[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.

                          ____________________