of Americans
has been delayed.
In ordering the Commission to complete the white spaces proceeding
within one year, my colleagues and I expect the Commission to promote
robust and efficient use of vacant spectrum by unlicensed wireless
broadband devices and networks. I thank the Chairman for his efforts on
this issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman
to promote the use of additional unlicensed spectrum in the vacant
broadcast bands.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
The American people know better than the politicians here in
Washington about what's best for American families. If you've learned
anything from Tuesday's election is that you ought to listen to the
American people. The American people know that this Congress, under the
Republican Leadership, is cutting over $50 billion in important
domestic programs, while still adding billions to the Federal deficit.
The Republican leadership's fantasy of deficit reduction comes at the
expense of significant cuts to domestic programs that middle class
American families--making $27,000 to $65,000 rely on. I've gotten
hundreds of letters from concerned and distraught constituents urging
me to oppose this bill and they're screaming that America does NOT
want: $14.3 billion in cuts to student aid programs, raising the cost
of college for students and families. Nearly half a million
Californians borrow money for education, we should be assisting the
next generation of Californians, not raising fees and interest rates on
students; $800 million cuts to food stamp programs, eliminating
nutrition and lunch/breakfast programs for hundreds of thousands of
families and children; billions in cuts to child support programs run
by the States--over 5 years, Californian families will lose almost one
billion in funds that should be going towards our children; $11 billion
in cuts to Medicaid, with over $1 billion of those cuts coming out of
California; and $425 million in cuts in Social Security Insurance
benefits for the disabled.
With all of these cuts, the Republicans and this Administration will
still be adding at least $20 billion to the Federal deficit when the
Republicans push through $70 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest of
Americans. America deserves and wants a Federal budget that is fair and
compassionate. I urge my colleagues to listen to their conscience and
the voices of the American people and strongly oppose this bill and
throw out these misplaced budget priorities.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Republicans were unable to pass this bill
because of the severity of the cuts. They have since then done a lot of
horse trading about those cuts and apparently, now tonight, they have
the votes. But the one thing that remained consistent throughout all of
that horse trading was they never lost their appetite to raise the cost
of student loans. According to the CBO, this budget will add almost $8
billion in new cost onto the backs of students and onto their parents
as they borrow money to pay for higher education, a higher education
that is absolutely essential today to fully participate in the American
economy.
They will add almost $5 billion in new consolidation loan fees and
higher interest rates that go directly to those students borrowing
money. They mandated a 1 percent insurance fee, $1.47 billion, on the
backs of these students. Repealing the lower interest rate caps, $505
million to these students. A 1.5 percent origination fee, $350 million
to these students. So that the average student today who borrows
$17,500, you will increase their cost of that loan, and that education
$5,800. Not according to me, but according to the Congressional Budget
Office.
You can say all you want, but none of you apparently raised your hand
and said, How about helping the students? How about reducing the taxes
on the students? How about reducing the $8 billion in new taxes on
these students? Students who are going to Kansas, they are going to UT,
30 students here are going to Georgetown. Nobody raised their hand on
behalf of these students or their families who are going deeper and
deeper in debt.
Just 2 weeks ago, we got a report that the cost of a college
education is outstripping the ability of middle-class families to pay
for it, and certainly lower income families to pay for it.
Earlier this day, you took away the promise of this President to
increase
[[Page H10631]]
the Pell grant by $50. He originally promised to raise it to $5,100.
But, no, you couldn't keep that promise, the President couldn't keep
his, you didn't keep his promise, nobody kept the promise to the
students. Somehow you are just not able to keep your promises. What
happens is that these students here are punished because of your
inability to keep your promises.
No, the House is not out of order, you are out of order because you
are hurting the students of this Nation, you are hurting their
families, you are piling on the debt, you are piling on the interest
rates, you are increasing the cost to the students and to their
families. You ought to be ashamed of it. Because the taxes that these
kids are going to have to pay and their families pay are way beyond
what is fair to do to them. It is a tragedy, an absolute tragedy that
you would do this to young people.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other
audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House. The
Chair would further remind Members that they are not to refer to
persons in the gallery. Finally, the Chair would request that all
Members respect the gavel.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. I would like to engage the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Deal), chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, in the bill before us, we do make significant changes
in the way we pay pharmacies for Medicaid prescription drugs. I am very
concerned that these payment rates will significantly reduce access to
prescription drugs for Medicaid beneficiaries in districts like mine
particularly, which is quite rural. I think that we need to make sure
that our Nation's community pharmacies are adequately compensated for
Medicaid prescription drugs. I would like to ask you if you could to
explain the new provision that calls for a GAO study on pharmacy
reimbursement.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. In the manager's amendment, we provide for a GAO
study that would authorize the Secretary to delay the implementation of
the new reimbursement structure if the study finds that the average
payment rates to pharmacists for drugs under the new Medicaid program
are below the pharmacy acquisition cost. We think that this study will
determine whether pharmacies are paid adequately and that we continue
to provide access to Medicaid recipients for prescription medications.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that we might have the
opportunity in conference to clarify in the GAO study that prior to
implementation, States would be required to submit to the Secretary of
HHS the amounts they would propose to pay pharmacies under this new
payment formula. Would you be willing to work with me on this.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Yes.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman
from Texas, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
regarding the Digital Television Transition Act of 2005 which is
included in title III of H.R. 4241. Section 3406 of this bill directs
the NTIA to establish a new $500 million interoperability grant program
for first responders.
Chairman Barton, I strongly believe the Department of Homeland
Security should be given, at the very least, a strong consultative role
in the administration of these grant funds. Given the Department's
expertise in administering first responder grant programs and its
responsibility for establishing and implementing the national policy on
interoperable communications, I would ask the chairman to ensure that
this new grant program uses standards, grant guidance and technical
assistance established by the Offices for Domestic Preparedness and
Interoperability and Compatibility. I would ask the chairman to seek
such a resolution in conference.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from
New York, who is also the chairman of the Committee on Homeland
Security.
Chairman King, I agree the Department of Homeland Security should
have a strong consultative role in administering this new program. The
Department of Homeland Security standards and grant guidance for
interoperable communications must be used to ensure consistency in the
administration of this new $500 million program.
It is too late at this point to amend the language establishing the
program, but I pledge to work with you and your committee to resolve
this issue during conference.
Mr. KING of New York. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
his comments. I appreciate your willingness to address our policy
concerns.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, the bill we consider today cuts over $50
billion from essential programs that help Americans struggling just to
get by. Over a quarter of these cuts, a staggering $14.3 billion, will
be slashed from student aid programs, the largest cut in the history of
these programs. According to a new CBO estimate, much of these so-
called savings are generated by forcing students and parents to pay
nearly $8 billion in new fees and increased interest rates. These cuts
will force individual students and their families to pay as much as
$5,800 more for college.
Why would Congress want to force students to pay more for college?
The harsh truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the underlying intent of this
bill is to balance the massive deficit and pay for additional tax cuts
on the backs of students already struggling to pay for college. Instead
of reinvesting the so-called savings into making college more
accessible and affordable, we will vote later to hand out an additional
$70 billion in tax cuts. These additional tax cuts, Mr. Speaker, will
benefit the wealthiest in our country while increasing the burden on
ordinary Americans.
Mr. Speaker, our budget decisions reflect our values. This bill does
not reflect the values that I cherish. I oppose this Robin-Hood-in-
reverse bill. I ask my colleagues to vote their conscience and oppose
this merciless reconciliation package.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding.
Parents and students, please take note. College will soon become a
lot more expensive if these budget cuts pass. Yes, at a time when
college costs are rising and students are struggling to afford college,
this bill cuts over $14.3 billion from Federal student aid programs.
This represents the largest cut in the history of the student aid
programs at a time when the College Board tells us that this is the
most expensive semester ever.
This bill includes nearly $8 billion in new charges that will raise
the cost of college loans through new fees and higher interest for
millions of American students and families who borrow for college.
While millionaires will soon gain another $19,000 tax break, the
typical student already saddled with $17,500 in debt faces $5,800 more
in new fees and higher interest rates. To whom does this make sense? We
all know that championing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans by
punching holes in middle-class priorities is the hallmark of this
administration's failed economic policies. But the burden should not be
placed on the backs of students. All of us should rise in strong
opposition to this legislation, for it will hurt the very generation
that will eventually lead this country.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this
unprecedented raid on student aid.
[[Page H10632]]
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support
America's college students. Our competitiveness in the global economy
is built on a foundation of a highly educated workforce. My Republican
colleagues feel higher education is a privilege and not a necessity for
American students. The Republican strategy to cut and gut Federal
financial aid by over $14 billion for its students hurts families and
threatens America's competitiveness. The Republican raid on student aid
makes the largest cut in the history of financial aid while also
increasing the deficit by $20 billion, adding more debt on the backs of
hardworking Americans and students.
Tim McDonald who attends Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota,
told me and other students last week: ``The generation that benefited
from highly subsidized affordable higher education is now pulling the
ladder up with them and forcing us to finance debt not only of our own
education but of their tax cuts.''
Congress should promote hope and opportunity and provide America's
scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, police, nurses and teachers, our
future leaders, with the skills and knowledge and opportunity to keep
America strong and prosperous. These budget cuts cut and gut the
resources that students depend upon to achieve their career goals and
to contribute to America. Instead of investing in students, instead of
investing in America's future, this reconciliation forces students to
pay the price for the mismanaged Republican budget.
I rise today to support America's college students and our nation's
higher education institutions.
Our competitiveness in the global economy is built on the foundation
of a highly educated workforce.
My Republican colleagues feel financial aid for higher education is a
privilege, not a necessity for American students.
The Republican strategy to cut and gut federal financial aid by over
$14 billion hurts students, hurts families and threatens America's
competitiveness. Harming higher education harms America.
The Republican raid on student aid makes the largest cut in the
history of financial aid, while also increasing the deficit by $20
billion--adding more debt on the backs of hard working Americans . . .
and students.
Tim McDonald attends Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota. Last
week speaking against these cuts Tim said:
``The generation that benefited from highly-subsidized, affordable
higher education is now pulling the ladder up with them and forcing us
to debt finance not only our own education, but their tax cuts . . .''
Congress should promote hope and opportunity. Vocational and
technical schools and our colleges and universities provide America's
scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, police, nurses, and teachers--our
future leaders with the skills, knowledge and opportunity to keep
America strong and prosperous.
This budget cuts and guts the resources students depend upon to
achieve their career goals and contribute to America.
Instead of investing in students, instead of investing in America's
future, this reconciliation forces students to pay the price for a
mismanaged Republican budget.
I ask my Republican colleagues to protect America's economic future,
to not abandon the next generation and to DEFEAT the cutting and
gutting of hope and opportunity for American students.
{time} 0015
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this plan has $70 billion in tax
cuts, $50 billion in spending cuts, and therefore adds $24 billion to
the national debt. Let us look at one of those cuts, cuts in student
aid. We know that your future opportunities depend on your education,
and college will enhance your education.
Unfortunately, 400,000 children cannot go to college because they
cannot afford to. It will get worse before it gets better. In the last
4 years, the cost of a public college education went up $3,000. The
maximum Pell grant in this package as adopted will not go up at all.
This bill cuts over $14 billion over 5 years from student aid, adding
up to $5,800 per student of what they have got to pay on those loans.
That is not the right vision for the future.
It is particularly egregious when you look at the tax cuts that go
into effect next year. One tax cut goes into effect involving personal
exemptions and standard deductions. Mr. Speaker, this is a chart of who
gets it. Under $200,000, you cannot even see what you get. Millionaires
get $19,000; $500,000 to $1 million, over $4,000. Ninety-seven percent
of this tax cut goes to those making over $200,000. Fully phased in, it
is $100 billion over 5 years.
While this tax cut is going into effect, we are cutting student aid
by $14 billion, denying many students an opportunity to go to college,
and, saddling many others with up to $5,800 in new debt. We can do
better than that. We ought defeat this resolution and not saddle those
children with additional debt.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) for his leadership in education.
Mr. Speaker, tonight's debate really is not about fiscal
responsibility. That ship sailed almost 2 years ago to the day when the
Republican majority passed the largest expansion of entitlement in the
last 40 years with the new prescription drug bill that they refused to
pay for. They sold it as $400 billion. It is closer to $1.2 trillion
today with no cost control and refusing to pay for it.
Tonight's debate is about what the values and priority of our Nation
will be. Is it going to be another round of large tax cuts for the most
well off, or will it be an investment in the education future of our
students? They are choosing the tax cut.
This raid on student aid that we have been talking about is the
largest cut in the student financial aid program in our Nation's
history. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that it
is going to add, to the average student, over $5,800 in up-front fees
and higher interest payments through their collegiate career.
This is happening when one-half of low-income students in this
country today who are qualified and want to go on to school cannot
because they cannot afford it. This is happening when countries like
China and India and South Korea and Japan are ramping up their
education investment in their students' future. This is happening when
China last year graduated nine times the number of engineers that we
did. China last year graduated more English-speaking engineers than we
did in this country. This is a recipe for economic disaster in their
budget.
Instead, what we need to be doing is investing in economic growth. We
are leaving too many of our students behind today when we need them
advancing their skills and knowledge base more than ever. At a time
when our long-term economic and national security hangs in the balance,
it is as if the Republicans want to unilaterally disarm in the race for
global creativity and innovation. Instead of being so eager to
dismantle the New Deal, we should be offering the American people a
new, new deal with the hope and promise of helping all Americans
develop the skills and tools they need to compete in the global
marketplace. This budget does not do it. We can do better.
I encourage my colleagues to defeat this proposal.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining
time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it is true that dogs collect fleas, and so
do large fiscal year bills. This bill is no exception. I want to talk
about one of those fleas infesting this bill. One of the worst
infestations in this bill is a provision slipped in in the dead of
night, like many of these things happen, that will essentially give
away America's most pristine areas in our national forests to the
special interest friends of the majority party.
There is a provision in this bill that will allow places that have
been ``patented for mining,'' to be essentially given away to these
special interest companies that can take our most pristine national
forests, somewhere between 300,000 and 20 million acres, and
[[Page H10633]]
give it away to special interests, give it away to special interests
and increase the deficit at the same time.
What will happen with that property? Anything the special interests
of the majority party wants. It is not about mining. There is a
provision in this bill that will allow your special interest friends to
come into the Mount Baker National Forest in Washington, the national
forest in Colorado, the national forests of California, take that
property, pay the taxpayers nickels, literally nickels, and take that
property away from the people that want to enjoy those national forests
right now.
It is bad enough that that bill will leave future generations $1
billion of debt. You would think you would give them the Cerces to take
their kids out to be able to have a picnic in the national forest,
portions of which will be gone because you want to feed the rapacious
appetites of your special interest friends.
This is a rip-off of American taxpayers. It is unfair to the kids
that want to go up to the national forests and enjoy this property.
There is no excuse for it. You are doing it in the dead of the night.
You ought to be ashamed.
There is nothing sacred to the Republican Party except tax cuts. You
would sell anything in America to finance your tax cuts. The Washington
monument could be next. This is a shame.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair again reminds
Members to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to find where we are taking away
picnics now. I am looking for picnics in here. I may not vote for this
now. I did not realize we were taking away picnics, of all things. My
goodness. How could we do that, my friend.
I would now like to yield to the very distinguished gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Federal spending has
been on the rise. Over the period of time from 2001 to 2005, inflation
has only gone up 12 percent during that period of time. However, when
you look at the various other government spending programs, they have
gone up anywhere from 21 percent all the way up to 99 percent for
education.
Believe me, government has grown. It has grown to the point where our
constituents are saying, stop already, make some changes. The
significance of this chart is how much government has grown. A lot of
it was due to 9/11; a lot of it was due to the slowdown in the economy.
The time has come where we need to start cutting back on the future
growth. That is all that this does is cut back on the future growth.
That is all that this does by one-tenth of 1 percent.
I heard somebody say, where is the Democrat plan? Well, their plan
would increase spending by $21.5 billion, provide $54 billion in new
taxes and virtually no cuts. It would grow the government. That is not
what our constituents and that is not what our taxpayers want us to do.
Democrats have opposed virtually every spending bill recently. Why?
Because the bills do not spend enough. It is not that they are spending
too much. They do not spend enough, because no sum is too great ever to
spend on their pet issue of the day.
The Republicans standing with me today have made it clear to
constituents that the time has come for Congress to finally control the
growth of Federal spending. That is what we are talking about, reducing
government waste, inefficiencies, and putting common-sense measures in
place to help reduce the Federal debt.
It is time we put some commonplace measures into place to help reduce
the Federal debt to help stop this out-of-control growth of government.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is what the bill we have before us tonight
does.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody in America knows, I say to
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), your party has
been in charge for all 5 of the years that spending has gone out of
control, and your conservatives are telling you just that, including
Mr. Dick Armey, your former majority leader. It is you who have allowed
spending to go out of control.
{time} 0030
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the distinguished
ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the reconciliation package the Republicans
have put together before us tonight is unfair and will increase the
deficit. We have an analysis documenting that unfairness by the
Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee which I will be
placing in the Record.
The spending cuts hit programs that benefit middle and lower income
families while the tax cuts go overwhelmingly to very high income
people. For example, families in the bottom fifth of the income
distribution receive only 3 percent of family income, but they are
being asked to absorb 22 percent of the cuts in spending for
individuals. When you put together the tax cuts and the spending cuts,
you see that the richest 20 percent of the income distribution receives
benefits from tax cuts that far outweigh their losses from the spending
cuts.
In contrast, middle and lower income families, the remaining 80
percent of all families in our country, lose more from program cuts
than they gain from tax cuts. This is terribly unfair. This plan does
not reflect American values. We can do better.
The Impact on Families of the House Budget Reconciliation Package
Joint Economic Committee Democrats
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)--Ranking Democrat
Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)--Senior House Democrat
November 17, 2005
Summary
The FY 2006 House budget reconciliation plan will increase
the federal budget deficit and is unfair in its impact on
families.
The deficit will increase because reconciled spending cuts
of $50 billion are not sufficient to offset reconciled tax
cuts of nearly $60 billion, which could rise to $70 billion
in a future conference agreement.
The plan is unfair because the spending cuts affect
programs that benefit middle and lower-income families, while
the tax cuts go mainly to very high-income people.
Spending Cuts
Of the $50 billion in reconciled spending cuts, about $22
billion are in payments for individuals that can be allocated
by family income group (Table 1).
That $22 billion is spread relatively evenly across
families in all income groups. But because income is so
unevenly distributed, the share of spending cuts borne by
low-income families is substantially larger than their share
of total income (Table 2). For example, families in the
bottom fifth of the income distribution receive only about 3
percent of total income, but they bear 22 percent of the
total cuts in spending on payments for individuals.
The remaining reconciled cuts and offsetting receipts do
not directly reduce payments for individuals, such as the
proceeds from auctioning electromagnetic spectrum licenses.
Nevertheless, some of the additional cuts will hurt
vulnerable families. For example, the roughly $5 billion in
cuts to child support enforcement efforts will reduce
payments to single parents and their children by over $7
billion.
Tax Cuts
Of the $57 billion in tax cuts, $28 billion are in taxes on
individuals that are allocable by income group (Table 3).
By far the largest amount ($23 billion) of the tax cuts for
individuals that can be allocated by family income group
accrue to the richest 20 percent of families (Chart 1).
Most of the taxes that are not directly allocated in this
analysis are business tax cuts that would also end up
benefiting high-income taxpayers.
Net Impact
The top 20 percent of the income distribution receives
benefits from the tax cuts that far offset losses from the
spending cuts (Chart 1).
Middle and lower income families (the bottom 80 percent of
all families) lose more from program cuts than they gain from
tax cuts.
TABLE 1.--HOUSE SPENDING RECONCILIATION BILL MAJOR PROVISIONS
[In billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in
Provision outlays
2006-2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments for individuals, allocable by income group
Program cuts:
Student loan programs a.................................. -13.8
Medicaid................................................. -8.4
Farm programs............................................ -2.9
Food stamps.............................................. -0.8
Supplemental Security Income............................. -0.7
Child welfare services................................... -0.6
----------
Program cuts, subtotal............................... -27.1
Program expansions:
Katrina health care relief............................... 2.6
[[Page H10634]]
Other provisions b....................................... 2.4
----------
Program expansions, subtotal......................... 4.9
Net impact, payments for individuals......................... -22.2
==========
Other provisions
Spectrum auction proceeds c.................................. -8.7
PBGC premium increases....................................... -6.2
Child support enforcement cuts............................... -4.9
Medicaid d................................................... -3.0
Dumping and subsidy offset repeal............................ -3.2
Other e...................................................... -1.7
----------
Total, other provisions.................................. -27.8
--------------------------------------------------------------==========
Total........................................................ -50.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CBO, Estimated Budgetary Impact of House Reconciliation
Recommendations (HR 4241), and JEC Democratic Staff calculations.
a Excludes student loan provision reducing guaranty agencies' share of
collections.
b Includes funding for LlHEAP, TANF, and child care.
c Includes offsetting spending for digital transition and public safety.
d Includes limits on pharmacy reimbursement and other unallocable
provisions.
e Includes proceeds from selling federal land, increasing visa fees, and
other provisions.
TABLE 2.--DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACT OF HOUSE SPENDING CUTS IN PAYMENTS FOR
INDIVIDUALS
[Share of spending cuts and share of family income by family income
group]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of Share of
spending family
Income group (quintile) cuts * income
(percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom 20 percent................................. 22 3
Second 20 percent................................. 17 8
Middle 20 percent................................. 15 14
Fourth 20 percent................................. 17 23
Top 20 percent.................................... 29 52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: JEC Democratic Staff calculations using data from CBO and Census
Bureau public use files.
* $22.2 billion of cuts in payments for individuals allocable by income
group from Table 1.
TABLE 3.--HOUSE TAX RECONCILIATION BILL MAJOR PROVISIONS
[in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in
Provision revenues 2006-
2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of Certain Expiring Tax Provisions
Taxes on Individuals allocable by income group:
Lower tax rates on dividends through 2010........... -13.3
Lower tax rates on capital gains through 2010....... -7.3
Extend above-the-line tuition deduction through 2006 -1.7
Extend retirement savers credit through 2008........ -2.9
Continue to allow personal credits against AMT -2.8
through 2006.......................................
---------------
Subtotal........................................ -28.0
Other Taxes on Individuals:
Extend deduction for state and local sales taxes -2.6
through 2006*......................................
---------------
Total Taxes on Individuals...................... -30.6
Taxes on Businesses:
Extend small business expensing through 2009........ -7.3
Extend research and experimentation credit through -10.0
2006...............................................
Other Extensions and Modifications.................. -8.8
---------------
Total........................................... -56.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: JCT, Estimated Revenue Effects of the Chairman's Amendment in
the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4297, the ``Tax Relief Extension
Reconciliation Act of 2005,'' JCX-79-05, November 15, 2005, and JEC
Democratic Staff estimates.
* There are no direct estimates of the distributional impact of
extending this deduction.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, and
the Ways and Means Committee has contributed reform to this package.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005. Congress must make the hard decisions to rein in Federal
spending. The legislation before us today does just that by reducing or
eliminating waste or unnecessary Federal spending across a range of
programs.
I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and
my fellow Ways and Means Committee members for their support in
bringing this legislation to the floor this evening. Overall, the
provisions in this legislation produced by the Ways and Means Committee
saves over $8 billion over the next 5 years through common sense
reforms that fix or clarify current law.
These changes target spending on administration, not benefits meant
to be paid under current law. For example, this legislation ends double
dipping on certain child support bonus funds. The bonus funds will
continue. The double dipping will end. This change will save $1.6
billion over the next 5 years.
This legislation also extends and improves the 1996 welfare reform so
even more parents will be able to leave welfare for work. It provides
full funding for the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Programs
despite a 60 percent welfare caseload decline. It increases child care
funding to support more work, and it encourages and supports healthy
marriages and stronger families to further reduce poverty.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support these common-sense
reforms.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is set to vote on a budget
that will cut education and health care investments in order to make
room for $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
If you are asking yourself what kind of Congress passes a budget that
cuts $9.5 billion from Medicaid adversely affecting 6 million children
while overpaying HMOs by $10 billion, look no further. A Republican
Congress.
What kind of Congress hands out $14.5 billion in tax subsidies to oil
and gas companies, and yet cuts $14.5 billion in college tuition
assistance? Look no further than a Republican Congress.
What kind of Congress cuts child care assistance to 330,000 children
while giving special tax breaks to bow and arrow manufacturers and
logging companies. Look no further than a Republican Congress.
Child care, child support, children's health care, college tuition
assistance. You guys give a whole new meaning to women and children
first.
When George Bush in 2000 declared he was opposed to nation building,
who knew it was America he was talking about.
This budget continues your policies of cutting taxes for the
wealthiest 1 percent in America, while cutting child support,
children's health care, child support collection and child care
assistance as well as college tuition assistance. Have you no shame?
Have you no decency when it comes to America's future? Then you stand
up here having added $3 trillion to the Nation's debt in 5 short years
and declare yourself that you believe we have to put our fiscal house
in order, and all the while you add to the Nation's deficit.
Thank you very much. No one has quite said thank you for all your
hard work.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair would once again
remind all Members to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, as we get close to the end this has been
an interesting debate to listen to tonight.
If I listen to all the eloquence from the other side of the aisle, I
must think this is surely the only place in the United States of
America that believes we do not spend enough, nor tax enough.
I tell you what, I could go into any sale barn, any peach orchard,
any machine shop, any office building, sit around any kitchen table in
my State of Colorado, and I could ask that question and they would tell
me straight up, no, we do not believe that the United States Congress
handles our money quite as efficiently as maybe they could.
Do you know what we are talking about here tonight? Over the next 5
years, reducing the rate of increase by a mere one-third plus or minus
of 1 percent. One-third of a cent on a dollar rate of increase.
Now, go back home and ask the folks in your district, the folks that
live across the street, the folks you go to church with if they really
believe we are so good in the United States Congress with their tax
dollars that somehow, someway we could not find one-third of a penny of
savings out of their dollar. You know how we are finding it. We are
finding it by saying, you know, folks, if you want to get in the
nursing home and you happen to have three-quarters of a million dollars
of equity in your house, maybe you ought to take care of yourself for a
little while.
We are saying that if you sign an oath that when you immigrated to
the United States America that you will not become a ward of the State,
you will be self-sufficient, we think you ought to abide by that oath
for 7 years. We are saying that student loans actually ought to go to
students, not just brokers who trade them around in the market and try
to make a buck off the deal. That is the kind of savings and efficiency
that I think we all said we are going to come here to try to find for
the American taxpayer. Tonight we have got a choice.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Whip of the Democratic Party.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend, the chairman of the Budget
Committee, this bill is no picnic.
[[Page H10635]]
Mr. Speaker, for 5 years, the Republican Party in Washington has
pursued the most irresponsible and dangerous fiscal policies in the
history of this country. Today, they claim they are getting tough on
spending, that they are restoring fiscal discipline. I suppose that is
the fiscal discipline that they threw away over the last 5 years.
I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I have been a
Member of this House for 25 years. For 17 of those years, there has
been a Republican President in the United States of America. The one
person that can stop spending in its tracks, none of the rest of us
can, we can vote but only one of us in the government can stop spending
in its tracks and that is the President of the United States. And
during those 17 years that we have had Republican Presidents, every
year without exception we have had large deficits. For 8 years, we had
a Democratic President, and for 4 years we had surpluses, 4 straight
years.
In every single one of those years that the Republican Presidents
presided we had large and growing deficits. This bill today will
perpetuate that Republican performance.
Five years ago, the Bush administration and this Republican Congress
inherited a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion according to
President Bush. President Bush promised the American people when he
offered his economic program, ``We can proceed with tax relief without
fear of budget deficits even if the economy softens.'' But almost
immediately, the Washington Republicans enacted policies that
instigated deficit and debt that will immorally force our children to
pay our bills and then threaten our Nation's future.
Under President Clinton, we had $559 billion of surplus in his last 4
years. Under your 5 years, I tell the amused chairman of the Budget
Committee, you have planned and achieved $1.57 trillion of debt. At the
very same time, Republicans have raised the debt limit four times.
$4.15 trillion of additional debt during your last 5 years.
Do you know how much during the last 4 years of the Clinton years we
raised it? Zero. Zero. You talk about fiscal responsibility and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says you had a Republican
majority. Is that not wonderful? My, my, my, you could do it when you
had President Clinton as President but you cannot do it when you have
President Bush. Is that not a strange thing to happen? In 5 short years
they have driven us $3 trillion deeper in debt.
Today Republicans say they want to restore fiscal discipline. All of
America must ask, Why do you insult our intelligence?
President Bush has not vetoed one spending bill that you have
offered. If spending is out of control, it is out of control because
you let it get out of control, you planned to get it out of control,
and you passed bills that put it out of control.
Republicans rammed a prescription drug bill through. They told us,
which was not true and they knew it not to be true, it was going to
cost $395 billion. Why? Because your budget said you were going to
spend $400 billion. That was a lie. You knew it was not true. In fact,
2 months later, you came by and said, no, it is 524. Now, it is over a
trillion dollars.
You claim that you are cutting spending by $50 billion, but you are
coming with a tax bill that is going to cut $57 billion in revenue, a
net increase of the deficit. That is why you have had 17 straight years
under your Presidents of deficits.
Look at the facts. I implore my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, face fiscal reality. Stop posturing, vote no on this
irresponsible bill. Join Democrats in adopting a budget plan as we
offered that balanced the budget in ten years. You did not even plan to
balance it.
Let me read now a quote. ``We do not touch Social Security. It does
not touch Medicare. This budget accomplishes the largest reduction of
the debt held by the public in our history. By the end of 10 years of
this budget, we will have eliminated the debt held by the public.''
Chairman Jim Nussle, May 25, 2001.
{time} 0045
$1.57 trillion in budget deficits and $3 trillion later additional
debt on the national debt. The gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. Nussle)
representation was totally, absolutely, unconscionably wrong in 2001,
and your predictions today are equally in error.
Vote against this bad bill.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, except the gentleman forgot Osama bin Laden,
and I thank the gentleman for that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee, so maybe he can
answer some of the diatribe that we heard.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, in 2 minutes I will try to answer
all of that diatribe. It is going to be very challenging.
Number one, the last speaker talked about all the new spending. Every
time we brought a spending bill to the floor of the House, an
appropriations bill, a budget bill, a Medicare bill, what did they do?
They proposed more spending. Our budget on Medicare, $400 billion.
Their bill on Medicare, $1 trillion. What did our budget on Medicare
come in at? $319 billion because competition is working.
Mr. Speaker, let us put this in perspective. Look at the rhetoric we
have been hearing tonight: deep cuts; draconian cuts to government; we
are hurting women; we are hurting children; we are hurting children
with cystic fibrosis; we are taking picnics away from tourists; we are
burning the house down. What is this budget doing?
Mr. Speaker, this budget, if it does not pass, the government will
spend over the next 5 years $13.855 trillion. With this budget, the
government will spend over the next 5 years $13.795 trillion. We are
talking about growing entitlement spending at 6.3 percent instead of
6.4 percent, a one-tenth of 1 percent reduction in the increase of
spending. Yet you would think the world would be coming to an end.
There is a difference here. There is a difference in philosophy. Mr.
Speaker, it is this: they are talking about tax cuts. They are talking
about big tax cuts. Their definition of tax cuts is not raising taxes
because this budget does not cut taxes. This budget keeps taxes where
they are. We are simply proposing that we do not raise taxes; and,
instead, we want to control spending. What is it they are offering? No
spending control and more tax increases.
We are going into a very expensive winter. Where I come from in
Wisconsin, we are going to have a cold winter. We are going to have
high heating bills. We are going to have to pay a lot for our heating
bills. We have high health care costs. Why on Earth would we want to
stick our constituents, the American people, with more taxes?
Mr. Speaker, we should vote for this bill to control spending and
keep taxes low and disallow their world view of higher spending and
higher taxes.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), a very distinguished gentleman from the Ways and
Means Committee.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Anyone watching this debate tonight must be very, very confused. Are
we talking about cuts? What are we talking about? Are we talking about
taxes? Taxes are not a part of this bill. Are we talking about cuts?
Let me tell you what is happening under just the Ways and Means portion
of this bill.
The programs affected in this legislation within my committee's
jurisdiction grow. Let me repeat that. Federal spending for the open-
ended entitlement programs that are affected in any way by changes in
this legislation will grow. These programs include cash welfare, yes,
child care, child support enforcement, also foster care and disability
benefits.
This year, the Federal Government will spend about $68 billion on
this set of programs. That is almost $650 in spending per household in
America, and that is before we start counting any spending on health
care, retirement, defense, education and other programs; and guess
what, spending on these programs, they will grow under this
legislation.
Five years from now, we will spend $74 billion on them or $6 billion
more than today; but because the spending 5 years from now will not be
a projected $76 billion, or about $8 billion more than today, compared
with a $6 billion increase provided in this bill, we are supposedly
engaging in draconian cuts.
[[Page H10636]]
Mr. Speaker, figures do not lie, and neither should we.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Democrats come to the floor and
they want us to only remember two parts of a very large story. They
want us to remember back in May now of 2001. It is kind of an
interesting date they picked out of the air, May of 2001. What a
wonderful time. Can we all remember back to that time of innocence? Can
we all remember back to that time? They want us to remember a time of
surpluses. Everything was perfect. They make it sound like such a
blissful time.
What they do not want to remind you is that we were suffering at that
very moment from a Clinton recession, a Clinton recession where the
stock market bubble burst, the dot-coms were failing. We had corporate
scandal, and the stock market was plummeting.
We saw some real challenges. We stepped into that breach. We made a
very important economic decision that people spending their own money,
investing their own money, making decisions in the towns and cities and
suburbs and counties of our great land is the best way to grow our
economy. It worked and we did create jobs, and we did provide
prosperity, and we do know how to do it again.
But then they jump ahead. They do not want you to remember any more
of 2001, not 2002, not 2003, 2004. All the way to 2005 is where their
story goes next, and it is deficits as far as the eye can see. They do
not want you to remember about what happened on September 11. They do
not want you to remember the fact that we are now in the middle of
prosecuting a global war on terror with our men and women in the field
that now they want to recklessly call home and not even want to fund.
What they do not want to recall is the fact that we had reforms that
we needed to put into our homeland security to protect our country.
They do not want us to recall any of the emergency spending for New
York or for the Pentagon. They do not want you to remember the needs
that we had when natural disaster struck our country and where, in
minutes, the Congress was willing to come back and spend whatever it
took to make sure our people were taken care of.
They do not want you to remember any of that. They voted for it. They
voted for a lot of that spending, but they do not want you to remember
that. They just want you to think that Clinton caused surpluses and now
we are in deficits; do not think of anything else in between.
Well, you know, there is a lot in between. It may be a good political
plan what they are putting on the floor today. It may be great in a
press release. It may be good in a 12-step press release by a Blue Dog
budget. It may be great if you are going to go home and run attack ads.
It may be great if you are just getting ready for the next election.
But if you want to govern, you need a plan. If you want to govern,
you have got to put it on the table. If you want to govern, you have to
be serious about the activities and not just come to the floor and be
negative. If you want to govern, you need to put it out so that we can
decide whether it is the right way to go or not.
Well, we have a plan. It reforms government. It grows the economy, it
protects America, and it gets us moving again in a positive way that
trusts Americans to make the correct decisions about their future and
not trust government to do it for them.
People, individuals and families, make much better decisions about
their daily lives than the government can for you. When Democrats come
to the floor, their plan will be tax increases and trusting bigger
government, bigger bureaucracy, more big, fancy, white buildings filled
with bureaucrats to provide the compassion that they do not believe the
American people will have for themselves. They have got to manufacture
it through government and government bureaucracy; and that is the
reason that we are here tonight, because that has not worked. Our
government bureaucracy has let down the American people.
We have got to reform those programs so they deliver a quality
product, and we have to do it tonight, and we are the only ones to do
it. There is no point in talking to the Democrats. They are all in
lock-step going to vote ``no.'' They have decided tonight they are
going to wait for the election for the American people. They are not
going to do anything in the meantime except be negative.
So we have got to do it. We have got to put the plan out. We have got
to support it. We have got to provide the reforms, and we have to
provide the savings so that we can reduce the deficit and get back to
fiscal responsibility.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
1984, it was Good Morning in America, the economy was growing,
President Reagan was President, Bob Dole the Republican the majority
leader of the United States Senate, and big deficits, big deficits, big
deficits, big deficits, big deficits, big deficits.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, up until now I think we have had a very
civil debate here this evening on a very important matter to the
American people, a matter that consumes a great deal of the time of the
Congress, the blueprint for what we do in the year, the budget.
Tonight, the Republicans are launching an attack on America's
children and America's families; and they are also launching an attack
on America's middle class, all of this to give a tax cut to the
wealthiest people in our country.
This budget is a sham, and it is a shame. Democrats believe that
together America can do better.
I am so proud of my Democratic colleagues tonight because they have
stood proudly for fiscal responsibility.
I am so proud of the Blue Dogs and how they led this debate tonight
for pay-as-you-go, for no deficit spending, for fiscal soundness so
that future generations will not have to bear the brunt of the fiscal
irresponsibility that the Republicans are continuing to present to the
Congress.
I am proud of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his
tremendous leadership as our ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee.
He, indeed, has put forth an alternative budget, a Democratic budget,
that would eliminate the deficit in 2012, was balanced in terms of its
values, its priorities and in addition to its funding.
{time} 0100
Mr. Rangel led the way from the Ways and Means Committee in terms of
tax fairness in our country. Mr. Dingell spoke in and his members spoke
so eloquently about what would happen to Medicaid in this Republican
proposal, and Mr. Miller, of course, was relentless in his advocacy for
America's students.
I have heard my Republican colleagues talk about those who disagree
with their budget priorities as hypocrites and demagogues. Well, let me
introduce some others to this debate who might fall into that category
by our Republican colleagues' characterization.
Let me start with the National Council of Churches USA. They have
written to every Member of Congress and very carefully dissected this
budget, and this is what they say: ``The role of government is to
protect the people and work for the common good. This is not the time
for the budget reconciliation process to create greater hardships for
those who are already experiencing great suffering. To do so is not
only unjust; it is a sin. It violates all the fundamental Christian
principles of loving thy neighbor, caring for the poor, and showing
mercy. As religious leaders, this is a violation that is unacceptable
to us.
``How is it that we show mercy for oil millionaires and not hurricane
survivors? We urge you to change this destructive course of action for
the sake of our Nation and for generations to come.''
I submit this for the Record. But first I want to read a list of
those who signed the letter so that they perhaps will be labeled by our
colleagues on the Republican side as hypocrites and demagogues.
The National Council of Churches USA, the Alliance of Baptists; the
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America; the Evangelical Lutheran
Church
[[Page H10637]]
in America; Friends United; Philadelphia Religious Society of Friends;
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America; International Council of
Community Churches; Moravian Church in America; National Baptist
Convention USA; National Missionary Baptist Convention of America;
Polish National Catholic Church of America; Presbyterian Church USA;
Progressive National Baptist Convention; Swedenborgian Church; United
Church of Christ; General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist
Church.
I am very proud, also, that we have a letter from Catholic Charities.
And Catholic Charities says that it is our ``tradition that teaches us
that society, acting through government, has a special obligation to
consider first the needs of the poor. Yet the proposed budget cuts put
a disproportionate burden on the poor, those that can least afford
it.''
``We urge you to oppose these proposed cuts.''
And that letter I wish to submit for the Record because it carefully
goes into every detail of this budget and urges opposition. And, in
fact, leaders of the faith community, indeed, came to the Capitol
Rotunda to pray that Congress would make the right decision. On
November 3, they said that the House Republicans seem to be saying that
they literally want to take food out of the mouths of children to make
rich people richer. They said budgets are moral documents and they
reflect our national priorities and values. In the name of social
conscience, fiscal responsibility, equality of opportunity, protecting
our communities, and the very idea of the common good, they said that
the faith community is drawing a moral line in the sand against these
provisions in this budget.
Democrats will join the faith community in drawing a moral line in
the sand, because we know that together America can do better.
My Democratic colleagues have eloquently made an indictment against
this budget, which is immoral because, with more than $70 billion tax
cuts which mainly benefit the wealthiest people in America, this
Republican budget decimates the very programs that millions of middle
class Americans rely upon to get ahead. As the number of people without
health insurance has increased for 4 years in a row under the Bush
administration, Republicans are charging ahead with billions of dollars
in cuts in Medicaid, the health insurance program that provides medical
care to America's poorest children, many of them Katrina survivors.
Republicans give new meaning to the words ``suffer little children.''
The number of people in America go to sleep hungry because they
cannot afford to buy food has risen by 7 million people in the 5 years
of the Bush administration. Seven million more people go to sleep
hungry because they cannot afford to buy food. That is a 12 percent
increase. Republicans are slashing food assistance for America's poor
children; slashing funds for preventative services and foster care for
abused and neglected children when more help, not less, is needed;
drastically reducing funding for child support enforcement programs,
which could result in billions in reduced child support from delinquent
dads for their children.
And how about this one: For our troops serving in combat zones in
Iraq, they are prevented from fully accessing the low-income tax
credit. How is that for honoring our men and women in uniform?
The Republicans, as the people of faith said in their document, are
literally taking food out of the mouths of children to give tax cuts to
America's wealthy. This is not a statement of American values. In their
years in the majority, Republicans have turned budget surpluses into
seas of red ink. These budget deficits are the result of misplaced
Republican priorities, a refusal to join Democrats in putting forth
fiscally responsible budgets, Pay-As-You-Go, no deficit spending, and
shared sacrifice in spending cuts. Democrats believe that together
America can do better.
And we did. I want to join my distinguished colleague from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip, in singing the praises of the
Democrats. In August of 1993, Democrats passed an economic package that
led to historic growth in our economy, and we did so without one
Republican vote. As Mr. Hoyer said, in the Clinton administration, we
had zero deficits. In fact, we had surplus for the last several years
of the Clinton administration. We were on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion
in surplus. And then the Bush administration began and that all
reversed. They have taken us on a trajectory of over $4 trillion, a
swing of about $10 trillion, the largest swing from surplus to deficit
in our history by far, and a disgraceful one at that. The surpluses
were based on Pay-As-You-Go, no deficit spending, and they were
implemented with not one Republican vote for fiscal soundness.
The Republican Congress wants to give tax cuts to the rich, to
subsidize oil companies which are enjoying obscene profits while
American consumers are paying an increased price at the pump and an
increased price for their home heating gas and oil. As the religious
community said, why are we giving relief to the oil companies and not
the people? They are increasing taxes on the middle class. Nineteen
million middle-income Americans will have their taxes increased under
this bill.
This is not a values-based budget. It is not worthy of our support. I
urge my colleagues to reject this resolution that will increase our
swollen budget deficits by another $20 billion, hurt our most
vulnerable citizens and the middle class. Again, together, America can
do better with a budget that would help Katrina and Rita survivors,
veterans, students, working families struggling to fill their gas
tanks, heat their homes, and afford medical care.
Democrats are proud to join the faith community in rejecting this
immoral budget. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
The material previously referred to is as follows:
National Council of Churches USA,
New York, NY, October 19, 2005.
Dear Member of Congress: (As leaders of America's major
faith communities, we write to you at a moment of great moral
urgency for our Nation when hundreds of thousands of our most
vulnerable citizens are at risk.) We urge you to put aside
partisan politics and pass a Federal budget that reflects the
moral priorities of the wide majority of Americans. (We urge
you to work for, not against, the common good of all of
America's citizens and not just a privileged few.)
This is a grave time in our Nation. We are in the midst of
a tremendous social and economic crisis, thrust vividly into
public view by the recent natural disasters along the Gulf
Coast. The times demand profound changes if the quality of
life is to improve for millions of families. The United
States budget is a reflection of who we are and what our
priorities are as a Nation. It is inconceivable--in the wake
of the devastating impact of the recent natural disasters--
that Congress would propose $50 billion in cuts for child
care benefits, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families, Head Start, student loans, and other vital services
for people in need. In the aftermath of these disasters, such
catastrophic cuts can only deepen the pain and suffering and
dramatically increase the number of people living in poverty
in this Nation.
We watched as members of Congress vowed to help rebuild the
Gulf Coast. We heard our representatives promise to make
helping those affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita a
national priority. Yet despite those pledges, members of
Congress now stand ready to cut $50 billion in essential
programs that help those in need, while maintaining excessive
tax cuts that help only the wealthy. The hurricanes were a
natural disaster. But this proposed budget reconciliation
would be a moral disaster of monumental proportions--and it
is one that can be avoided.
(The role of government is to protect its people and work
for the common good.) This is not the time for the budget
reconciliation process to create greater hardships for those
who are already experiencing great suffering.
To do so is not only unjust; it is a sin. It violates all
the fundamental Christian principles of loving thy neighbor,
caring for the poor, and showing mercy. As religious leaders,
this violation is unacceptable to us.
(How is it that we show mercy for oil millionaires and not
hurricane survivors? We urge you to change this destructive
course of action for the sake of our nation and for
generations to come.)
The outrage expressed by Americans across the country to
the images of injustice following Hurricane Katrina--and the
subsequent outpouring of generosity from these same
citizens--is a message from the grassroots that our
government's priorities and budget must reflect American
values by helping those most in need at their time of need.
Please call a halt to budget reconciliation negotiations that
are detrimental and direct your attention to healing rather
than harming our society.
Respectfully submitted,
Signed (as of October 19, 2005)
[[Page H10638]]
Bishop Thomas Hoyt, Jr., National Council of Churches USA.
Rev. Dr. Robert W. Edgar, National Council of Churches USA.
The Rev. Dr. Stan Hastey, Alliance of Baptists.
His Grace Bishop Vicken Aykazian, Diocese of the Armenian
Church of America.
The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America.
Friend Retha McCutchen, Friends United Meeting.
Friend Thomas H. Jeavons, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of
the Religious Society of Friends.
His Grace Bishop Dimitrios, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of
America.
Rev. Michael E. Livingston, International Council of
Community Churches.
His Grace Metropolitan Zachariah Nicholovos Malankara
Orthodox Syrian Church.
The Rev. David L. Wickmann, Moravian Church in America.
Rev. William Shaw, National Baptist Convention USA.
Dr. Melvin Wade, National Missionary Baptist Convention of
America.
The Most Reverend Robert M. Nemkovich, Polish National
Catholic Church of America.
The Rev. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.).
The Rev. Dr. Major L. Jemison, Progressive National Baptist
Convention.
Rev. Tyrone Pitts, Progressive National Baptist Convention.
Ms. Christine Laintner, Swedenborgian Church.
The Rev. John H. Thomas, United Church of Christ.
Mr. James Winkler, General Board of Church and Society,
United Methodist Church.
____
Catholic Charities USA,
Alexandria, VA, November 2, 2005.
Hon. Jim Nussle,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Nussle: On behalf of Catholic Charities USA,
one of the Nation's largest private networks of social
service providers with 1,400 local agencies and institutions
providing essential services to over 7 million people
annually, including many families who have to depend on
Federal means-tested programs to survive, we would like to
express our deep concern about proposals to cut Federal
spending by reducing health, nutrition, and income support
for some of the poorest families in the United States.
We urge you to oppose these proposed cuts in the House to
programs that assist families who are working, children, the
elderly and the abused which will have very serious long
lasting consequences for individuals, communities and in fact
our Nation as a whole.
Increasing numbers of working families are seeking
assistance from our agencies to meet basic needs even with
the current levels of assistance they receive. Trapped at the
bottom of the labor market, they are unable to meet the
rising costs in housing, heating and transportation. The
expenses these families face are not optional expenses; they
must provide these basic needs for their families and are
falling further and further behind. Among these families has
emerged a new group, who because of a natural disaster, an
event totally out their control, find themselves without jobs
or their homes. Those who were living on the margins before
the disaster are now in fact destitute.
House committees have proposed a series of budget cuts and
program changes that will in fact make it impossible for
these American families trying to meet the basic necessities
of life for their members. These cuts are certain to have
long-term effects on the children, elderly, and physically
challenged.
At the same time, the Energy and Commerce Committee
proposes limiting access to Medicaid financed health care,
thereby opening the door to allow states the ability to
eliminate coverage for many services to children who
desperately need it. Many of whom already skip eating to keep
their homes and heat them will find it necessary to pay
increased costs from their already stretched resources in
order to receive life-saving medication and treatments or go
without.
The Ways and Means Committee has chosen to meet its deficit
reduction targets by targeting poor families with children.
The Committee's proposals would reduce help for the very
services for children for which government has a moral as
well as legal responsibility: protecting and collecting child
support from absent parents.
The Committee proposes that low-income grandparents who
make great sacrifices to raise abused and neglected children
must forego aid from the government. The proposal jeopardizes
the stability of children who have been abused and neglected
and who live with relatives. The child welfare system
struggles to obtain stable placements for an ever-increasing
number of children. Placing children in the home of extended
family members whenever possible is an option that needs to
be supported, not penalized by federal reimbursement
policies.
The Committee's child support proposals will almost
certainly increase and deepen child poverty among those
families who depend on government aid to collect support from
absent parents. These cuts, if implemented, would reduce
federal child support program funding by 40 percent, severely
reducing states' ability to collect child support for low-
and moderate-income families. The Congressional Budget Office
projects that child support collections would drop by $24.1
billion over the next ten years. Many states believe that
these estimates understate the impact of the cuts on their
ability to collect child support for families.
We are also deeply disappointed that the Committee's TANF
reauthorization proposal, which is included in its
reconciliation package, would sharply increase work
requirements for mothers of infants and toddlers. Many middle
income families make the choice for mothers to work only part
time while children are small and in need of constant
attention. Even parents who can afford excellent child care
often choose part-time care for pre-schoolers, yet here
Congress would be telling very poor single mothers that they
have no choice but to put their children in full time day
care while they struggle to survive on incomes which are, on
average, less than half the poverty level. With all the
available research pointing to the importance of the
relationships and care giving of children 0-2 on their brain
development, this policy seems to suggest just the opposite.
Moreover, the increased work requirement would be imposed
without sufficient child care funding for even the current
work requirement. Without adequate resources, parents are
forced to leave children in less than desirable circumstances
with little or no stimulation. In the last Congress, the
House agreed to an increase of at least $1 billion for child
care, yet the Committee's recommendation is only half that,
despite rapidly growing need.
The House Agriculture Committee's proposal to ``save'' $844
million by cutting about 300,000 poor people off the Food
Stamp Program is inexplicable to us when U.S. Department of
Agriculture reported last week that 38.2 million people lived
in households that were ``food insecure'' in 2004--a
government measure of the number of people who have
difficulty meeting their food budgets. The USDA report shows
that the number of individuals facing food insecurity
increased by almost two million people between 2003 and 2004.
The Agriculture Committee proposal would make it far more
difficult for the working poor to qualify for food stamps,
despite clear need.
In addition, legal immigrants who are already barred from
receiving food stamps (and Medicaid and TANF) for the first 5
years they live and work in the U.S. would be denied food
stamps for an additional 2 years. Even the poorest immigrants
who work full time at very low wages and elderly and disabled
immigrants who are unable to work would be denied
assistance. This proposal would reverse President Bush's
successful effort in 2002 to restore food stamp benefits
to legal immigrants who have been in U.S. for five years.
On the other hand, the Energy and Commerce Committee
package includes a provision for an additional $1 billion in
mandatory spending for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program which is urgently needed to help offset part of the
ruinous increase in home heating costs to be borne this
winter by very poor elderly and disabled people and families.
We urge the House to include that provision in its
reconciliation bill.
Taken as a whole, the proposals for cuts in programs that
support low-income working families, families who take in
vulnerable children and our elderly will have long term
effects on the families, communities, and our nation. They
would leave the most vulnerable among us poorer, sicker,
hungrier, and more isolated.
On behalf of Catholic Charities USA, I strongly urge you to
oppose cuts in programs that serve the poorest people in
America. Our Catholic tradition teaches that society, acting
through government, has a special obligation to consider
first the needs of the poor, yet the proposed budget cuts put
a disproportionate burden on the poor--those that can least
afford it.
Sincerely,
Fr. Larry Snyder,
President, Catholic Charities USA.
____
[From the Sojourners, Nov. 3, 2005]
Jim Wallis and Faith Leaders Call for a Moral Budget and Urge Congress
To Say `No' to Social Cuts That Pay For Tax Cuts
Jim Wallis, the progressive evangelical founder of
Sojourners and convener of Call to Renewal, joined several
national religious leaders in a press conference today at the
U.S. Capitol. Wallis and the religious leaders urged members
of Congress to derail plans to make deep budget cuts that
hurt poor children and families.
As the campaign to challenge the budget and tax cuts by the
faith community continues to build momentum, Jim Wallis said
in today's press conference: ``Sometimes it takes a natural
disaster to prevent a social disaster. The waters of Katrina
have washed away our national denial of just how many
Americans are living in poverty. But some in Congress are not
paying attention. Cutting social services from this year's
budget that help the poor--to pay for tax cuts for the rich--
is a moral travesty that violates biblical priorities.''
``Plans for deep cuts to social supports are contrary to
national priorities we need to protect our most vulnerable
citizens,'' continued Wallis. ``We need strong moral
leadership in Congress, especially during this time
[[Page H10639]]
of war, record deficits, rising poverty and hunger, and
natural disasters. Cutting food stamps and health care that
meets the basic needs of poor families would be a moral
failure.''
``As this moral battle for the budget unfolds, I am calling
on Members of Congress, some of whom make much out of their
faith, to start some bible studies before they cast votes to
cut food stamps, Medicaid, child care and more that hurt the
weakest in our Nation. The faith community is drawing a moral
line in the sand against these priorities. I call on
political leaders to show political will in standing up for
`the least of these,' as Jesus reminds us to do.''
For the past 4 weeks, Jim Wallis and religious leaders from
diverse traditions have met with Members of Congress to
discuss how social cuts for poor families and tax cuts for
wealthy Americans are unconscionable and immoral. Budgets are
moral documents and they reflect our national priorities and
values. In the name of social conscience, fiscal
responsibility, equality of opportunity, protecting our
communities and the very idea of a `common good,' the
upcoming budget votes will be closely watched by people of
faith,'' said Wallis.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, but still no plan.
But to close on our plan, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time
to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker
of the House.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
I guess we have heard it all. We have heard an argument wrapped in
religious morality. We have heard revisionist history. We have actually
heard a lot of words tonight. We have had epithets thrown back and
forth across this hall, which does not make me proud and probably does
not make the American people. But what we have to do is do the people's
work. We were elected by the American people to make a difference.
Now, I remember 1993. I remember the largest tax increase in American
history. That is what they call ``fiscal integrity.'' The American
people rejected that. I also remember 1997. Maybe I have been around
too long, but in 1997, we did deficit reduction. We also did welfare
reform. If I remember right, we passed it once; it got vetoed. We
passed it twice; it got vetoed. We passed it three times, and the
President decided if he was going to get re-elected, he had better sign
it, and then he took credit for it.
In this body it has been the people on this side of the aisle that
have done the tough work, that have done their homework, and have made
a difference.
I also remember in 1999, 2000, and 2001, we paid down $500 billion of
public debt. We wiped that debt off. I will tell my colleagues in 2001
we had 9/11. Three thousand people got killed in 45 minutes in this
country. And we probably had to respond to that. And we have. Then we
had a deficit. The great bubble of that economy burst. It did not burst
on their watch, but it burst because people were overleveraged and it
was overheated. But we have responded. And we have had 10 consecutive
quarters of 3 percent-plus economic growth because this party has
worked hard to do what the American people sent us here to do.
You can talk about meanness and mean spiritedness, but I will tell
you the most mean spirited thing we can do is to leave our children
with a debt that they cannot pay. We can leave our children with a
deficit. And you are right. You are right. Stand up and clap because we
will leave our children with a deficit that they cannot spend down or
save.
I will tell my colleagues when we look at this bill, we talk about
the growth in Medicaid. Governors are calling us from both parties and
saying, Help us do something, help us to have a plan to reform Medicaid
so that we can save some money, so that we can offer more services to
more people in a better way.
And you know what? We worked at it. We did have reform. And Medicaid
is growing at a 7.3 percent growth rate per year. A 7.3 percent growth
rate. It has been growing for years.
Is there a better way to do it? Is there a more efficient way to do
it? Should we find some reforms to make it better? Yes, we should. And
we are bending that growth rate from 7.3 to 7 percent. Think about it.
The American people expect us to do what is right. The American
people do not want all of these platitudes of moral indignity. They
want us to go to work. They want us to do our job. They want us to
provide a better life for themselves and their children, and this
majority will do it. It is our responsibility. We can start right now
by voting for this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to share my concerns on the language in the Budget
Reconciliation Act on Medicaid pharmacy dispensing fees. As I
understand these provisions, states are required to pay dispensing fees
to pharmacies for Medicaid prescriptions. While this might seem like a
step forward, all states pay such fees now. Thus, we are really not
assuring adequate access to pharmacies by just specifying that states
have to pay a dispensing fee. I represent a state with almost 200,000
Medicaid beneficiaries and by the end of this decade, one in five Rhode
Islanders will have no choice but to turn to Medicaid for basic health
care. As more and more working families are forced to enroll in
Medicaid, it is our duty to ensure that they are able to access
providers and pharmacies to receive the care they so desperately need.
This legislation sets a minimum $8 dispensing fee for generic drugs,
however there is no specific minimum fee set forth for brand drug
dispensing fees in the bill. Currently, more than half of all
prescription drugs dispensed in the Medicaid program are brand name
drugs with no generic competition. I am concerned that we are not
requiring states to provide a minimum dispensing fee for these drugs.
If states do not set appropriate dispensing fees, I am concerned that
pharmacies will be paid below their cost to dispense prescription drugs
in the Medicaid program. As a result, Medicaid recipients could have
difficulty obtaining the prescription drugs that they need from their
neighborhood pharmacy, and many pharmacies may have to close or reduce
hours.
The total payment to pharmacies for the drug product and dispensing
fee must be adequate to pay pharmacies to buy the drug, dispense the
medication, and have a reasonable return. It is my understanding that
if the current proposed reductions to pharmacy reimbursement in
Medicaid are enacted, states would have to pay double or triple the
dispensing fees currently being paid just so pharmacies can break even.
However, states are already faced with limited funds and I am concerned
that they will not choose such high dispensing fees without being
required to.
Community pharmacies play a crucial role in providing Medicaid
beneficiaries with lifesaving medications. I hope that my colleagues
will take my comments under consideration when moving forward with
these reforms in the Medicaid pharmacy payment system in order to
provide adequate reimbursements to pharmacies dispensing Medicaid
prescriptions.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so
called ``Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.'' The purpose of this bill was
to rein in the deficit in order to offset the costs of rebuilding areas
devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to aid displaced
hurricane victims. Unfortunately, the Deficit Reduction Act does
exactly the opposite. It raises the deficit, while cutting crucial
funding for critical federal programs such as Medicaid ($11.4 billion
in proposed cuts), food stamps ($796 million), student loans ($14.3
billion), and child support enforcement ($4.9 billion); programs
hurricane victims need now more than ever.
The Deficit Reduction Act also hurts residents in my district by
significantly cutting funding for rural development.
This legislation disguises the fact that the $50 billion it proposes
in mandatory cuts will go to offset revenue lost due to the President's
tax cuts passed in the budget resolution earlier this year.
Additionally, this bill facilitates further tax cuts for the wealthy,
leaving nothing for deficit reduction or for hurricane victims.
The Deficit Reduction Act is part of a larger budget resolution that
calls for $57 billion in additional tax cuts, increasing the deficit by
at least $35 billion. After the tax cuts are in place, there will not
be a dime left to pay for Katrina or Rita. Why must those who suffered
at the hands of the hurricanes be asked to sacrifice more?
Since 2003, Congress has passed three huge supplemental
appropriations bills for the cost of the war and reconstruction in
Iraq. I supported these bills because when we put troops in the field,
we stand behind them. As a former Marine, I am committed to that. I ask
my colleagues who support this bill this: We don't offset the costs of
rebuilding Baghdad and Basra; Why do you request we offset the costs
for New Orleans and Biloxi? The bottom line of this bill is that
average Americans are being asked to sacrifice so wealthy Americans can
receive tax cuts.
When the Bush Administration took office in 2001, it inherited a
surplus and predicted that surplus would continue even if tax cuts were
[[Page H10640]]
adopted. The Bush budget was passed by Congress and became law. In
fiscal 2005 there was no surplus, but instead a deficit of $319
billion. Estimates indicate that these deficits will only get worse
over the next ten years, and it will be hurricane victims and the poor
who will pay for it.
Because I serve in Congress for those who need the helping hand of
the government during national emergencies, or who struggle to pay for
college, or who are sick and poor and rely on Medicaid, or who live in
the rural communities of my district, I cannot support the Deficit
Reduction Act and I will vote against its enactment in its present
form.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as a lawmaker, we constantly must make
important decisions while various forces pressure us one way or the
other. Frequently ``doing the right thing'' is not the most popular
choice. Often, ``doing the right thing'' for the majority of Americans
could negatively impact small factions in the process. Rarely is
``doing the right thing'' an easy thing to do.
But ``doing the right thing'' is what my constituents elected me to
do. ``Doing the right thing'' is why I first sought public office, and
why I will continue to do so as long as my body allows. ``Doing the
right thing'' is why I have consistently called for budget
reconciliation and restrained spending. My constituents work hard for
their money, and that money is not meant for the federal government to
take and waste.
I cast a difficult vote against the massive Hurricane spending bill
because it was the right thing to do. It was not easy and it was not
initially popular, but it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately I
lost that vote, and as a result our government slipped even deeper into
a budget deficit. Just as my constituents spend less on other things
when they encounter emergency costs, the federal government must do the
same.
Although it wasn't the easy thing to do, we are now doing the right
thing by slowing the growth of government spending to accommodate for
the hurricane funding. Our Committee chairmen have been meticulous in
cutting wasteful and duplicative spending so that the slowed growth
that federal programs face will be minor. I am proud to have played a
role in that process in the Education and Workforce and Agriculture
Committees.
Over the past few weeks I have met with community pharmacists from
North Carolina and my staff has spoken with dozens on the phone. The
pharmacists believe that slowing the growth of the Medicaid bureaucracy
will negatively impact them to the point that their pharmacies can no
longer operate. As their Representative and as a customer of community
pharmacies, those concerns are extremely important to me.
I approached Chairman Barton and his staff on the issue, and if the
changes made in this bill indeed adversely affect community pharmacists
in the long term to the point that they can no longer operate, we must
promptly revisit the topic with stand alone legislation or some other
technical fix. However, I can not in good conscience vote against a
bill so important to our nation's prosperity because of its effect on
one important interest. That is not to say that their concerns did not
weigh heavily on my mind; the good simply could not be thrown away for
the perfect.
Voting for this bill is the right thing to do, and I hope we will
continue to slow the growth of our federal government. My constituents
know how best to spend their money--not politicians.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering what my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle call budget reconciliation. Ironically,
the hurricanes are being used to rationalize cutting the very programs
the hurricane survivors rely on. In fact, this budget will do more harm
to the poor and unfortunate than the storms.
Let us be clear about the purpose of the legislation before us today:
all of these spending cuts are going towards financing tax cuts. In
recent years, deficits have been the largest in history--indicate that
we are spending far beyond our means. I find it ironic that Republicans
are calling this bill the ``Deficit Reduction Act,'' because it will
actually increase the deficit.
Republicans are asking working families to foot the bill for a
massive tax giveback for the wealthy. Due to the President's previous
tax policies, millionaires get an average tax cut of $103,000 a year
and the new bill will continue this trend. Americans, the young, aged,
sick, poor and the unfortunate will get a reduction in benefits.
I have been before this body on numerous occasions to discuss
priorities, so it is not necessary to go into detail about how
misguided this legislation is. I hear time and time again how the
Republican fiscal policy has been working to stimulate the economy and
create jobs. No one has yet seen the evidence of this so-called
success. My people back in Michigan certainly are not celebrating any
successes of the GOP Congress. And not just in Michigan--poll after
poll shows two-thirds of the American people disapprove of the way the
President is handling the economy.
I frequently hear from constituents who are struggling just to make
ends meet. From veterans who are not getting medical treatment,
students trying to pay for college, farmers and laborers alike--all of
these people are working hard to scrape by and make a decent living in
this country. At minimum wage, they would earn $10,700 per year, barely
one-tenth of the average tax giveback for millionaires.
Meanwhile, my colleagues will ask these hard-working Americans to
foot the bill for another massive tax giveback. Those with particularly
low incomes will be hurt the most. The reconciliation package will cut
food stamps, student aid and Medicaid--all are programs which largely
benefit the most vulnerable members of our society.
The current conflict in Iraq has been entirely funded by the deficit.
During times of war, past presidents have found ways to curb the
deficit through increased revenue, closing tax loopholes and budgetary
enforcement rules such as PAYGO. President Reagan realized that his tax
act was causing large deficits and so in 1982 he supported a repeal of
the parts of his tax bill that had not been enacted. President George
H.W. Bush also realized that the deficit was getting too large and
increased taxes in 1990. It may not have been politically popular, but
it was the right thing to do. Shocking as it may seem to Republicans,
President Bush's tax increase, along with President Clinton's balanced
budget, led us into an unprecedented period of surplus and economic
well-being.
This Administration and this Congress have chosen to ignore the
obvious, opting instead to keep the blinders on and march forward with
their reckless tax policies. Republicans complain incessantly about
``tax and spend'' liberals, but all I see in Congress and the White
House are ``spend and spend'' Republicans who cut programs which
benefit ordinary Americans.
I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have
doubts about this legislation and I urge them to oppose it. This is not
sound policy. We can do far better.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this Republican-controlled
Congress has run higher annual deficits and accrued more debt than ever
before in the history of our Nation. This budgetary irresponsibility is
leading us down a dangerous path and must be stopped.
After the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and with the
continuing costs of our ill-advised war in Iraq, restoring fiscal
discipline has taken on added urgency.
Our responsibility today is to decide how to begin to allocate the
burden of restoring financial order. Our choice is straightforward: we
can place the burden on those least able to bear it by cutting
financial assistance to the poor and social services programs to the
needy, or we can place it on those far more able to bear it by
deferring the billions in tax cuts which were enacted just two years
ago, some provisions of which have yet to take effect.
How we exercise this responsibility will reflect our philosophy on
government, our faithfulness to the concept of a caring community, and
the values of compassion and fairness we hold most important.
The Federal Government should not retreat from its role of caring for
those Americans who are most in need and of enabling every individual
to participate in the remarkable opportunities that America has to
offer. I believe that all Americans have a responsibility, and most
have a desire, to share in our national burdens and to participate in
our national response to crisis. And I believe that every action this
Congress takes must reflect the values and principles that make this
country so unique in its greatness.
This bill is contrary to each of these beliefs, for it imposes
practically the entire burden of putting our fiscal house in order on
the members of our national community who are least able to bear it.
This bill cuts more than $50 billion in mandatory spending on vital
programs, such as food stamps, Medicaid, child support, student loans,
SSI, and child care--$15 billion more than the $35 billion in mandatory
cuts in the original budget resolution.
The bill will lead to 250,000 people losing food stamps, will result
in children missing mental health treatment or simple aids like eye
glasses because of the $12 billion in cuts from Medicaid, and will make
it more difficult for students to pay back student loans.
The bill will cut child support programs and SSI benefits, and will
force a decline in the number of children who receive child care while
their single mothers work.
Soon after considering this bill, we will consider another bill that
proposes to reduce federal taxes by $70 billion. These tax cuts, and
the corresponding benefits, will affect a much different segment of
Americans than the bill now under consideration. Indeed, the majority
of these tax benefits will go to the 0.2 percent of Americans with
annual incomes over $1
[[Page H10641]]
million. They don't need this largesse, and we cannot afford to give it
to them.
Taking from the poor to give to the rich is wrong, and I believe that
our constituents recognize that it's also un-American.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
Republican Budget cut package.
First, let me state that I strongly support balancing the federal
budget and paying off the national debt. I am tremendously proud that
during my first term in the U.S. House, Congress and the White House
worked together in a bipartisan manner to balance the federal budget
for the first time in a generation and produced record budget
surpluses.
Unfortunately, the current Republican Congressional Leadership has
produced a budget plan with harmful cuts to essential services that
does nothing to reduce the budget deficits or offset the costs of
recovery from Hurricane Katrina or the ongoing war in Iraq. At a time
when American families are getting squeezed, the budget reconciliation
package cuts funding for priorities including Medicaid, student loans,
child support and food stamps that assist the working poor and the
middle class.
Specifically, this legislation will cut Medicaid by $11.4 million,
student loans by $14.3 billion, food stamps by $796 million and child
support by $24.1 billion. The bill also breaks the promise of the Farm
Bill by cutting $1 billion from agriculture support and $760 million
from conservation. Although I am pleased this version of the bill
abandons earlier attempts to open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and
coastal areas like the Outer Banks to oil and gas drilling and a few
other modest improvements, these changes in no way compensate for the
bill's fundamental flaws.
Congress should reject this legislation and go back to the drawing
board to produce a responsible federal budget for the American people.
I support pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules to enact budget discipline
and restore fairness and equity to the budget process. I want Congress
and the President to work together across the partisan divide to
balance the budget once again, pay down the national debt and invest in
our people and our country's economic competitiveness in the 21st
century global marketplace.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against these senseless
budget cuts.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, when we passed the federal budget earlier
this year, Democrats offered an alternative that would have achieved a
balanced budget in 10 years . . . 10 years to spread out the pain of
finally paying our bills again and freeing up the future for our
children.
When we passed this budget last Spring, we were told there was no fat
in it--it was all bone. Well, when you cut bone, you fall down.
Today the House is striking out . . . even if this bill passes today,
let it forever be known as the ``3 strikes and you're out'' budget.
Strike 1: It hits hard our senior citizens, who built this great
country . . .
Strike 2: It squeezes our middle class that pays the taxes and
struggles to pay the household bills . . . and
Strike 3: It dumps on our children and students that represent the
future of this nation. Three strikes . . . congratulations, today
Congress hits all 3 components of American society with these budget
cuts.
But let's get to why this bill is before us today. We're not here
because the hurricanes busted the budget. . . . It's not the war . . .
it's that many people in this House demand that we spend the Treasury's
money on tax cuts for wealthier Americans. Period. It's about nothing
more than spending this money on tax cuts--or, more appropriately: tax
increases on our children.
Budgets are a reflection of who we are and what we value. The budget
cuts offered in the House of Representatives today--which I oppose--
simply do not represent the values that we say are important to us in
this nation.
South Texans have been astounded at the depth of cuts in the federal
budget, which means Texas students will be less likely to stay in
school or go to college . . . Low income Texas children will be sicker
with the cut in health benefits . . . Seniors will lose essential
services. . . .
Today's bill will increase the deficit by $20 billion, give more tax
cuts to the wealthy, and hurt those who use student loans, who need
health care and who benefit from rural programs.
We have got to come up with a budget that represents the right
priorities for students, seniors, Katrina families and rural Americans.
We had an opportunity to vote for such a budget last Spring, with the
right priorities, that paid down the deficit--authored by John Spratt--
but the House rejected it.
It is incumbent upon all of us in Congress to help all Americans, not
just the wealthy few. We can do better than this--and we must.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, budgets illustrate the values of our
nation. This year's budget reconciliation bill fails to live up to the
values of the people I am privileged to represent in West Central
Missouri.
The Republican budget opens the 2002 Farm Bill by reducing farm,
rural development, and conservation programs; slashes Medicaid;
diminishes financial aid programs for Missouri's college bound
students; and denies low-income working families access to food and
nutrition initiatives. These reductions in critical rural programs are
recommended at the same time as Republicans push for more expansive tax
cuts for the wealthiest in society.
Most of us in rural Missouri pride ourselves on being prudent with
our money. We balance our checkbooks each month and do not dig too deep
into debt. While running a family is much different than running a
country, these common sense Show-Me State values ought to be replicated
in Congress.
But instead, the Republicans are plunging our country deeper into
debt by passing a budget that includes more tax cuts than spending
cuts. The budget bill ignores our commitments to rebuild the Gulf Coast
after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. It also fails to properly
account for expected future supplemental spending requests for ongoing
military operations.
Our nation's fiscal house is not in order and this bill does nothing
to fix that. Congressional leaders and the President need to go back to
the drawing board and meet in a bipartisan fashion to create a budget
plan that more adequately balances the interests--and values--of the
American people. When George H.W. Bush faced a similar budget crisis,
he had the courage to create a bipartisan budget summit and to
implement needed budget constraints. America is better for it, and I
hope that our leaders today will follow that example.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget reconciliation bill should be
defeated. Congress must do better at representing the interests of
every American, not just the wealthy few. I stand ready to work with
all my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion, ensuring that the budget we
prepare truly represents the values of a caring nation.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose strongly the budget
reconciliation bill under consideration. Those who support this bill
claim it imposes spending discipline to pay for the costs of hurricane
relief; in truth, it only continues the majority's pattern of taking
from the middle class and the needy to give it to the wealthiest
percent.
The American people came together to respond to the devastation
caused by Hurricane Katrina. Families donated record amounts to
charities and opened their doors to those displaced by the storm. But
now the Republicans are using Katrina to divide our Nation again. They
claim that deep cuts of $54 billion are needed in programs like
Medicaid, food stamps and child support enforcement to pay for
hurricane relief. These cuts will neither pay for Katrina relief nor
reduce the deficit. These are being used to pay for a portion of the
$70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that we will be
considering shortly.
Mr. Speaker, these cuts are being made on the backs of the working
class, seniors and middle class families. In many cases, those who have
the least are being made to sacrifice the most. For example, there are
about one million Medicaid recipients in New Jersey. Almost half of
them are children. This budget reconciliation bill would slash funding
for Medicaid by $11.4 billion, putting our nation's most vulnerable
citizens, including those affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and
Wilma, at risk of losing the only health insurance they have.
Another provision in the bill cuts $796 million from food stamps.
Again, how can the majority even consider these cuts when the
hurricanes cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their homes and
livelihoods? Cutting food stamps for the impoverished while giving tax
breaks to wealthiest America is not just bad policy, it is immoral.
New Jersey is hit particularly hard by many of the cuts in this bill.
We all know that the price of heating a home, either with natural gas
or heating oil will be extremely high this year because of rising
energy prices. Families are bracing for higher bills. And yet, the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps people pay their
energy bills when it is needed most is being cut by more than $10
million in New Jersey alone. As a result, about 20,000 New Jerseyans
are expected to lose much needed assistance. I assume those well-to-do
families receiving tax breaks instead will sleep in warm homes this
winter. Why the majority is choosing this path baffles and sorely
disappoints me.
The list of cuts goes on. In New Jersey alone 3,000 mothers will be
dropped from the Women Infant Children (WIC) program which helps
mothers care for their babies before and after birth by ensuring they
get proper healthcare, food and training for being a parent. Five
hundred children in New Jersey currently attending Head Start will be
cut out of this important childhood education and development program.
Two thousand, nine hundred low-income and disabled people will be cut
from Section 8 housing vouchers, all in New
[[Page H10642]]
Jersey alone. New Jersey will lose $11 million for cleaning water for
drinking and recreation. Child support enforcement is also slashed. Mr.
Speaker, I thought the majority believed in accountability and in
fathers paying a fair share for the upbringing of their children. If
they do, why are they cutting funding for enforcing child support
collections by nearly $5 billion?
A college education will soon get even more expensive if this bill
passes. 125,000 college students in New Jersey will be affected. That's
because the plan makes $14.3 billion in cuts to federal student
financial aid, the largest cut in history. The result will be nearly $8
billion in new charges that will raise the cost of college loans--
through new fees and higher interest--for millions of American students
and families who borrow to pay for college. For the typical student
borrower, already saddled with $17,500 in debt, these new fees and
higher interest charges could cost up to $5,800.
It is wrong to cut financial aid for students and families struggling
to pay for college in order to pay for more tax breaks for the richest
Americans. Financial barriers should never prevent a qualified student
from going to college, and that is why America has long since made the
commitment to help all Americans pay for it. Federal support for
student loans is good for our economy and world leadership. Using these
funds to pay for tax breaks for people who need them least robs us of
an important investment in our future.
Mr. Speaker, this budget reconciliation bill is terribly misguided.
Why should we have yet another tax cut for the top one percent, paid
for with cuts to investments in critical areas like health, environment
and education? And why, further, should we go even deeper into debt--
borrowing even more money from China--for plans that we should be
ashamed to force upon our children and grandchildren? Together we can
do better, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
this reckless and misguided budget reconciliation package.
At their heart, budgets are about our priorities. And the priorities
we choose reflect the values we hold dear.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this budget represents the priorities
of the American people--and it flies directly in the face of the values
that have always made this nation shine.
First of all, let's dispense with the fiction that this measure is
some kind of down payment on the majority's newfound commitment to
fiscal responsibility. In point of fact, the net effect of these
spending cuts--when paired with their accompanying tax cuts--will be to
actually increase the deficit by $20 billion. So much for fiscal
responsibility.
And where are these cuts coming from? Are we scaling back the
billions in excess payments to HMOs and drug companies in the Medicare
bill? Or the billions in tax breaks for corporate interests in the FSC/
ETI bill? Or the billions in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in
the energy bill? Of course not.
Instead, in the aftermath of a lethal hurricane, with stagnant wages
and rising poverty, 45 million Americans uninsured, and unprecedented
global competition, we are slashing Medicaid for the poor, food stamps
for the hungry and financial assistance to families trying to afford
college.
This budget is a disgrace. Parts of our Nation were recently
devastated by a natural disaster. Tonight, the damage being done is
entirely man-made, and entirely avoidable. The wounds are self-
inflicted.
Because I sit on the Education and Workforce Committee, I want to say
a word about the Republicans' unprecedented Raid on Student Aid.
When the Higher Education Act was signed into law in 1965, it began a
40-year federal commitment to throw open the doors of higher education
to every college-ready student, regardless of their family's income. It
was the right thing to do for our students--and the smart thing to do
for our country.
You see, in addition to the importance of giving every child the
opportunity to reach his or her full potential, the reality is that
college graduates earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than their
counterparts who don't attend college. That's an enormous return the
taxpayers' original investment--an investment that is only going to get
more important as we compete to win in the global marketplace of the
21st century.
Which is why it is simply astonishing that this package includes the
single largest cut to federal student aid in the 40-year history of the
Higher Education program. By draining $15 billion out of student
financial assistance, we are effectively tacking $5800 onto the cost of
college for today's average student. We are making college less
affordable at a time when we should be doing precisely the opposite.
Predictably, the result will be less people going to college.
The Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance
has already projected that financial barriers will prevent 4.4 million
high school graduates from attending a four-year public college over
the next decade, and another two million high school graduates from
attending any college at all. This reconciliation package is going to
make that statistic much, much worse.
And for what? To pay--or I should really say partially pay--for tax
cuts, over 50 percent of which go to the top .2 percent of households
already earning over $1 million a year.
Mr. Speaker, the choices in our budgets should reflect the values and
priorities of the American people. This budget fails that test. I am
confident that if this budget was supposed to be a mirror of American
values, the American people would not recognize themselves. We can do
so much better than this.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let's have a little reality check, Mr. Speaker. There
are Republicans cowering in fear right now about their vote on this
immoral budget bill. That's right. There are Republicans right now,
huddled in their offices, who are scared to death that their hard
working constituents will be furious if they vote for cutting student
loans for their kids, or cutting health care for pregnant woman and
little children, or literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry
kids so that rich people can get tax cuts.
Mr. Speaker, those Republicans ought to be scared and I want to offer
them some friendly advice. Remember, I warned them that seniors would
be very unhappy with the Medicare prescription drug bill they insisted
on passing, and I was right. So now I'm warning you that, no matter how
sarcastic or self-righteous your leaders get tonight, your constituents
get it: cuts in health care and education for them, tax cuts for
millionaires, and unprecedented increases in deficits. Don't kid
yourself. The American people see it.
It is very dangerous to underestimate the American people, and there
are many Republicans that know that. All the fancy arguments that say
``reduced spending is not really a cut'' are going nowhere, and they
know it. They can walk the plank for their leaders tonight, but if they
think they are going to get away with it, they should think again.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4241,
legislation that will require approximately $57 billion in federal
spending reductions. Deceptively titled the Deficit Reduction Act, the
bill resorts to trickery--a sleight of hand in which fiscal
responsibility is promised, but never delivered. H.R. 4241 could
actually increase the budget deficit by $35 billion, while instituting
draconian cuts to essential federal programs, such as Medicaid and
student loan.
Proponents of the bill suggest that such cuts are necessary to offset
the recovery and reconstruction costs of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
This assertion is curious at best. Since 2003, Congress has approved
three colossal supplemental spending bills for the war and
reconstruction effort in Iraq without providing any offsets as proposed
by Democrats. Why are Republicans suddenly so interested in offsetting
the reconstruction of Biloxi, but not the reconstruction of Baghdad?
The American people should not be misled. These long-planned spending
cuts have little to do with Biloxi or Baghdad. They, instead, are a
necessary prelude to another Republican effort to shepherd through
Congress tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest
Americans. In fact, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act is a part of a
much broader budget resolution that calls for a total of $106 billion
in additional tax cuts.
With tax cuts for the rich in the offing, Republicans propose to
restore fiscal restraint by imposing cuts to federal programs that
benefit the most vulnerable Americans. The bill, for example, cuts
Medicaid spending by $11.4 billion. Medicaid currently provides
critical health care to 50 million low-income children, families,
seniors, and people with disabilities. Cutting the program will force
thousands into the ranks of the uninsured.
The bill would allow states to increase cost-sharing and impose new
premiums on many categories of Medicaid beneficiaries. Research shows
that when cost-sharing is increased significantly for low-income
people, their use of health care services declines and their health
status worsens. To make matters worse, H.R. 4241 allows states, for the
first time, to let health care providers refuse care if a beneficiary
cannot afford the co-payment. In doing so, a state can bypass an
entitlement in current law that provides children with coverage of
medical care and health services. This change could negatively affect
more than 1/5 of children covered by Medicaid--more than 5 million
children overall.
This Republican budget reconciliation bill also calls for $14.3
billion in cuts to student loan programs. The State of California has
the highest number of student borrowers at 496,822. Tuition at public
universities has skyrocketed by 57 percent over the last five years,
and yet the GOP proposes the largest cut in the history of student
aid--resulting in the typical student borrower having to pay as much as
$5,800 more for his or her college
[[Page H10643]]
loans. Ultimately, cutting the student loan program compromises
America's global competitiveness and the economic vitality of Silicon
Valley.
H.R. 4241 also requires $4.9 billion in cuts to child support
enforcement, dramatically impairing states' ability to enforce child
support orders. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated
that the bill will lead to $24.1 billion in reduced child support
collections over the next ten years, including a $4.9 billion loss to
California's single parents that rely on child support to survive.
The Republican leadership's reprehensible cuts sadly extend to other
equally important federal priorities, including $577 million in cuts to
foster care programs, $796 million to food stamps, and $732 million
from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Millions of Americans rely
on these critical federal programs as a safety net and a platform for
upward mobility.
As an advocate for fiscal responsibility, I cannot support a proposal
that will worsen the federal budget's bottom line, while giving short
shrift to the needs of working Americans. I am proud to belong to the
party of fiscal responsibility. In the 1990s, President Clinton and
Congressional Democrats erased record deficits and ushered in an era of
record surpluses. Our Nation now needs to return to the very practices
that offered prosperity in the 1990s, which is what my Democratic
colleagues and I sought to do earlier this year during debate on the
FY2006 Budget Resolution. The Democratic plan would have instituted
pay-as-you-go rules and balanced the budget by 2012.
The federal budget should embody our nation's values, not undermine
them as this budget amendment does. President Bush and his allies in
Congress have been poor stewards of our national finances by placing
special interests above the people's interests, and now they expect
working Americans to shoulder the costs of their reckless policies.
I oppose the appalling cuts required by H.R. 4241, and I encourage my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this harmful
measure.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, while the Rule governing the pending budget
reconciliation bill through a self-executing clause eliminated
provisions that would have opened ANWR to energy development and
enabled long-standing moratoria on OCS oil and gas drilling to be
lifted, largely flying under the radar screen are provisions still
contained in the pending legislation which would amount to the largest
fire sale of federal lands in our Nation's history.
These provisions would turn the clock back on federal public land
policy to the days of the Homestead Act of 1862, signed into law by
President Lincoln, with a cruel twist.
The Homestead Act was appropriate in its era to help settle the West,
transferring roughly 270 million acres of federal lands into the hands
of private citizens for homes and farms. Largely as a result of that
law, the West was transformed, it was populated, States were created,
cities were built, and these areas became an integral and valuable part
of the United States.
However, when the usefulness of this Act expired, it was repealed,
and since the Federal Land and Management Policy Act of 1976 it has
been the official policy of the United States not to divest public
domain land holdings, allowing exceptions when in the public interest.
The provisions pending in the budget reconciliation bill before us
today, however, would under the guise of reforming the Mining Law of
1872, signed into law by President Grant, and still on the books today,
transform this law into a general federal lands sale program with no
nexus to mining.
As the Denver Post editorialized today, ``the amendments really
aren't about mining; they're about real estate speculation.'' The
editorial noted: ``It's an invitation to condo developers, mini-mansion
homebuilders and other speculators to snatch up federal lands that
otherwise would never leave federal ownership.''
With a wink and a nod, this budget proposal sells not just the
minerals under these federal lands, but the pristine lands that just
happen to be located near high-priced zip codes.
Because these provisions eliminate the existing moratorium on the
patenting--the sale--of mining claims and dissociate the act of staking
and maintaining a mining claim on western federal lands from having to
make a showing that a valuable mineral deposit actually exists--under
the subterfuge of a `mining law' vast areas of federal lands would be
put on the sales block for either $1,000 an acre or the fair market
value of the surface estate, regardless, and I stress, regardless, of
whether there are billions of dollars worth of underlying valuable
hardrock minerals such as gold and silver.
Ironically, these provisions have the potential to put on the sales
block more than 270 million acres of federal lands, equivalent to what
was disposed of under the Homestead Act of 1862.
And to be clear, these land sales could take place in National
Forests, Wilderness Study Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern. Further, while the legislation purports to exempt National
Parks, it does nothing to stop the sale of the 900 mining claims
already existing in park units to developers.
We are literally looking at the prospect of McDonalds, Wal-Marts,
condos, or any other type of commercial or private developments
springing up smack dab within some of America's most cherished units of
the National Park System.
Incredible, simply incredible, and all being done without a single
Congressional hearing on these provisions.
I am on record as having requested the Rules Committee to omit these
provisions from the budget reconciliation bill or in the alternative,
allow me to offer an amendment which I am certain would have garnered
sufficient votes to strip these egregious provisions from the
legislation.
I was not afforded an opportunity to offer that amendment. But I can
guarantee one thing, as this proposed massive give-away of the public's
lands become more known to the American public there will be a great
hue and cry.
These provisions not only turn over many of our most cherished
natural resource heritage sites to development, but will rob the public
of recreational activities and tourism. They will be met with ``no
trespassing signs'' on lands they have traditionally used for hunting,
fishing and other recreational pursuits.
There are alternatives. Rather than enact these horrific provisions
which CBO estimates would raise a paltry $158 million over the next
five years, we could, as I have long advocated, engage in real reform
of the Mining Law of 1872.
We should maintain the bipartisan moratorium on the patenting of
mining claims that I advocated and which has been in place since fiscal
year 1994, and impose an 8% royalty on the production of valuable
minerals from mining claims which would raise $350 million over the
next five years.
For these reasons, and many others, I urge a no vote on this ill-
conceived budget bill.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, the federal government is facing a
serious deficit due to recession, attacks on our Nation and the ongoing
war on terrorism. The good news is that the deficit is going down and,
although it doesn't go as far as I would like, this legislation reduces
the deficit further.
Much-needed tax relief helped boost the economy and create more than
4 million jobs since May of 2003. Following three straight years of tax
relief, tax revenues are up and the deficit is down by nearly $200
billion.
The growing economy makes a difference, but Congress must also take
action on the spending side of the equation. For the first time in more
than 20 years, we are on track to reduce discretionary spending by
almost one percent. However, more than half of federal spending takes
place through programs with budgets that essentially run on auto-pilot.
Until we address the runaway spending growth in these programs, which
is outpacing growth of the economy, Congress will never be able to
balance the budget.
Republicans in Congress have developed a plan that will reform these
auto-pilot programs and save taxpayer dollars in order to reduce the
deficit. The Deficit Reduction Act includes program reforms totaling
nearly $50 billion in net savings over the next five years. To put this
in perspective, this slows the rate of growth in the automatic portion
of the budget by one-tenth of a percent. No, this is not nearly enough
to close the deficit gap, but it is an important start that will have
positive effects.
Although I support the savings in this bill, I am extremely
disappointed that the portion of our plan that would reduce dependency
on foreign oil by allowing exploration in a small portion of the Arctic
Refuge was struck from the bill. Raising $3.678 billion over five years
through oil and gas leases would not only help reduce the deficit but
would also increase our energy security. The House has overwhelmingly
voted to open ANWR in the past, and there is no good reason why this
bill should not include it.
All areas of government must contribute to the savings in this bill,
and agriculture is no exception. However, with high fuel costs, the
last thing our producers need is to bear a disproportionate burden of
the deficit-reducing effort. I worked to ensure that agriculture's
contribution treats farmers fairly, protects the core policies of the
2002 Farm Bill, and looks at all areas of spending within USDA. Our
plan reduces farm program direct payments by just one percent for the
next four years and delays elimination of the Step 2 cotton
competitiveness program until August, 2006.
I support the reforms we are making in the food stamp program to help
ensure that benefits are going to those who are truly eligible and in
need. Despite the claims to the contrary, we are not reducing nutrition
assistance for a single U.S. citizen who meets the eligibility
requirements. Rather, our reforms will direct benefits to U.S. citizens
and discontinue
[[Page H10644]]
the practice of automatically granting enrollment to certain groups of
recipients without first determining their eligibility. This
irresponsible practice has resulted in millions of dollars of benefits
going to those who are not eligible.
Our plan strengthens Medicaid, which has helped many low-income
Americans gain access to healthcare. Federal Medicaid spending has
increased 97 percent since 1995 and will continue to grow by an
unsustainable seven percent each year if no reforms are made.
Because Medicaid also represents a large share of state budgets,
provisions offered by a bipartisan coalition of governors are included
in our plan. These provisions include requiring more accurate
prescription drug pricing and closing loopholes that have allowed
wealthy Americans to deplete their assets and collect benefits intended
for those who truly need them. We also require states to better enforce
current laws and prevent illegal immigrants from getting Medicaid.
These reforms will save $12 billion through the end of this decade.
Some in Congress, and their allies outside these halls, attack this
plan and willfully misrepresent the effects it will have on Americans.
Let's be clear: Congress is not cutting programs. What we are doing is
taking a step to slow the unsustainable growth rate of these programs
and reform them to prevent waste and abuse.
Those who criticize this effort have offered no alternative of their
own. Because they are bereft of new ideas, they are content to carp
from the sidelines. But left to their own devices, they would increase
taxes on hard-working American families to grow the size of an already
massive and wasteful government. The bottom line is that real solutions
and responsible leadership are needed to balance the federal
government's checkbook. By reforming government and renewing our
commitment to hardworking American taxpayers, our plan will continue to
reduce the deficit and expand the economy.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise In strong support of the
Deficit Reduction Act.
In recent weeks, much public and media focus has been placed on one
potential provision in this legislation that called for drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I respect all those who have called my
office and otherwise expressed their opinion about this important
issue.
While I am well aware of the ``pros'' and ``cons'' of domestic
drilling, I regret that this ``hot button'' issue has allowed some to
lose focus on the basic legislation before Congress: how to reduce the
federal budget deficit. This debate should be about the tough choices
we are making to reduce the deficit.
Over the past several years, our fiscal priorities have reflected a
historic convergence of events: a recession that began in the year
2000; the 9/11 terrorist attacks; the need to seriously upgrade
security for our homeland; a multi-front war against terrorism,
including Iraq and Afghanistan; AND natural disasters in South Asia and
along our Gulf Coast.
At the same time, we have maintained a commitment to strengthening
our economy. As a result, millions of new jobs have been created,
unemployment is down, and Americans have more money in their pockets.
Still, we can--and must--do better. And I am pleased that this Congress
is serious about making our government more efficient.
The Fiscal Year 2006 budget resolution calls for significant
reductions in federal spending. This year, the House Appropriations
Committee on which I serve, passed all of its FY 2006 spending bills by
July 4th--on time and under budget--holding domestic discretionary
spending below last year's levels for the first time in a generation.
Further, the committee eliminated 98 programs for a savings of $4.3
billion.
The Deficit Reduction Act mandates more restraint and less spending.
By slowing the growth of spending and reforming and eliminating
wasteful programs, the House is reducing the deficit.
The Deficit Reduction Act provides $50 billion in budget savings over
the next five years. And for those who claim this goes too far, let's
be clear that this represents just one half of one percent of the $7.8
trillion in ``entitlement spending'' anticipated over the next five
years. If American families are making sacrifices and ``tightening
belts,'' the federal government can too.
Clearly, some are also concerned with the form and size of some of
the budget reforms in Medicaid, Medicare, student loans, food stamps,
and other programs. In reality, the Deficit Reduction Act takes great
care to protect our most vulnerable citizens while continuing to ensure
taxpayer dollars are spent as wisely and efficiently as possible.
Mr. Speaker, the budget decisions we make today are tough but they
are also long overdue. The hardworking American taxpayers are watching.
They want us to put this federal government on a ``crash diet.''
The Deficit Reduction Act is a necessary step toward renewed fiscal
responsibility, and it deserves the House's full support.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as one who has long urged my colleagues to cut
spending, and who has consistently voted against excessive and
unconstitutional expenditures, I am sure many in this body expect me to
be an enthusiastic supporter of H.R. 4241, the Deficit Reduction Act.
After all, supporters of this bill are claiming it dramatically reforms
federal programs and puts Congress back on the road to fiscal
responsibility.
For all the passionate debate this bill has generated, its effects on
the federal government and taxpayers are relatively minor. H.R. 4241
does not even reduce federal expenditures. That's right--if H.R. 4241
passes, the federal budget, including entitlement programs, will
continue to grow. H.R. 4241 simply slows down the rate of growth of
federal spending. The federal government may spend less in the future
if this bill passes then it otherwise would, but it will still spend
more than it does today. To put H.R. 4241 in perspective, consider that
this bill reduces spending by less than $50 billion over 10 years,
while the most recent ``emergency'' supplemental passed by this
Congress appropriated $82 billion to be spent this year.
H.R. 4241 reduces total federal entitlement expenditures by one half
of one percent over the next five years. For all the trumpeting about
how this bill gets ``runaway entitlement spending'' under control, H.R.
4241 fails to deal with the biggest entitlement problem facing our
nation--the multi-billion dollar Medicare prescription drug plan, which
will actually harm many seniors by causing them to lose their private
coverage, forcing them into an inferior government run program. In
fact, the Medicare prescription drug plan will cost $55 billion in
fiscal year 2006 alone, while H.R. 4241 will reduce spending by only $5
billion next year. Yet, some House members who have voted for every
expansion of the federal government considered by this Congress will
vote for these small reductions in spending and then brag about their
fiscal conservatism to their constituents.
As is common with bills claiming to reduce spending, the majority of
spending reductions occur in the later years of the plan. Since it is
impossible to bind future Congresses, this represents little more than
a suggestion that spending in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 reflect the
levels stated in this bill. My fiscally responsible colleagues should
keep in mind that rarely, if ever, does a Congress actually follow
through on spending reductions set by a previous Congress. Thus,
relying on future Congresses to cut spending in the ``out years'' is a
recipe for failure.
One provision of the bill that would have undeniably benefited the
American people, the language opening up the ANWR region of Alaska and
expanding offshore drilling, has been removed from the bill. As my
colleagues know, increased gas prices are a, if not the, top concern of
the American people. Expanding the supply of domestically produced oil
is an obvious way to address these concerns; yet, Congress refuses to
take this reasonable step.
Mr. Speaker, some of the entitlement reforms in H.R. 4241 are
worthwhile. For example, I am hopeful the provision allowing states to
require a copayment for Medicaid will help relieve physicians of the
burden of providing uncompensated care, which is an issue of great
concern to physicians in my district. Still, I am concerned that the
changes in pharmaceutical reimbursement proposed by the bill may
unfairly impact independent pharmacies, and I am disappointed we will
not get to vote on an alternative that would have the same budgetary
impact without harming independent pharmacies.
I also question the priorities of singling out programs, such as
Medicaid and food stamps, that benefit the neediest Americans, while
continuing to increase spending on corporate welfare and foreign aid.
Just two weeks ago, Congress passed a bill sending $21 billion
overseas. That is $21 billion that will be spent this fiscal year, not
spread out over five years. Then, last week, Congress passed, on
suspension of the rules, a bill proposing to spend $130 million on
water projects--not in Texas, but in foreign nations. Meanwhile, the
Financial Services Committee, on which I sit, has begun the process of
reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, which uses taxpayers' money to
support business projects that cannot attract capital in the market.
Mr. Speaker, the Export-Import Bank's biggest beneficiaries are Boeing
and communist China. I find it hard to believe that federal funding
that benefits Fortune 500 companies and China is a higher priority for
most Americans than Medicaid and food stamps.
H.R. 4241 fails to address the root of the spending problem--the
belief that Congress can solve any problem simply by creating a new
federal program or agency. However, with the federal government's
unfounded liabilities projected to reach as much as $50 trillion by the
end of this year, Congress can no longer avoid serious efforts to rein
in spending. Instead of the smoke-and-mirrors approach of H.R. 4241,
Congress should begin the journey
[[Page H10645]]
toward fiscal responsibility by declaring a 10 percent reduction in
real spending, followed by a renewed commitment to reduce spending in a
manner consistent with our obligation to uphold the Constitution and
the priorities of the American people. This is the only way to make
real progress on reducing spending without cutting programs for the
poor while increasing funding for programs that benefit foreign
governments and corporate interests.
{time} 0115
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House
Resolution 560, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as
amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 4241 will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on suspending the rules and agreeing to House Resolution 546.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217,
noes 215, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 601]
AYES--217
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--215
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--2
Boswell
Towns
{time} 0141
Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GILCHREST and Mr. LaTOURETTE changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________