[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 162 (Friday, December 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H11959-H11968]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. 1932, DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation 
pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget 
for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95), with a House amendment thereto, 
insist on the House amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the 
Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Spratt moves that, to the maximum extent possible 
     within the scope of the conference, the managers on the part 
     of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of 
     the two Houses on the House amendment to the bill S. 1932 be 
     instructed to recede to the Senate by eliminating House 
     provisions reducing eligibility for food stamps (sections 
     1601 and 1603 of the House amendment), and reducing funding 
     for child support enforcement (sections 8319 and 8320 of the 
     House amendment), and repealing the Continued Dumping and 
     Subsidy Offset (the ``Byrd Amendment'' (section 8701 of the 
     House amendment)) and modifying the Mining Law of 1872 
     (sections 6201 through 6207 of the House amendment); such 
     managers be instructed to recede to the Senate by eliminating 
     the sections of the House amendment that reduce Medicaid 
     benefits and allow increases in beneficiary costs (sections 
     3111, 3112, 3113, 3114, 3115, 3121, 3122, 3123, 3124, 3125, 
     3134, and 3147 of the House amendment) and by reducing to the 
     maximum extent possible increases in interest rates and fees 
     paid by student and parent borrowers on student loans 
     contained in sections 2115, 2116, and 2117 of the House 
     amendment, and by adopting the Senate provisions concerning 
     Pell grants (sections 7101 and 7102 of S. 1932); and such 
     managers be instructed to recede to the Senate by adopting 
     the Senate provision eliminating the stabilization fund that 
     makes payments to Medicare Advantage Regional Plans (section 
     6112 of S. 1932), adopting the Senate provision on Medicare 
     Advantage risk adjustment (section 6111 of S. 1932), and 
     adopting the Senate provision on Medicare physician payments 
     (section 6105 of S. 1932).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay out now the basics of the motion to 
instruct conferees for the budget reconciliation bill going to 
conference.
  First of all, we would move to preserve the safety net. This motion 
instructs the conferees to eliminate House provisions that would cut 
food stamps by $697 million and to reject

[[Page H11960]]

Medicaid cuts of even more, $11 to $12 billion in the House bill.
  In addition, we would move to protect higher education. Because the 
budget bill as now written on the House side calls for substantial 
changes in interest rates and fees, by our calculation raising the cost 
of student loans by as much as $5,800.
  Next we would support personal responsibility. The motion instructs 
the conferees to eliminate House cuts of $4.9 billion in Federal 
spending on child support enforcement programs that are run by the 
States but partially subsidized by the Federal Government. This is the 
most misguided fiscal savings in this whole bill.
  This motion instructs the conferees to eliminate the House provision 
that would prevent hundreds of companies also that are hurt by unfair 
foreign trade known as dumping through the continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act which the budget reconciliation bill would 
eliminate.
  This motion also instructs the House conferees to accept the Senate 
conferees' provisions that cut subsidies to Medicare private insurance 
plans by as much as 4.4 percent beginning January 1 and to prevent the 
planned 4.4 percent cut in physician payments by taking funds instead 
out of the Medicare Stabilization Program, the Medicare Stabilization 
Fund, which is part of the Medicare advantage and Medicare 
modernization bill which was the prescription drug-Medicare bill.
  This motion instructs conferees to protect taxpayer-owned property as 
well and the environment by eliminating House provisions that would 
sell huge tracts of Federal land at below market value and expose them 
to purchase commercial and mining development.
  These are the instructions we would give to our conferees going into 
this conference as to where the House should stand with respect to 
positions it has previously taken and with respect to positions the 
Senate has taken. I will say more about them later.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity just now to look at this motion 
to instruct conferees, and let me first remind my colleagues that this 
is a nonbinding symbolic vote. This is not substantive; this is 
symbolism. It was interesting today that the minority had a big press 
conference to celebrate Christmas and celebrate the end of the session, 
and they promised a Christmas present to the American people and that 
was a big box, and on the box it said the Democrats were going to give 
the American people a Democratic Congress.
  The rest of the story, of course, is that, if you looked inside the 
box, there was not anything in there. If you opened the box, if you 
unwrapped it and you looked inside, what you would find is a lot of 
that little popcorn matter that you get that gets messy all over your 
house, but no substance whatsoever. Again, today no substance. In fact, 
interestingly enough, today once again the minority party here in this 
House brings forward a motion that equates the amount of money you 
spend in America with your level of compassion; not substance, not 
results, not is the program working, not are people being helped by the 
policies that have been put forth. But, if you spend more money, you 
must care. If you do not spend enough money, or the amount of money we 
are willing to spend, you must be scrooge at Christmastime.
  We had people come here to protest what was happening in this budget 
bill. And what was their protest? Spend more money. Not get better 
results, not help more people, not make sure that people who are 
starving get the food stamps they deserve, but spend more money.
  At the holidays we should recognize this probably better than at any 
other time, that it is not the size of the gift, it is not the fancy 
paper on the outside of the box, it is not the amount of money you 
spend that determines your love, your compassion, whether or not you 
are a true brother and sister to your fellow man; but it is whether or 
not that gift actually has the results that are intended.
  Time and time again we have demonstrated through hearings at the 
Budget Committee, through hearings at all of the authorizing committees 
how these programs are just eating up more money, they are spending 
more money, we are hiring more bureaucrats; but we are using the same 
old system designed oftentimes back in the 1960s before man even walked 
on the Moon; and we assume that today in 2005 those programs do not 
need any reform, do not need any help, do not need any oversight. Just 
let them keep going. Oh, and spend more money at the same time.
  Well, we have an opportunity, and it is an opportunity to reform. It 
is a plan that we have put out very carefully throughout this year. 
Today is not the first time we rush to the floor with a piece of paper 
about what we are going to do. All year long we have been working to 
try and make sure that food stamps were working better, that the 
services to the poor and the indigent were effective in getting the 
results that they truly need.
  Instead, what we have today is the opportunity to vote for this 
symbolic motion to instruct conferees to basically rip out all those 
savings, to not do anything about reforming those programs but just 
spend more money. Spend more money.
  Let me tell you that, as colleagues, the answer to the most vexing 
problems in our country today will not be solved by just spending more 
money. They will be solved when we take responsibility for the job that 
we have been given to ensure that these programs that people work hard, 
that people pay taxes to us in order to invent and implement, that they 
are truly working, that they are helping the people who deserve it the 
most, and that they ensure that we get results. Not just the rhetoric 
of reform, but results from reform.
  We have the opportunity today to go to conference to work out our 
differences on a whole host of very important issues. I will tell my 
colleagues that, if you are worried about this vote, come down and vote 
for it. Go ahead, vote for it; it is symbolic. If you want to vote for 
an empty popcorn-filled box of Christmas presents under the tree, go 
ahead and vote for it. I do not think there is any reason why you 
cannot.
  The real vote will be when the conference meets to talk about reform. 
The real vote will be when we have an opportunity to talk about truly 
helping people, not just handing out more money and saying, go ahead, 
get away from us, do not bother us any more, we have given you more 
money.
  I have seen time and time again how Members of this body have gone 
home with press releases saying, we have increased the funds for this 
program. You should not be complaining, we have increased the money to 
this policy. We have put more money into this bureaucracy. Why are you 
complaining?
  The reason they are complaining is because throwing more money at it 
does not work.
  If you want to measure compassion at this very important time on the 
calendar by just spending more money, then I have no doubt you will 
find a way to do that. But if you want to ensure that these programs 
and these policies are truly helping the people in need, then we need 
to meet as a conference, we need to put all of those policies on the 
table to discuss, and we need to reform those policies to ensure that 
they are truly helping the people intended.
  The difference here today is that we have a plan. It does achieve 
savings, but it delivers a better product for the people intended. The 
difference on the other side is that they have rhetoric, they have 
empty promises, and they have the age-old adage of throw more money at 
it and just hope and pray and assume that it will get fixed. I do not 
think the American people sent us here to throw more money at it. I 
think what they have sent us here to do, particularly at this time, is 
to show compassion, is to get to work, serious work about the reform of 
these programs so that they truly help the people in need.
  Go ahead and vote for this motion to instruct if you feel so moved to 
throw money at the problem. It is nonbinding; it will not affect the 
outcome of the conference. We will meet, we will negotiate and discuss 
these important reforms, and we will bring back to

[[Page H11961]]

this body an important package of reforms in a plan that will achieve 
savings for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there certainly was a lot of emotion in the 
speech given by the chairman; but I suspect in this time of the year 
where so many people are concerned about our sick, our poor and our 
disabled, that rather than being moved by the rhetoric of the 
Republicans, we might take a deep breath and find out who is on our 
side as Democrats.
  I know that the poor and the aged and disabled do not have much of a 
political voice, but somehow in this holiday season the spiritual 
leaders probably understand this a little better than some of us. These 
are the charitable organizations that reach out, Catholic Charities, 
the Jewish Council Against Poverty, the Protestant Council. Each and 
every day they run soup kitchens and try to assist people, especially 
mothers that have no one in the household to assist them in raising 
their children.
  Any specialist will tell you, if you do not give a kid the right 
start, you do not give them a chance to get to school, and cut the 
resources from under him to get an education, it is not just why can 
they not do it my way or why did he not get an inheritance. It is a 
question of where do these kids end up.
  They first end up not paying much taxes since they do not have the 
talents to get a job; but worse than that, in New York we spend $84,000 
for every kid who gets in trouble who finds himself on Ryker's Island, 
and I do not think you have to be a health specialist to know that when 
you cut the ability of people to get access to health care, they do not 
necessarily die right away. More often than not, they end up at the 
most expensive of expenditures, and that is in our hospitals.
  I do not know what the poor and the disabled have ever done to the 
majority or, indeed, what the moral majority, why they would wait until 
Christmastime to show just how mean they can get. Even if they cannot 
control this meanness, why would they do it at a time when they have 
given hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts to the very wealthy?
  I am not that good spiritually, but know my friends on the other side 
of the aisle that are so concerned with the Bible and biblical phrases, 
there is one thing somewhere, and I do not know all of the facts as is 
properly recorded, but it deals with a bunch of rich people that could 
not get in heaven because they had not treated the lesser of Jesus' 
brothers and sisters the way he would want. I have never seen a more 
classic example of the violation of that spirit than what I have seen 
in the last couple of weeks on this floor.
  So you can raise your voice all you want, you can scream about 
spending, but it just seems to me that there are no religious leaders 
that I can think of that feel they have an obligation to take care of 
those people who are in the hospital, who are hungry, who are without 
clothes, who are without food, and certainly the children who are 
really the least powerful of all, if you had to do it, why do you not 
just do what you do in conference and come out and say that we 
authorized it? But to have this heavy blow at a time when you are 
reducing the taxes on the very rich is not only wrong, but it smacks of 
being immoral.
  This is the wrong thing to do. This is the wrong time to do it, and 
it is something that I am confident is not in accord with the moral 
teachings or the spiritual beliefs of anyone in this body.
  What you are doing is saying that you have to cut spending. Why can 
Iraq not get on that list of not wanting to spend? Why can we not just 
slow down the rebuilding of Baghdad and rebuild the health of some of 
our people and the schools of some of our people? Why can we not invest 
in Americans and make them the most productive people that we can make? 
Why do you pick on the most vulnerable in Medicare, which the other 
side is probably going to hit as badly as we hit Medicaid?
  What are these programs? The programs are listed as SSI. What does it 
mean, you have to be blind, disabled or aged? Medicare, you have to be 
old and sick? Medicaid, you have to be poor and sick? The programs are 
designed to bring the moneys to the mothers who have been abandoned or 
just for children, and the other one is education.
  Is there anyone that you missed, the sick, the poor, the young? Is 
there anyone else that you want to include that programs should be cut? 
I might also add, with capital gains tax cuts and corporate dividend 
tax cuts, is there anyone that is rich that you missed in terms of not 
giving a tax cut?
  What a combination package you have given to the American people and 
what a time to do it. So whether you call it Christmas or holiday 
seasons or Chanukah or whether you call it Kwanzaa, you sure picked the 
right time to hit the wrong people at this time of the year.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the 
time of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. McHenry), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I say Merry Christmas to you. We are presenting 
you a budget that the American people can be proud of. To the 
Democrats, I say, happy holidays. But I will tell you, ladies and 
gentlemen of the House, my colleagues, what we are doing here is right 
for the American people.
  My colleague from New York asks, have we touched everyone in America? 
Well, yes. If you live in a $2 million house, you will not qualify for 
aid to the poor. Under this budget, we pass that reform; that if you 
live in a million dollar house, if you live in a $2 million house, if, 
heaven forbid, you live in a $10 million house, you would not be 
eligible for Medicare. You would not be eligible for the government 
paying for your nursing home. That is the type of reform that we have 
in this budget. It is the right thing to do.
  Beyond that, if you are a student in college today, if you are a 
student in college today, you will be eligible for that student loan 
next year under this budget. You will be eligible for that same loan 
you got today. The only difference would be that the Federal Government 
would not be paying that loan giver, that company that provides the 
loan, we would not be paying them 9.5 percent interest. We would go 
back to a market-based interest, which we all know is somewhere around 
5 percent today. That alone would save $13 billion over 5 years.
  So, ladies and gentlemen of the House, if you vote for this motion to 
instruct, you are voting against reform; you are voting against 
savings; you are voting against positive changes that will help more 
Americans. And it is the right thing to do.
  Look, Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is something that Mr. 
Grinch would be proud of. So, ladies and gentlemen, I bid you merry 
Christmas, and ask that you vote against this motion to instruct and 
vote for our conservative, realistic, reform-based budget.
  Merry Christmas to all.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Education and 
Workforce Committee.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  Maybe the gentleman who was just in the well preceding me is proud of 
this budget. I noticed he talked about student loans and how the 
students will get the same loan they got this year. They may get that 
loan, but it is going to cost them more. In fact, what we see in the 
estimates are that this budget bill will raise the average cost to 
those students or those families who are paying off those loans. The 
average student who borrows $17,500, and that is what, unfortunately, 
the average student borrows today, this will raise

[[Page H11962]]

their cost by $5,800, almost $6,000 in additional costs. That is what 
comes with this bill.
  The $13 billion is the largest cut in the student loans accounts in 
this history of this Congress. That $13 billion rebounds back onto 
these parents and to these students to the tune of $6,000 over the life 
of their loans. If that is your idea of a Christmas gift, have at it, 
but I do not think America's families are going to understand.
  At a time when we understand how important it is for young people to 
be able to get an AA degree, to be able to get a B.A. degree, to get a 
Masters Degree or to get a Ph.D. so that they can fully participate in 
the American economy of the future, a globalized world economy, what is 
it the Republican budget is doing? It is raising the barriers. It is 
raising the barriers for millions of young students, for millions of 
families as to whether or not they will be able to afford this college 
education.
  Students are going deeper into debt today than at any time in 
history. The cost of a college education is rising faster than the 
average working family's ability to pay for it. And what is the answer 
to that crunch that these families and these students are finding 
themselves in? The answer in this budget is to increase their costs by 
$6,000.
  For 50 years, the idea was to try to make college more accessible, 
less expensive, so that the vast majority of people who were qualified 
to go to college would have the opportunity to do so. This year, they 
changed the course of this Nation. This year, they changed the course 
of this House. This year, they changed the course of the Congress. 
Because on a partisan basis, on a partisan basis, they decided that 
what they would do to the crunch and the cost of college for American 
families is they would increase the cost of college to America's 
families by charging parents more to borrow money, by putting 
origination fees on the direct student loan, which is the least 
expensive way people can borrow money.
  You are raising the cost of the direct student loans by mandating 
insurance on all of the borrowers, whether it is necessary or not. You 
are very fond of telling us when you put these taxes and these costs on 
the business communities they are passed on. Well, that is exactly what 
is going to happen to the tune of about $6,000. These costs are going 
to be passed on.
  We should vote to support the motion to instruct so we can prevent 
these costs from falling on these families and these students not only 
at Christmas time but for the next 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 years.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and urge my colleagues to 
defeat this motion to instruct. All of us know that America still faces 
a number of fiscal challenges, although under our economic policies, we 
have made a lot of great strides. With over 4 million new taxpaying 
jobs created and the deficit coming down, we have made a lot of great 
progress, but there is a lot of work to be done.
  This really comes down to a debate about two different visions for 
America's fiscal future. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
believe that we have a fiscal challenge because the American people are 
undertaxed. We believe our Nation faces a fiscal challenge because 
Washington spends too much and too unwisely.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, during this debate, we have already heard a lot 
about cuts and compassion. Well, let us talk a little about those. I 
believe, Mr. Speaker, that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, 
but they are not entitled to their own facts. If one would look up the 
word ``cut'' in Webster's Dictionary, one would discover it means to 
reduce an amount. Yet under this modest, very modest, set of reforms, 
we see that total Federal outlays will grow by an average of 4.3 
percent a year. What we call mandatory spending will grow 6.3 percent a 
year. Medicaid will grow 7.5 percent a year. TANF and other welfare 
programs will grow at 8.5 percent a year. And the list goes on and on 
and on.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not how much money you spend in Washington that 
counts; it is how you spend the money. When we talk of cuts, we need to 
realize that every time we increase some program, some budget in 
Washington, by definition, we are cutting some family budget. This 
money has to come from somewhere. So when we feed the Federal budget, 
we cut the family budget.
  We have a modest set of proposals that over 5 years would save us 
approximately $45 billion over what we call the baseline. I mean, that 
is almost 2 million down payments for homes for the American people. It 
is almost a million 4-year college educations. That is who is being cut 
if we follow this motion to instruct; it is the family budget.
  And let us talk about compassion, compassion for the least of these. 
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the least of these are those who are 
too young to vote and those who have not yet been born. If we follow 
the Democrat plan, let us look at what the General Accountability 
Office has said; if, right now, we do not change the spending patterns 
that we have in order to balance the budget, in just one generation, we 
are going to have to double taxes on the American people.
  Where is the compassion there, Mr. Speaker, in taking away their 
jobs, in taking away their hope, taking away their opportunities? We 
would be the first generation perhaps in American history to leave our 
children a lower standard of living than we enjoy. There is no 
compassion there, Mr. Speaker.
  Let us defeat this motion to instruct.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Spratt 
motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 4241, the Reconciliation 
Spending Cuts Act.
  This motion wisely provides that the House would give up its harshest 
and most hateful cuts. Just 1 week after passing $100 billion in new 
tax cuts, benefiting mostly the wealthy in our country, our Republican 
colleagues are now seeking to cut spending on those who have the 
greatest need of assistance.
  For example, one of the programs hardest hit by this legislation, 
Medicaid, provides health care to working families. Three-quarters of 
the cuts in the Medicaid program come directly from the families who 
depend on it, either by raising their payments, by making health care 
unaffordable or by not paying for needed treatments when they do seek 
care.
  The House bill seeks to raise health care premiums for individuals 
who depend on Medicaid. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
one-quarter of the savings from the premiums would be imposed on 
beneficiaries, including children, coming from families losing their 
health insurance coverage. There are more than 45 million uninsured in 
this Nation, and the House bill would add more to that number. The 
Senate Bill does not do that.
  Five-and-a-half million children face increases in the amount their 
parents would pay for them to go to the doctor, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office. Eighty percent of the savings from higher 
cost-sharing will come from individuals, including children, foregoing 
services and not from the actual payment of the higher cost-sharing.
  I want my colleagues to listen to this, because I think this is a 
real scandal: Five million Americans will find themselves unable to pay 
for certain kinds of treatments, such as for cancer, because such 
treatments will, under this legislation, no longer be covered. Under 
the House proposal, half of these will be children who will lose access 
to services such as dental care, vision coverage, mental health care 
and therapies. The Senate Bill does not do this.
  Finally, the House should also recede to the Senate on matters 
concerning Medicare HMO payments and Medicare physician payments. HMO 
payments, already too high, are being increased by better than 4 
percent this year. And in 2 weeks, physicians will see their payments 
cut 4.8 percent. This is going to hurt our seniors' access to needed 
health care, and it is going to assure that very shortly there will be 
no physicians participating in Medicare. I look forward to hearing the 
explanations of my colleagues when this event transpires.

[[Page H11963]]

  I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt motion. It is fair, decent 
and humane. The proposal before us is not.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from California asked just a few moments ago, 
what is it that Republican budgets do? I will tell you what Republican 
budgets do, and I will tell you what this Republican budget does. It 
provides a plan to give savings to the American people. It provides a 
plan to slow the growth rate of some of the most important programs 
that we have in the United States of America so that we can save those 
programs, programs mentioned in the motion to instruct conferees, such 
as food stamps, funding for child support enforcement, Medicaid 
benefits, and student loans.
  Republicans acknowledge, as most Americans acknowledge, that these 
are important and valuable programs. But, Mr. Speaker, we must slow the 
growth rate of these programs; not cut them, but slow the growth rate 
in order to preserve those programs.
  What do Republican budgets do? Republican budgets also keep intact 
those tax policies that have grown this economy for 10 straight 
quarters, a growth rate of 4.1 percent in our GDP currently.
  Now, what do Democrat budgets do? They consistently advocate 
increased spending, increases in discretionary spending, that done by 
the Appropriations Committee; and higher spending on the entitlement 
programs that we are talking about in this motion to instruct 
conferees. Also, Democrat budgets consistently call for higher taxes on 
the American people.
  It is just a difference of philosophy. But that is what Democrat 
budgets do, and that is contrasted to what our responsible and 
reasonable Republican budget does today.
  Now, I will mention one program, if I have the time, and that is 
Medicaid. Democrat Governors from around the country, Republican 
Governors from around the country have come to Congress and said, 
please, implement Medicaid reforms so that we can protect our budgets, 
so that Medicaid will not completely eat up State budgets in the 50 
States, so that we can continue to provide this valuable service for 
our citizens.

                              {time}  1745

  The Democrat motion would allow Medicaid to grow. The Republican 
budget, our budget plan, would allow Medicaid to grow just a little 
slower, at just a little less of a growth rate than the Democratic 
plan.
  Slowing the growth rate of Federal entitlement programs, which is 
what our Republican plan does, is not a cut in these programs. It is a 
way to acknowledge the value of these programs, it is a way to say we 
should preserve them, and it is a way to provide an additional means to 
protect the tax cuts and the tax policy that have been so successful in 
having our economy grow the way it has. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the motion to instruct.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  When the tax reconciliation bill with tax cuts is put side by side 
with the spending reconciliation bill, these two reconciliation bills 
add $52 billion to the deficit. That is the total outcome of the budget 
package that you are putting before us over the next 5 years; and that 
is not all, as I will show in a minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to take the language we have heard 
from the Republicans in the last few minutes and apply it to child 
support.
  CBO says this budget will result in $24 billion less in child support 
over the next 10 years. That is the Congressional Budget Office. All 
right, one of you said Washington spends too much, too unwisely. 
Cutting child support payments by $24 billion?
  You also said not how much, but how it is spent. Yes, it is spent in 
administrative expenditures to collect money for children.
  Oh, and one of you said it is the family budget that is at stake. 
Absolutely, families with kids who are entitled to child support, and 
you are going to reduce what is collected by $24 billion over the next 
10 years.
  And then the lingo we hear, ``slow the growth rate.'' Under this 
formula, the money goes to the States and to the counties to collect 
money that is owed to children. I spent some time out in Macomb County 
talking to the people who administer this program, and I wish I could 
bring just one of the children who will be harmed by what you are doing 
and put them on this table, and have you look them in the eye and 
repeat your language. I do not think you would dare do it.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the fact that 
that same CBO report did say that child support payments will increase, 
yes, increase.
  Mr. Speaker, what are we doing with child support payments? What we 
are simply saying is that we have a Federal Government match. What the 
Federal Government match is spending on child support with State 
governments is 50 percent for food stamps, for Medicaid, that is what 
we are proposing here.
  When we passed welfare reform, we increased the match for child 
support to 66 percent. What happened: child support collections went 
way up; welfare case loads way down. Yet we still have a higher match 
than normal even though our case loads are way down. What we are simply 
trying to do is reform government to save money and still meet the 
needs of the people.
  What about Medicare. This motion to instruct says let us gut the 
Medicare Advantage Program. What is the Medicare Advantage Program? Do 
you ever hear that line when you do a town hall meeting with senior 
citizens that say we on Medicare ought to get the same health care you 
in Congress get? That is the Medicare Advantage Program. We are simply 
saying to seniors, if you want to have comprehensive health insurance 
like we have in Congress, like other Federal employees have, you should 
get that.
  What does this motion to instruct do? It compromises that entire 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, what about all these issues? Food stamps, Medicaid, 
Medicare, child support, all of that spending is increasing in this 
bill. What does this budget do? This budget proposes to increase 
spending over 6.3 percent but not 6.4 percent, the current projection.
  Let me say it another way. We are proposing to save $45 billion out 
of a $15 trillion budget over the next 5 years. We are proposing to 
increase spending 6.3 percent instead of 6.4 percent, and that sounds 
like a draconian cut.
  I have also heard speakers say that we are proposing deep tax cuts. 
Mr. Speaker, here is their definition of deep tax cuts: we are not 
raising taxes. What we are proposing to do in this budget is to not 
raise taxes. We are proposing simply to keep taxes where we are today. 
When we had a recession 2 years ago, when the Dot-com bubble burst, 
people lost their savings when the market went down. We lost hundreds 
of thousands of jobs; we had 2 years of economic growth no higher than 
1.3 percent, and we cut taxes.
  What happened after we cut taxes, 4.5 million jobs were created. The 
stock market came back. Our stock market savings portfolios, our 
savings for seniors grew 23 percent. We are averaging 148,000 new jobs 
being created every month. We created 215,000 just last month alone. 
Our economy grew 4.3 percent last quarter alone. We raise taxes; we 
hurt jobs. It is a difference in philosophy.
  The Democrats are saying raise taxes and do not do anything to 
control spending. We do not want to raise taxes; we want to control 
spending and balance the budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) 1 minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about raising taxes. You 
are dodging the issue.
  This is not the formula for Medicaid or other programs; this is a 
formula in terms of the Federal share for child support. I would like 
any of you to stand up and deny the estimate of CBO that what you are 
doing will reduce the

[[Page H11964]]

amount collected in child support by $24 billion over the next 10 
years.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Does the CBO report also not say that child 
support payments will go up from one year to the next?
  Mr. LEVIN. It will go up. Sure, they are going to go up because there 
are more kids from families of divorce. But I ask you, does CBO not say 
because of your change, $24 billion over the next 10 years will not be 
collected for the children? Yes or no?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The gentleman just answered my question, child 
support payments will go up.
  Mr. LEVIN. And it is $24 billion less because of you people.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, $24 billion will not go to the children of 
this country, but 53 percent of the tax cuts that this party put 
together in the last several weeks will go to people who make over $1 
million a year. So $24 billion denied to kids in this country to 
satisfy the wealthiest 1 percent of the wage earners in this Nation. It 
lays out very clearly the values and the priorities of the majority 
party here.
  Let me just say to you tonight that this Nation has been through a 
lot in the last several months: the devastation of Hurricane Katrina 
and a precarious situation in Iraq. This is not the moment for the 
drastic cuts the Republican budget calls for. This ought to be a moment 
of clarity where we realize what priorities are and what is important 
to us as a Nation.
  This budget reconciliation, the cuts here, cut access to health care 
for low-income children and families; college loan assistance, leaving 
the typical student borrower to pay $5,800 more for college; throws a 
quarter of a million low-income families off food stamps, working 
families trying their best to provide this winter.
  Those families who make over a million dollars who are going to get 
the tax cut, they do not need food stamps. They probably have medical 
bills because they have gout because they are overeating. They are not 
on food stamps. The American people have had enough.
  With this motion, Democrats are calling to reject the most extreme 
cuts proposed by the majority that impact our most vulnerable citizens, 
whether it is stripping protections which guarantee more than 5 million 
children receive the medical services they need, mental health services 
they need, optical care, hearing aids, cuts to child support we have 
been talking about, 40 percent.
  It eliminates federally funded foster care benefits for grandparents 
and relatives of abused and neglected children. This bill goes out of 
its way to make the lives of Americans already living on the margin 
even more difficult. It is the wrong direction. Vote for the Spratt 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to make the 
following point, and that is what we are talking about here is to try 
to get a handle on the way we spend money. We are going to spend more 
money next year than we spent last year, more money for all of the 
programs that you hear people talking about, railing about cuts being 
made.
  I want everyone to keep in mind that we will spend more money, but we 
will not spend a whole lot more money. Only in Washington do you hear 
people say when you spend more money, but you do not spend as much as 
you want to spend, you call that a cut. People do not say that in the 
real world. Keep that in mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Chocola), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  As we have heard the budget chairman explain, our friends on the 
other side of the aisle only use as a measurement of success how much 
we spend, not how well we spend.
  Mr. Speaker, every business in America has to use a model of better 
products at a lower cost. I ask: Which model would we be better off 
using? Would we be better off if every business in America used as a 
model of success that if we spend more, we do better? Well, if every 
business did that, then every business would be in the same financial 
condition as the Federal Government, and I would argue they could not 
provide one job to one American in this country.
  Or would we be better served if government used the model of better 
government at a lower cost?
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is a little bit ironic that the debate we are 
having today, those who say we do not spend enough also say the deficit 
is too big. Mr. Speaker, we can achieve better government at a lower 
cost, and the first step to achieving that is voting ``no'' on this 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to prevent here is an abuse of 
process, because what has happened is the process known as 
reconciliation has been taken and stood on its head. The original 
process of reconciliation was to rein in the deficit, to have an end to 
the budget process by which Congress was compelled to revisit the goals 
it set earlier in the year and bring the budget in on the targets that 
it indicated were acceptable when the budget resolution was passed.
  To that end, a budget reconciliation bill was given fast track 
capacity to go through the Senate so it would not be subject to 
filibuster, because its purpose was fiscal prudence. Its purpose was to 
rein in the deficit.
  You can see from past history from this chart right here, you can see 
that in 1990 when we did the Bush budget summit, total reconciliation 
savings were $482 billion. In 1993 when we did the Clinton budget, 
total reconciliation savings over 5 years was $443 billion. In 1997 
when we finally put the budget into balance for the first time in 30 
years, the balanced budget agreement of 1997 provided for 
reconciliation of $118 billion.
  What does this reconciliation bill do? Well, when you put it 
together, because it has been divorced, separated from the tax cuts in 
the other reconciliation bill, it increases the deficit. It does not 
decrease the deficit. It provides for, and we see $108 billion of 
additional tax cuts all together thus far. I will show you exactly how 
those add up right here.
  One of the things that is going on here is that these fiscal actions 
get broken into many different fragments in the course of the year. As 
a consequence, it is hard to put all the small pieces together and 
figure out exactly what the tab is running up to.

                              {time}  1800

  Well, here is what it is running up to. If you just look at the tax 
cuts that have been taken over the last 6 months, keeping in mind that 
the budget resolution called for $70 billion in reconciled tax cuts and 
$106 billion in tax cuts all together, you will see we are on a path to 
accomplish just that under the budget resolution.
  First of all, the transportation bill, $500 million. The Energy 
Policy Act, $6.9 billion tax cuts. The Katrina Emergency Tax Relief 
Act, $6.1 billion. The Stealth Tax Relief Act, $31.2 billion. That is 
the so-called alternative minimum tax, patching it for 1 year so it 
does not affect more taxpayers. Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation 
Act, that is the one that is before us in the other bill that I was 
referring to, the bill that is passing now in the reconciliation 
itself, and then, finally, $7.1 billion adapted just a week ago for the 
Gulf Opportunity Zone Act.
  Add all of that together, you get $108 billion. But wait a minute. 
This only has a 1-year fix for the AMT. And we all know that we are 
fixing it this year for the same reason we will have to fix it next 
year and the following years and on into time until we finally adjust 
it so that it does not apply to middle-income taxpayers for whom it was 
never intended.
  So when you recognize that fiscal reality and add to the total, tally 
a longer-term fix, a 5-year fix, on the AMT, the total amount of tax 
cuts adopted thus far over 5 years, the total amount is $301 billion, 
against which you are applying $50 billion in putative tax cuts and 
putative spending cuts, and how did you get those spending cuts? In the 
name of deficit reduction, which is a false claim, as can you see, 
because you are increasing the deficit.
  How did you get those cuts, those putative cuts? You went to students

[[Page H11965]]

struggling to pay for their college education. You went to the poorest 
of the poor whose only resort to medical care is Medicaid and cut it by 
$11 billion. You went to child support enforcement, which is moneys 
used by the Federal Government to subsidy State efforts to see that 
parents who are not taking care of their children nevertheless have to 
pay something in child support and forces it, at $4.9 billion. CBO says 
it will deprive us of $25 billion for that most essential necessity. 
You went to foster care. You went to food stamps. You went to the 
pension insurance fund, PBGC, a false claim. You are claiming that 
these revenues generated for the PBGC can be applied against your tax 
cut. In truth, they are encumbered money; they will be needed to pay 
benefits before you know it.
  And then, finally, let me speak up for the doctors. You have not done 
anything at all about the fact that there are doctors, on January 4, 
faced with a cut of 4.4 percent due to something called the sustainable 
growth rate factor. Unless we do something here tonight, this weekend, 
on the budget reconciliation bill, they are going to suffer that cut.
  How do you think that is going to make them feel towards Medicare 
patients? Less willing than ever. So this is a bad bill. What we are 
trying to do with the motion to instruct is simply to take, as the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) put it, the harshest and most 
hateful features out of it.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, before I make the comments 
I rose to make, I do want to comment for those watching this debate, 
that when you hear the words ``tax cut,'' the great majority of that 
money, outside of the new tax provisions to encourage rebuilding in New 
Orleans and the Mississippi coast and those areas so hard hit by 
Katrina and other storms, pretty much the rest of all of those, quote, 
``tax cuts'' are simply tax extensions. In other words, we avoid 
increasing taxes.
  If we did nothing, we would increase taxes. We do not want to 
increase taxes, because the current tax policy has created a remarkable 
rate of growth in our economy. And when your economy is growing, not 
only do your revenues come in well if you are the government, but jobs 
are created if you are the people, and current jobs are maintained.
  So what are now loosely referred to as tax cuts, they appear in our 
vocabulary and our work as cuts, are not cuts; they are just 
maintaining current tax policy and avoiding tax increases that would 
harm our economy, cost jobs, cost taxpayers money they desperately 
need, as we go into a season of high heating oil costs and so on.
  But I want to mention something else about this motion, which I 
appreciate is presented as part of the process here. It doesn't have 
the force of law. It gives people something they might like to vote 
about to tell the negotiators how to negotiate, but you know, there are 
always big rocks when the sea looks calm. So I just want to tell you 
about a couple of rocks underneath the sea of the verbiage of this 
motion to instruct. It is certainly not a motion I would want to vote 
for.
  It wants us to recede to the Senate's position on physician payments. 
At first blush, that might look like a good idea, because they solve 
the first year problem by giving a very small increase to physicians. 
But in the second, not only do they let the 4.4 percent go into effect, 
but they add a 2 percent additional cut for physicians, for a 6.4 
percent cut for physicians. That creates some pool that we are supposed 
to then pay physicians for performance. But we do not know what 
measurements are going to be used to determine whether a physician 
meets the performance standards or not. We do not know whether those 
measures will be such that a physician who provides health care in an 
area of the city or of the country where people simply do not come to 
the doctor until the last minute is going to be eligible for those 
payments like other physicians who might select patients who were 
healthier to take care of.
  We do not know whether those benefits, those pay-for-performance 
benefits, will go equally to physicians who run small practices and 
cannot afford electronic health records as opposed to those who go to 
big practices.
  So I certainly do not want to be instructing our conferees to yield 
to the Senate's position. Same on stabilization fund. The stabilization 
fund is explicitly, and we may not need it, but we do not know yet; it 
is explicitly to overcome one of the two big problems of being a rural 
physician in America, and that is intellectual isolation and being 
forced to abandon a patient who needs specialty care.
  In the time I have allotted, I cannot enlarge on that, but believe 
you me, if you care about quality care in rural areas, you do not want 
to instruct our conferees prematurely to eliminate the stabilization 
fund.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I 
would ask the gentlewoman, if she does not believe that we should do 
something about the potential cut, getting nearer by the day, of 4.4 
percent in physician's reimbursement and in paying for it, what is 
wrong with going into the so-called Medicare stabilization fund, which 
is really inducement money to get HMOs and insurance companies that do 
not otherwise want to participate in Medicare to participate?
  The money is available. It comes out of the Medicare program. It 
would be given to physicians instead of insurance companies. But do you 
not think there will be adverse consequences if there is an across-the-
board cut in physician's pay of 4.4 percent on January 1?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do. I think we 
are facing the possibility of physicians fleeing the Medicare program 
and creating a real access problem for seniors to physicians of their 
choice. But acceding to the Senate position is not going to fix it; it 
is going to exacerbate it.
  We need a better fix than the Senate offers. We need one without the 
threat of a 6 percent cut in the year after that which is absolutely 
unconscionable.
  So the negotiations are about finding better solutions. And that is 
one area in which we need a better solution, but if you cannot 
negotiate, if you do not have the latitude, you cannot get to the right 
answer. And this resolution tells you what the right answer is, when it 
is not the right answer and abandons the opportunity to negotiate in a 
number of areas.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. So the right answer is 
to fix the growth rate factor, no question about it. But that fix is 
not going to be accomplished in the next 2 weeks. So unless we do 
something adequate, you are going to have perfection be the enemy of 
the good; you are not going to get anything done.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, but we need to do something 
better than the Senate position, and we certainly need to avoid the 
additional 2 percent cut that starts every year thereafter.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. I do not think the House 
bill has any money at all for physicians in it. That is the point.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. This is a negotiation. And what you are 
doing is prejudging the negotiation. That is what a motion to instruct 
does. This motion to instruct is across so many categories that it will 
do damage to our ability to get the right answer in all of the policy 
areas that we have responsibility for.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we say this is the best opportunity we have 
got to send the conferees to conference, to sit down with the Senators 
to come up with a solution to this problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the issue here is very simply that our friends 
on the other said of the aisle just do not like the Budget Reduction 
Act. They do not

[[Page H11966]]

want to step in and change the way we do business. They do not want to 
reform the way we spend money. And so they have opposed that, and now 
they have a motion to instruct which, if you read it, is pretty much 
the kitchen sink thrown in to try to tell our conferees this and tell 
them that. It is kind of a hodge-podge, but basically, they oppose what 
we are trying to do.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people know that we have got 
to change the way we do business here in Washington. We have got to 
change the way that we raise money, because it comes from the American 
people. And we have got to change the way that we spend money, because 
we are stewards of the American people when we do that.
  And we have taken some giant steps this year, Mr. Speaker, to change 
the way we do business here in Washington. We started by lowering taxes 
across the board. People that pay taxes got tax relief. That lets 
people keep more of what they earn. And when you let people keep more 
of what they earn, then they get to decide whether they want to spend 
it, whether they want to save it, whether they want to invest it.
  And that is the way you get the economy moving again. And we got the 
economy moving again. Everybody knows the good news that has come out 
of our economy. The economy has been growing for the last 10 quarters. 
More people are able to buy new homes. It is a wonderful time from the 
standpoint of the financial wherewithal of this country. So we took 
that step.
  And then this year, as people sometimes do not understand, we wrote a 
budget this year, and like a lot of people have to do when they write 
their budget at home, we had to kind of hold the line on spending. The 
money that we in this Congress get to spend, we wrote a budget that 
actually reduced the amount of money we spend in the budget. Except for 
Defense and except for Homeland Security, spending went down. And we 
are sticking to that. We are pretty much spending the same amount of 
money we spent last year.
  We have not done that since Ronald Reagan was President about 20 
years ago. And that is a giant step forward to control the way we spend 
money. And here we are again now with what we call the Budget Reduction 
Act. As our chairman said, it is a plan to reform government and to 
actually save money, because over half of the money we spend here in 
Washington is kind of on automatic pilot. We do not even get a chance 
to say how it is being spent or why it is being spent.
  And right now, with this Budget Reduction Act, we are going to get a 
handle on that. We are going to reform the way we spend money. And that 
is what we are trying to do. And so I would urge my colleagues to vote 
no on this motion to instruct, even though when you read the motion, 
you are not very clear exactly what it does other than try to confuse 
the issue, because I am afraid my friends on the other side, if you 
listen to them talk, they have an answer for everything; spend a little 
more money. Where do you get the money? You raise taxes.
  All we are saying is we want to reform the way we spend money, 
because everybody knows this, and I will conclude with this, Mr. 
Speaker. Everybody knows that we need money to provide services. But 
right now, the American people are saying to us, you, the people in 
Washington making this decision, you need to do a better job of the way 
you spend money. You need to control spending. And that is what we are 
trying to do.
  Sure we need money. But right now, we need the courage up here to 
make some tough choices, just like every family has to do every year 
when they sit down and make their budget. They have got to set 
priorities. They say we cannot do everything. So we have got to make 
sure that we limit the amount of money we spend.
  We need a commitment, a commitment by all of us to say, we are going 
to decide what is important, and we are going to try to do that, but we 
cannot do everything. Because if we are ever going to change the way we 
do business, we have got to start right here among ourselves.
  So once again, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion 
to instruct. Let the conference begin. Let our Members of the 
conference committee sit down with the Members of the Senate conference 
committee, work out any differences they have, but at the end of the 
day, let us come up with a final plan that will save money for the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it pains me to say it, but Republicans control the 
House, they control the Senate, they control the White House, and they 
cannot escape responsibility for the dismal condition our budget is in.
  Let me start with the simplest way I know to summarize the last 5 
years. When the Bush administration brought us their budget in 2001, 
they said we will not need to raise the debt ceiling of the United 
States, the legal limit to which we can borrow, for another 6, 7 years. 
The next year they were back, hat in hand. They needed a $450 billion 
increase in the debt ceiling. The next year, just a year later, they 
came and asked for $984 billion, the biggest increase, single increase, 
in the national debt ever. As big as the total national debt when 
Ronald Reagan took office.
  One would have thought $984 billion had long legs and would have 
taken us several years at least, but, no. Within a year they were back, 
Secretary Snow, hat in hand, saying, I need $800 billion. And in this 
year's budget resolution as it passed the House, buried in it is a 
conditional provision to increase the debt ceiling by another $781 
billion. If we add all of those up, we come up with $3.015 trillion. 
That is the net addition to the legal debt of the United States over 
the last 5 years. That should temper everybody's understanding of the 
debate we have just been holding.
  And look at this chart right here. Kind of complicated, but basically 
what we have done here is we have gone to the Congressional Budget 
Office and we have said, we have got your numbers for August and 
September, the update of the budget and the update of the economy. What 
you would like to do is make this politically realistic. Let us assume 
that the Bush administration's agenda is reaffirmed to us in July in 
the budget update; let us assume it is carried out. What will be the 
result? CBO came back to us, and they said the deficit of the United 
States last year, in 2004, in 2005, was $325 billion. That will grow to 
$640 billion under the assumptions you have given us. As for the debt 
service of the United States, it was $182 billion. It will grow to $548 
billion over the next 10 years. That is the course we are on. And that 
is what we are discussing tonight. What do we do about it?
  There is a process called reconciliation. When we find ourselves in 
dire straits like this, this is an extraordinary process, 
reconciliation, which gives special primacy to a bill for this purpose 
adopted in a budget resolution, and at every other time we have used it 
since it was invented, it was used to reduce the deficit by big numbers 
because a lot of the cost growth that has to be dealt with in deficit 
reduction is in the entitlement programs.
  Look what we did in 1990 and 1993 and 1997: big, big reductions due 
to reconciliation. But what is being done here in the name of deficit 
reduction is deficit worsening. The deficit gets worse by at least $58 
billion according to where the final cuts finally settle out. It gets 
worse by at least that amount, not better. And if we take a realistic 
view of what the likely revenue effects of all the tax cut legislation 
passed in the last 6 months have been, the deficit gets $300 billion 
worse.
  They have taken reconciliation and stood it on its head. We would 
like to stand it back up, put some of the values back in it. We do not 
think we should balance the budget on the backs of small children, on 
the backs of Medicaid beneficiaries. And that is what the purpose of 
this motion to instruct is.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today, nine days before Christmas, I rise in 
strong support of the motion to instruct on the spending reconciliation 
bill. This motion to instruct would eliminate the most egregious 
aspects of the House reconciliation bill and would reduce the 
Republican cuts to less than $20 billion.
  This Congress must not go home for the holidays, leaving a lump of 
coal in the stockings of the most vulnerable children in this country. 
That is contrary to the spirit of this holiday season and contrary to 
the values of

[[Page H11967]]

this nation. If we adopt this motion, we will send the conferees on 
this bill a strong message that this should not be the season of 
``suffer little children.''
  This motion eliminates the cuts from the House bill that would affect 
the most vulnerable children in this country: It says no to cuts to our 
child support enforcement program: so that parents have to fulfill 
their responsibilities to their children. It says no to slashing food 
stamps: so that low-income children can be properly fed. It says no to 
cutting health benefits for low-income children: because we want all 
children to have access to health care in this country.
  How can we possibly leave here and as one of our last legislative 
actions in this Christmas season to be accused of being scrooges to the 
least among us--poor children?
  This motion stops the Republican raid on student aid: It would help 
make college more affordable, reducing interest rates and fees relating 
to student loans and increasing Pell Grants.
  This motion eliminates the so-called ``mining reform'' in the bill, 
which is really a massive give-away of public lands to special 
interests: Selling public lands at fire sale prices. That is why 
sportsmen and women, environmentalists, and Western governors oppose 
this outrageous proposal.
  This motion ensures that seniors and individuals with disabilities 
can continue to receive physician services under Medicare: Eliminating 
the reimbursement cut physicians would receive when treating Medicare 
recipients.
  Two days ago, hundreds of faithful Americans descended on Capitol 
Hill in peaceful protest to stand up for working Americans, our 
children, the poor, those still hurting from Hurricane Katrina, and our 
elderly. In the freezing cold, in prayer and song, they called the 
Republican budget what it is--a moral failure, devoid of spiritual hope 
and nourishing resources.
  This mean-spirited Republican budget takes food from the mouths of 
hungry children, cuts housing for Katrina evacuees, reduces support for 
our veterans, and fails to adequately provide health care for our 
elderly; all to provide tax cuts for millionaires.
  I commend Reverend Jim Wallis and the pastors and church workers from 
across our country who marched on our Capitol. By adopting this motion 
to instruct, we would stand with them in the struggle for a budget that 
lives up to our American values of fairness and opportunity.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 246, 
nays 175, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 652]

                               YEAS--246

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--175

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Hyde
     Istook
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     McCarthy
     Napolitano
     Payne
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1846

  Mrs. MYRICK, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio and Messrs. RADANOVICH, WHITFIELD, 
BACHUS, DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, MCCAUL of Texas and SESSIONS 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida and Mrs. KELLY and Messrs. REGULA, 
FRANK of Massachusetts, RUSH, BOEHLERT, STUPAK, UPTON, JOHNSON of 
Illinois, PLATTS, SHIMKUS, LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, SIMPSON, 
REHBERG, COBLE, HAYES, RAMSTAD, GINGREY, FOLEY and SAXTON changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees:
  For consideration of the Senate bill and the House amendment thereto, 
and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Nussle, Ryan of 
Kansas, Crenshaw, Putnam, Wicker, Hulshof, Ryan of Wisconsin, Blunt, 
DeLay, Spratt, Moore of Kansas, Neal of Massachusetts, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. 
Edwards and Mr. Ford.

[[Page H11968]]

  From the Committee on Agriculture, for consideration of title I of 
the Senate bill and title I of the House amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference: Messrs. Goodlatte, Lucas and Peterson of 
Minnesota.
  From the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for consideration 
of title VII of the Senate bill and title II and subtitle C of title 
III of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: 
Messrs. Boehner, McKeon and George Miller of California.
  From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of title 
III and title VI of the Senate bill and title III of the House 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Upton, 
Deal of Georgia and Dingell.
  From the Committee on Financial Services, for consideration of title 
II of the Senate bill and title IV of the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Oxley, Bachus and Frank 
of Massachusetts.
  Provided that Mr. Ney is appointed in lieu of Mr. Bachus for 
consideration of subtitle C and D of title II of the Senate bill and 
subtitle B of title IV of the House amendment.
  From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of title VIII 
of the Senate bill and title V of the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Sensenbrenner, Smith of 
Texas and Conyers.
  From the Committee on Resources, for consideration of title IV of the 
Senate bill and title VI of the House amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference: Messrs. Pombo, Gibbons and Rahall.
  From the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for 
consideration of title V and Division A of the Senate bill and title 
VII of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: 
Messrs. Young of Alaska, LoBiondo and Oberstar.
  From the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of sections 
6039, 6071, and subtitle B of title VI of the Senate bill and title 
VIII of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: 
Messrs. Thomas, Herger and Rangel.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________