[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 164 (Sunday, December 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H12233-H12241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1932, DEFICIT 
                         REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 109-363) on the resolution (H. Res. 640) waiving 
points of order against the conference report to accompany the Senate 
bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a) 
of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, which 
was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 640 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 640

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S.

[[Page H12234]]

     1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
     201(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2006. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.
       Sec. 2. Section 2 of House Resolution 619 is amended to 
     read as follows: ``On any legislative day of the second 
     session of the One Hundred Ninth Congress from January 3, 
     2006, through January 30, 2006, the Speaker may dispense with 
     organizational and legislative business.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 640 provides for 
consideration of the conference report on Senate 1932, the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005. The rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration. As a member of both 
the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee and a conferee on this 
conference report, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor 
for its consideration.
  This is a historic moment for the House, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it 
has been a most unusual year for our Nation and for its government. It 
has culminated in this Congress being in session late into the year. We 
are here in the final hours of the First Session of the 109th Congress, 
working to complete the business of the people and ensure that our 
government provides opportunity and security for today and for future 
generations.
  We are here at this unusual hour on this unusual day to bring to a 
close what has been a year of remarkable accomplishments for the 109th 
Congress. We passed major legislation such as the energy bill, the 
highway bill, and border security, to name just a few. Additionally, 
the House Appropriations Committee completed passage in the House of 
all funding bills prior to the July 4 recess. Chairman Lewis kept his 
promise to complete the appropriations process in regular order and 
avoid an omnibus bill. I am impressed by and proud of the work of this 
House and all that it has done this year in moving so much important 
legislation.
  Our Nation also has endured a year of unusual natural disasters. The 
Gulf Coast States, including my home State of Florida, have faced not 
one but three major hurricanes that have caused some of the worst 
destruction this Nation has seen, not to mention the unprecedented 
destruction that our friends and neighbors in east Texas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama have faced. This Congress has stepped up to 
the task of providing recovery and reconstruction funds for the 
devastated areas. We have passed two supplemental appropriations bills 
thus far and are set to provide additional relief when we pass the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill. The unforeseen events in the 
gulf changed the focus of the last half of the year and will continue 
to have an impact on this Nation for years to come.
  This change in budgetary focus brings me to the legislation we are 
set to consider when this rule passes. For the first time since 1997, 
the congressional budget resolution included deficit reduction 
instructions to authorizing committees to find and achieve mandatory 
program savings for a more accountable government. It does this by 
finding smarter ways to spend and slowing the rate of growth of 
government. This deficit reduction provides a downpayment toward 
hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs and, most importantly, puts 
us on a path toward long-term fiscal health.
  The Deficit Reduction Act fights back against the out-of-control 
growth of mandatory programs that are set to consume 62 percent of our 
total budget in the next 10 years if left unchecked. The conference 
report will stimulate reform of entitlement programs, many of which are 
outdated, inefficient, and costly. I am pleased that the legislation 
begins a longer-term effort at slowing the growth of entitlement 
spending.
  In another unusual occurrence this year, those on the other side of 
the aisle called for deficit reduction. However, their proposals 
increased taxes on the American family. I am pleased to say that this 
House has delivered deficit reduction without raising the tax burden of 
the working American. Our goal is to control government spending so 
Americans can keep more of their own money instead of sending more to 
the government. The authorizing committees from both Chambers have 
worked hard to find savings within their individual jurisdictions. They 
did this using their own individual expertise through regular order. 
And I commend the authorizing chairman and committee members for their 
aggressive oversight that has yielded $40 billion in efficiencies. The 
conference report allows programs and agencies to weed out abuse, 
fraud, and inefficiency so that we can channel more Federal dollars to 
programs that succeed and effectively serve their intended populations.
  I congratulate Chairman Nussle and Senator Gregg, along with all the 
members and staff from the Budget Committees, for their hard worked 
preparing the deficit reduction package. I look forward to passing this 
reform bill and reaffirming sound oversight and fiscal accountability 
here in Washington. This conference report is a step forward towards 
smarter and more competent, responsive government.
  I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed and sad to say that the 
content of the budget, and the way we are approaching it, confirms the 
fears of the American people instead of their hopes.
  The bill the Republicans reported less than an hour ago is a bill 
that no one has seen, but one that will have far-reaching impact on the 
future of our country. We do not know everything it does, and yet we 
are being asked to vote on it before the ink is even dry.
  Our form of government requires the trust of the people, a trust that 
this leadership has not earned. Being asked to take the Federal budget 
on faith, in a year when the majority has itself lost faith in the 
values that matter most to our democracy, integrity, honesty and 
openness, is simply asking too much.
  One thing we do know about this budget is that its very foundation is 
fundamentally dishonest. The majority has titled it the Deficit 
Reduction Act when the facts clearly show that the bill, when combined 
with the Republican tax giveaway to the rich, will actually increase 
the deficit by billions of dollars. Supporters will also claim that 
they have addressed criticisms of the legislation, but they are not 
being honest either.
  It is true that the leadership was shamed by the public, the 
Democrats, and even by Members of their own party into abandoning some 
of the most egregious attacks on the less fortunate. But the fact 
remains that the bill still takes over $1 billion from child support 
services. It cuts education spending by $16.2 billion so that our 
Nation's children will find it harder to go to college and to realize 
their dreams. And it slashes Medicaid by $5 billion, putting health 
care for those who need it further out of reach.
  The budget does all this while adding to the deficit and giving away 
tens of billions of dollars to the rich and the super rich in tax cuts, 
dramatic cuts that middle-class Americans will not share in, but will 
be asked to pay for.
  Is this really what our constituents sent us here to do, to spend the 
holiday season taking from the needy so that we can give even more to 
those who need it the least?
  Mr. Speaker, this year has repeatedly shown us the consequences of 
poor leadership. We saw a natural disaster turn into a national tragedy 
because of failed government response, casting doubt on our readiness 
to respond to future challenges. We saw self-interest run amok, as top 
lawmakers violated the people's trust and were indicted

[[Page H12235]]

and forced to step down in the wake of scandal.
  We saw our troops and the people of Iraq struggle heroically to lift 
not just the weight of a vicious insurgency but also the burden of poor 
planning and unfulfilled promises from the White House.
  And here again today, the American people will be made victims of 
unscrupulous, disingenuous leadership.
  On the opening day of the 109th Congress, almost 1 year ago, the 
first act of this leadership was to try to destroy the House ethics 
committee under the guise of ethical reform.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues in the majority have committed to ending 
this session of Congress on the same sad note with which they began it, 
by employing unacceptable, unprecedented tactics and trying to deceive 
the American people out of pure political self-interest at the expense 
of this body and our shared values.
  We cannot afford another year like this. We need to start investing 
in America's future, not letting those in power invest only in their 
friends at America's expense. It is time for real reform, for real 
integrity, for real leadership. It is time for a change, and together 
we can do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of 
the aisle asked us, Were we sent here to do this?
  Frankly, I can only speak for my district and tell Members that is 
exactly what I was asked to do. When I talk to my constituents at home, 
they tell me government is too big, taxes are too high. Do something 
about it.
  We all know the numbers here, and we are going to hear a lot of sound 
and fury tonight about how horrific and dramatic this bill is.

                              {time}  0230

  In reality, it is not. We are talking about a little over $40 billion 
out of a $14.5 trillion revenue stream over the next 5 years, less than 
one-half of 1 percent.
  We will not cut spending. Spending, instead of going up annually at 
6.4 percent a year, will go up at 6.3 percent. We will not cut 
Medicaid. Instead of going up at 7.3 percent, it will go up at a little 
over 7 percent.
  This is, though, an important first step, where we begin to deal with 
nondiscretionary entitlement spending. That is going to be, I think, 
the big challenge over the next decade. I am very proud that this 
Congress has begun to grapple with that problem. I look forward to the 
process as we continue this in the years ahead.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, and 
meanwhile, the Republicans are stealing from the stockings and taking 
away the hopes and dreams of aspiring students, slashing safety nets 
that help middle-income households get by, and kicking seniors to the 
curb with this budget package that is contrary to everything about the 
true spirit of Christmas as I understand it.
  People of all faiths know that budgets are not just about numbers or 
percentages. There is no more moral document that we in Congress work 
on than the budget. What we choose to pay for and what we choose to cut 
are moral choices about how to run our country, reflections of the 
values of our society. And it takes a special brand of callousness, in 
the day or the middle of the night, to propose big cuts to Medicaid, 
student loans and foster care, as we believe this budget does, when the 
needs of our country are greater today than they were just a few short 
months ago.
  When the need in the gulf coast rose, the need in the rest of the 
country did not subside. It is not the students who are responsible for 
historic deficits. Poor people did not cause our fiscal decline.
  If we want to get our fiscal house in order, then we should start 
with the tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthiest households. 
Millionaires are getting an average of $103,000 in tax cuts this year 
because of cuts from 2001 and 2003, and next year they are going to get 
another $20,000 as two more tax cuts take effect. And the Republican 
bills passed another $108 billion in tax cuts this year. Tell me, who 
is going to pay for those?
  Deficits matter. But the one we should be talking about today is the 
moral deficit of those who would balance tax cuts for the wealthy on 
the backs of the working poor. I believe, as best said by President 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that, ``the test of our progress is not 
whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is 
whether we provide enough for those who have little.''
  Mr. Speaker, tonight we have a choice about the type of leaders we 
want to be and what our country stands for. We can decide to do the 
morally responsible thing. We can do what is right. Mr. Speaker, 
together, America can do better.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle 
that this is the deficit reduction package, and we will have another 
opportunity to consider the tax reconciliation package. But their 
references to the tax cuts or tax reform or tax relief, and I am very 
proud of the work that the Budget Committee and all the other 
committees have done, is not in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a colleague on the Budget Committee.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, when I go back to my district, the 
people in Kansas want to know what we are doing to control the national 
debt. I tell them the Republicans are working to find savings in a 
bloated Federal Government. Then they hear from Democrats that we are 
cutting vital programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, if it were up to the other side, entitlement 
programs would continue to grow at an unsustainable rate. Within 10 
years, we would see the entitlement programs taking up 62 percent of 
the Federal budget.
  If we grow the government as our friends on the left would like us 
to, we will be faced with three choices: one, we would have to possibly 
raise taxes; or, two, eliminate all Federal programs other than 
entitlements; or, three, we will face an ever-expanding national debt 
that will threaten our entire economy.
  There are no easy solutions to this problem, Mr. Speaker, but if we 
do not act to reform these programs now while we have time, the problem 
will only grow worse as the national debt will only grow larger.
  Today, by passing the Deficit Reduction Act, those of us who believe 
in limited government are taking the first step to reverse a culture of 
spending. Today, we are standing behind our belief that bigger 
government is not better government. Today, we are making commonsense 
reforms that will result in less waste, fraud, and abuse.
  The Deficit Reduction Act is a small step to rein in Federal 
spending, but I think it is an important step. As we all return home 
for the Christmas season, let us give Americans some good news. Let us 
tell them Congress acted responsibly to control Federal spending. Let 
us pass this rule and pass the Deficit Reduction Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why this budget bill is 
coming up at 2:35 in the morning Washington time. If I had a bill this 
bad, I would want it to come up at 2:30 in the morning as well. I think 
the American people, those at least who are watching at this time of 
day, perhaps out in Hawaii, if nowhere else in America, ought to know 
what this does in combination with everything else Republicans are 
doing.
  This bill, along with its tax cuts, $220,000 a year, in fact, to 
those making $1 million a year in dividend income, will make a sham out 
of the American principles of shared sacrifice during time of war. This 
budget bill that the House is about to vote on will actually increase 
the college education costs of the sons and daughters of our Iraqi war 
troops in combat right at this moment by up to $28,000, up to a $28,000 
student tax on the backs of men and women who are this morning bearing 
the burden for fighting America's wars. I do

[[Page H12236]]

not know how you could get more unfair than that.
  The fact is that the Republicans' claim of supporting compassionate 
conservatism now comes clear at 2:30 in the morning. They are going to 
provide cuts for working families and the poor and cuts for the rich. 
The difference is the cuts for the poor and working families are going 
to be cuts to the Women, Infants, and Children program that helps low-
income children get prenatal care. It is going to cut funding that 
helps disabled children get a better education. It is going to cut 
funding that helps local school districts pay for working families' 
educations.
  And, yes, in just a few weeks, they will come back and also have cuts 
to be fairer to the wealthy. They will cut their taxes by billions of 
dollars. Again, this is good news for those making $1 million a year in 
dividend income. You are going to get a $220,000 a year tax cut.
  What is fair about that, given that we are going to have a student 
tax on the backs of sons and daughters of Iraqi war troops? We are 
going to cut special education. In fact, this is $4 billion short of 
what the Republicans said they wanted to do. No Child Left Behind, let 
us blow that out the window along with the phrase ``compassionate 
conservatism.''
  This bill, combined with the other cuts we are going to vote on this 
morning, will see that 200,000 low-income children would find their 
tutoring assistance eliminated. This bill throws out the window help 
for seniors and people of all ages around the country struggling to pay 
their high utility bills this winter.
  This bill and the Republican leadership make Scrooge look like a 
philanthropist. I would challenge them to show me one major religion in 
the world that preaches at any time of the day, whether it is 2:30 in 
the morning or 2:30 in the afternoon, I would challenge, Mr. Speaker, 
the Members of the Republican Party only the floor right now to stand 
up and tell me what major religion in the world asks that we take the 
most from those who have the least and ask nothing from those who have 
the most. That is what the combination of this budget bill, along with 
their tax cuts and their spending cuts, is going to do.
  So I think what the American people, at least those that are up at 
this time of day, are seeing, is all the rhetoric is not matched by the 
record of the Republicans. Compassionate conservatism? These budgets, 
these bills are neither conservative nor compassionate. Leave No Child 
Behind, this bill is going to leave millions of children behind, along 
with seniors and a lot of hardworking families trying to pay their 
bills every month and provide a better life for their children.
  As far as being strong on national defense, you know, you look at 
what the Republicans are doing this morning, they are going to cut $8.5 
billion out of President Bush's defense bill. I wonder what Republicans 
would say if Democrats proposed that?
  Republicans are hurting the American people, and this is wrong, at 
any time of the day.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in amongst the theology you would never know that the 
Department of Education programs have skyrocketed since 1994, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs' budgets have skyrocketed since 1994, 
investment in our defense continues to go up, support for our troops 
and their training, as well as their widows and loved ones and the 
level of support there, continue to go up, and overall mandatory 
spending in this budget continues to go up.
  It is the rate of growth that we are here to discuss, and the fact 
that it is consuming our overall budget, something that some aspects of 
the other side of the aisle have expressed concern about, which is 
getting our arms around the budget deficit. This Deficit Reduction Act 
offers them the opportunity to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida, who could 
also have mentioned that spending on Federal health research has almost 
tripled in the decade of Republican rule in this House of 
Representatives. So I am proud of the accomplishments we have made in 
that regard.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of debate tonight about the 
growth in the national debt, and certainly it is something we are very 
interested in. In the debate on the previous rule, accomplishments were 
pointed out on the discretionary spending side. That is spending that 
is controlled by the appropriations process. But we will never get a 
handle on deficit reduction, we will never be able to accomplish this 
challenge of the growth in the national debt unless we get a handle on 
our mandatory spending, those entitlement programs that are on 
autopilot. They spend year in and year out, whether there is an 
appropriation bill or not.
  Mandatory programs will grow this year at a growth rate of over twice 
the inflation rate. If we do nothing about the mandatory spending 
programs, they will increase from their current 54 percent of the 
Federal budget to an unbelievable, unchecked 62 percent of total 
Federal spending in a decade. So clearly this is the key area in budget 
deficit reduction, and that is why we have a plan to implement reforms 
to provide savings for the American people in the area of mandatory 
programs.
  One example, of course, would be the Medicaid program, a program 
which Governors, Democrat and Republican, from around the country have 
come to Congress about, saying please help us to save this valuable 
program by slowing the growth rate. Under the underlying bill that this 
rule would provide, Medicaid will grow at a rate of 7.5 percent over 
the next 10 years, instead of a rate of 7.7 percent. For these reasons, 
I support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is entitled the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. 
What it should really be entitled is the Deficit Increase Act of 2006. 
It reminds me of the old joke of Monseigneur O'Malley, who goes up into 
the pulpit on Sunday and says, ``On Wednesday night in the church hall, 
Father Murphy will lecture on the evils of gambling. On Thursday night 
in the church hall, bingo.''
  Here tonight we are being lectured by the Republicans on the need to 
reduce the deficit. How? Well, we are going to cut Medicare for the 
poorest in our country. We are going to cut Medicaid for the poorest in 
our country. We are going to cut education programs for the kids who 
need it the most across our country. And they are going to cut out $41 
billion from the poor and the working class in our country who need it 
the most right before the holidays. And then their plan is to come back 
here in January with a $56 billion tax break for millionaires, dividend 
cuts all across the board for the wealthiest in our country.
  So what we are going to have here is a lecture tonight on the need to 
cut and to ensure that the poorest sacrifice, and then in January, 
bingo, $56 billion in cuts for the wealthiest in our country, 
increasing, if you can do the math here, I am not sure the Republicans 
can do math, $41 billion in cuts, $56 billion in tax breaks, mostly for 
the wealthiest, means you have spent $15 billion more and dug the hole 
even deeper.

                              {time}  0245

  The Republicans do not understand that they are in violation of the 
first law of holes, which is when you are in one stop digging. And so 
what they do is in order to cover for a tax break for the wealthiest, 
they cut the poorest and they simultaneously increase the deficit for 
subsequent generations all at the same time. And when do they do it? At 
quarter to 3 in the morning, when the people who are going to be hurt 
the most are suffering. And when are they going to tell the people who 
are going to benefit? Next year around campaign time when they, once 
again, remind them that if you want to get tax breaks for the 
wealthiest in America, then vote yourself a Republican in Congress, 
because that is what tonight is all about: a hypocrisy coefficient at 
historic highs. And tonight, if you want to ensure that we protect 
those most in need in our country, vote ``no''

[[Page H12237]]

on this hypocritical Republican attempt to increase the deficit in our 
country while calling it the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Budget Committee.
  (Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of this rule and 
also the underlying bill that will come up later on. I am a CPA. I have 
spent 30-plus years in business dealing with clients and families and 
other businesses. Our family business or our family home runs by a 
budget; it cannot run at a deficit very long. Our businesses cannot, 
certainly State and local governments cannot do it. About the only one 
that can is the Federal Government. Simply because the Federal 
Government does run a deficit or can does not mean it should.
  The only way to whack down a deficit is to cut spending and raise 
revenue. Tonight we are about cutting spending; actually, cutting a 
reduction in the growth in spending. The problem with spending, and I 
suspect even my good colleagues on the other side of the aisle use the 
phrase ``we need to cut Federal spending.'' It rolls off the tongues 
very easily, but it is, quite frankly, very hard to do it. It is hard 
to get that done. We have been at this since February, and it is going 
to be hard.
  It is hard because every single dollar that comes out of the Treasury 
has a constituent attached to it, has a special interest group attached 
to it. If we listened to much of the rhetoric here tonight, every 
single one of the reductions in the rate of growth that we talked about 
affects a program that is the single most important program in the 
entire Federal Government. Logic does not allow that to happen. We 
cannot have every single program that we do in this Federal Government 
be the most important. We have to set some priorities, and reducing the 
rate of growth that this bill does is an appropriate way to do it.
  I would also like to respond to the religion issue that was brought 
up earlier. I cannot speak to all religions, but I can speak to the 
faith that I follow. I am a reasonably good student of the New 
Testament and there is plenty of evidence, plenty of scripture where 
Christ instructs me to take my wealth, resources, and benefits and help 
those who are less fortunate, help the poor and needy, all of those 
kinds of things. I cannot find anywhere where the Christ tells me to 
take money from everybody else and fix those programs, fix those 
problems for the needy in our country. So I am curious as to a religion 
that might have a concept like that.
  So I speak tonight in favor of the rule and also the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, a lot of euphemisms on 
the other side, such as the cuts in the rates of growth, suggesting 
that that is just a neutral act when it takes place. They have cut 
about $40 billion out of this budget in this package that we are going 
to vote on in a little while. Twelve billion of that comes from student 
loan accounts, and about $7 billion, 70 percent, almost $8 billion of 
that, 70 percent of those cuts come off the backs of students and their 
parents.
  They increase the cost of college education over the next few years 
by almost $8 billion. That means that students that are struggling to 
finish their college education, to acquire a college education so they 
can participate in this economic system, will have thousands of dollars 
added on to the cost of the borrowing that they must engage in. They 
must engage in that because the cost of education is outstripping the 
ability of middle income families to supply that money for that 
education for those children. So the Republicans' idea is to make 
college more expensive. At a time when we worry whether we will have 
enough students graduating from college to meet the needs of the 
economy, their idea is make it more expensive.
  Yes, the Democrats do have a better idea, and that is to try to open 
up the access to college and lessen the cost of college.
  Then, if that is not enough, if that is not enough, if you get to the 
other part of the program like Medicaid, they say they are going to 
reduce the cost of increase. Well, that cost of increase is done by 
increasing the premiums and the copayments to the poorest people in 
this country. Those premiums and copayments is about $19 billion over 5 
years, $100 billion over 10 years. And if it is not enough that they 
increase your copayments and their premiums, then they take away the 
benefits. They are going to take away eyeglasses from elderly people, 
hearing aids from elderly people, and if Tiny Tim was here today they 
plan to take away his crutches. That is the Republicans at 
Christmastime: Take away the crutches of old people, the hearing aids 
of old people and eyeglasses, because those are the benefits that are 
listed and the benefits that they plan to cut to the poorest people who 
need health care.
  They are going to add on billions of dollars to the States because of 
the changes in the work requirements, unfunded mandates. So you can 
talk about slowing the growth, but the growth and the costs to parents 
of students going to college, the growth in the costs of people who 
need health care who are poor, the growth in the cost of people who 
need those services under health care, all of those increases. Now, 
maybe that does not sound like a tax increase to you, but if you are 
poor and you are trying to pay for your health care and it costs you 
more, that kind of looks like a tax increase. If you are going to add 
on thousands of dollars to student loans, that is a tax increase.
  What we have here is one cruel, one inhumane, one insensitive budget 
by the Republican Party.


                              STUDENT AID

  The Republican conference report cuts $12.7 billion from the federal 
student aid programs in order to help finance tax breaks for the 
wealthiest Americans.
  This Republican raid on student aid represents the single largest cut 
to the student aid programs ever.
  70 percent of the gross savings generated by this bill are achieved 
by continuing the practice of forcing student and parent borrowers to 
pay excessive interest rates in and by assessing new charges on parent 
borrowers.
  This bill puts college even further out of reach for millions of 
American students and families.
  To make matters even worse, the Republican bill puts billions of 
dollars in student aid at risk by cutting all of the critical funds 
($2.2 billion) used to carry out and administer the student aid 
programs.
  As a result, this bill puts the safe delivery of Pell Grant 
scholarships, loans and other aid to millions of students at risk.
  In the face of rising college costs and soaring loan debt, 
Republicans have failed to provide any real relief for rising tuition 
costs.
  Since 2001, tuition at 4-year public colleges has risen by 40 
percent.
  And now to make matters even worse Republicans are going to make it 
even harder for families to pay for college.
  Democrats have a better idea--to make college more affordable without 
costing taxpayers an extra dime.
  We can do it by cutting excessive government subsidies paid to banks 
and lenders in the student loan industry, and using the savings to make 
student loans more affordable than they are today and to boost the Pell 
Grant scholarship.
  By the year 2020, the United States is projected to face a shortage 
of up to 12 million college educated workers, directly threatening 
America's economic strength.
  If we want to keep the American economy strong in the face of fierce 
global competition, then we must not allow financial barriers to 
prevent even a single qualified student from going to college.
  American should be investing in the skills of a new generation of 
students so they can prosper and make America's economy stronger.
  Democrats believe in an America that works for everyone, not just the 
few.
  That's why Democrats oppose this Raid on Student Aid.


                                WELFARE

  The anti-family nature of this bill is also proven by its appalling 
treatment of the working poor.
  The poverty level in America is a national disgrace.
  America has more and deeper poverty than any other developed country 
except Mexico.

[[Page H12238]]

  And the number of Americans living in poverty has increased for the 
fourth year in a row.
  So today, 37 million Americans--many of them full-time workers--live 
in poverty.
  That's 13 percent of all Americans and 1 in every 3 poor people in 
this country is a child.
  This is a disgrace.
  Yet the Republicans have included in this bill a welfare proposal 
that is clearly bad for America's poorest families by forcing states to 
adopt policies that will make it even harder for the working poor to 
become self-sufficient, to move off welfare, and to stay off welfare.
  We cannot judge welfare reform primarily by the number of people on 
or off of welfare assistance but by how many families still live in 
poverty.
  And studies show that many former welfare recipients remain poor and 
lack a steady job after leaving welfare.
  Welfare reform will be successful only when families leave welfare 
for decent jobs and economic stability.
  That's why the Democratic proposals for welfare reform have focused 
on giving states the flexibility, incentives, and resources to 
implement innovative programs and address individual needs and 
differences.
  Unfortunately, the welfare legislation in this conference report 
moves us farther away from making work pay and hurts America's working 
poor.
  The welfare provisions in this report impose massive new mandates 
that will force states to shift resources away from workers and their 
families.
  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost to 
states of meeting the new welfare requirements is $8.4 billion over the 
next 5 years.
  And CBO expects states to try and avoid some of these costs by 
increasing the use of sanctioning and imposing new barriers to poor 
families seeking assistance.
  If states do adopt such policies, the likely result is that the 
number of children and families living in deep poverty will continue to 
increase.
  Matters will be made worse for states and families by the grossly 
inadequate child care funding in this conference agreement--even though 
we know that access to stable child care is essential for parents' 
efforts to stay employed.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the child care funding 
in this bill is $11.5 billion short of what is needed to meet the new 
work requirements and ensure that current child care funding keeps pace 
with inflation.
  The consequence is that even by the Administration's estimations, 
more than 300,000 children will be cut from this program over the next 
5 years.
  That's why the welfare approach in this bill has been opposed by 
Governors and Mayors across this country.
  And why the Senate has been unwilling to adopt this unwise approach.
  Yet, apparently, a backroom deal struck by the Republican Leaderships 
in the House and the Senate is trying to hide irresponsible welfare 
legislation as part of this much larger conference agreement.
  House Republicans have unsuccessfully tried to get this anti-family 
welfare legislation passed into law for 3 years and finally decided the 
only way they could do it was in the middle of the night when America 
is asleep.
  That the Republican party considers themselves the party of family 
values is a joke and the legislation before us makes that painfully 
clear.
  Do what's right for all of America's families and vote no.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, we have run through the gospels and now we 
are on to Dickens. We have heard it all. We would take away the 
crutches, the eyeglasses, and the hearing aids from Tiny Tim. I guess 
the other side would just tax him.
  I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Education and Work Force Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, if this bill was anywhere near as difficult and as bad 
as my friends would have described, there would be no Member of the 
House who would vote for it.
  Now, I think all of us realize that our Nation is going broke. You 
would argue that we are not taxing enough. Most of my colleagues and I 
would argue that we are spending too much. And if you look at Federal 
revenues over the last 10 years, 20 years, you will see that there is 
never an increasing rise in Federal revenues.
  The problem we have is we have a spending problem. We are spending 
money that we do not have year in and year out, and we are passing 
those bills on to our kids and theirs. It is not fair. We decided we 
are going to take a bite at the apple, and we are going to try to do 
something about it.
  Before us we are going to have about a $41 billion deficit reduction 
program. It is going to reform many Federal programs to provide savings 
to reduce the budget deficit. In my committee we are going to take 
$16.2 billion of reforms to lower that deficit, about $3.6 billion of 
that will come in the form of strengthening the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation, raising the premiums on employers who pay into 
that system, and making some other changes that will produce those 
savings.
  The higher education side is rather unique. We are able to increase 
benefits for American students while at the same time reducing and 
reforming those programs to save $12.6 billion. We keep the current law 
fixed interest rates into the foreseeable future for the loan program. 
The consolidation program stays at the same interest rates. We phased 
out origination fees for those in the Pell program from 3 percent down 
to 1 percent over the next 5 years. We increase loan limits for 
students, freshmen, up to $3,500 per year in guaranteed programs. The 
second year, we increase it to $4,500. We eliminate the single holder 
rule. We increase loan rates and loan volumes for graduate students. At 
the same time, we reform the programs and the fees that we pay to 
lenders. We eliminate the 9.5 percent loans and eliminate recycling. We 
eliminate floor income, we reduce the insurance rate for the lenders 
from 98 to 97 percent, and we give guarantors incentives for 
rehabilitating loans rather than to put them into the consolidation 
program. This is a good deal for American students.
  On top of all that, there is $3.7 billion in this bill to start an 
academic competitive grant for Pell-eligible students who are 
interested in math, science, and specialized languages. We all know 
that we have problems with enough mathematicians and scientists in 
America, and this program is aimed at Pell-eligible students trying to 
encourage them into math and science and giving them significant grants 
in their junior and senior year to make sure they graduate as 
mathematicians and scientists.
  All of this is being done on behalf of students, while saving, 
producing savings of $12.6 billion to help reduce the deficit.
  Now, I think all of us have a job to do when it comes to reducing 
this deficit. Again, my colleagues want to raise taxes. I do not think 
that we have a revenue problem; I think we have a spending problem. And 
I think reforming these Federal programs, especially in a way where we 
can provide additional benefits for students, is a win-win for the 
American people. It is a good bill. We ought to vote for it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, what irony. This is the Deficit Reduction 
Act. We just heard; what was the deficit in November? $83 billion. You 
have the gall to come here and talk about deficit reduction? $83 
billion in one month. Your priorities are clear. You do not bring up 
the tax bill tonight because you are afraid to combine a bill that cuts 
$20 billion, over half of which goes to people making 1 million bucks a 
year, with these budget cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, we scared you off, some of your intentions on child 
support, which would have resulted in $24 billion less over the next 10 
years collected for the kids of America. You have now reduced it to 
$8.4 billion. That is how much less children are going to receive. And 
the irony is that the States that are hurt the most are the States that 
are best performing. And then when it comes to welfare reform, in the 
1990s, many of us worked together to change our laws. We did it in a 
way that provided adequate child care and Medicaid. President Clinton 
would not sign the bill until those provisions were in there.
  You could not get an immediate welfare reform package through the 
Senate, so what you have done is to stick it in this bill. That is what 
you are doing.

                              {time}  0300

  The child care provision, only about $1 billion. It would take $11 
billion for

[[Page H12239]]

the States, if the States met the work requirements, $11 billion more 
in child care, and you do not help at all in terms of health care. What 
you do is change the formulas so that there is going to be on the 
States a cost in order to meet this in the next 5 years of over $8 
billion.
  So you are going to hurt the States, you are going to hurt kids of a 
parent or parents who are moving from welfare to work, and you are 
going to provide totally inadequate child care for those people who are 
moving from welfare to work.
  Your priorities are very clear, very clear, a tax cut for 
millionaires and hurting the kids of the United States of America. 
Frankly, I do not care what time of the year it is; it is bad every day 
of the year to do that, and I hope we will turn this down.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I share the gentleman's concern about the budget deficit. That is why 
I am proud to announce that the deficit is $134 billion less than what 
was estimated a year ago, thanks to the strength of the economy.
  I understand his concern about the ongoing growth of mandatory 
programs, which is why we have in place a deficit reduction package 
that helps us to get our arms around the fact that two-thirds of the 
Federal budget will be on auto pilot if we do not act.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I just want to say, if we look at what our budget has done in terms 
of Federal student aid, for student grants it has nearly doubled in 10 
years. For Federal loans, it has gone up about 30 or 40 percent. There 
are more tax benefits than ever before for education.
  For the Medicaid that we are getting accused of slashing to death, we 
are debating here a difference in growth of 7.7 percent versus 7.5 
percent.
  The spending growth in SSI has been increasing at an annual rate of 
about 4.4 percent, and it has gone from $29 billion to $36 billion in 
the last 5 years.
  The spending growth in foster care in 2000 was $5.7 billion, and 
today it is $6.8 billion. The spending growth in child support has gone 
from about $1 billion in 2000 to $4 billion today.
  We keep hearing about tax cuts for the rich. Why do people with more 
money get more tax reductions when you look to change tax policy? That 
is because they are paying the taxes.
  What are the results of these economic decisions which we are making 
sometimes and too often on a nonpartisan basis because we do not get 
the support that we feel we should get from both parties on this? But 
what are the results of this?
  Gross domestic product, we have had an increase of 4.3 percent in the 
third quarter. Real gross domestic product has increased about 3 
percent for the last 10 consecutive quarters.
  For employment, 215,000 new jobs were added in November alone, and 
this year so far 1.8 million jobs. The unemployment rate was 5 percent 
in November. The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.3 percent in June 
of 2003 to the current 5 percent level.
  Productivity has increased at a robust 4.7 percent annualized in the 
third quarter. Manufacturing has been expanding for 30 consecutive 
months. Services have been expanding for 32 consecutive months.
  Business investment from its low in 2003 has been increasing for over 
24 percent, and home sales, certainly the barometer of health in the 
United States of America, everybody's dream to own their own home, and 
new home sales rose to another high in October. Sales of existing 
homes, which account for 85 percent of all home sales, retreated in 
October but remain close to record levels.
  The economy is robust. These policies speak for themselves. If you do 
not confiscate money from folks in the form of taxes, participatory 
taxes, and if you do not overspend and expand the Federal Government, 
the economy in the United States of America works miracles because the 
rising tide lifts all boats. There are more jobs than ever before.
  There is an old expression, when the carpenter has work everybody's 
employed. That is what these economic policies are doing, and I support 
this bill. There are things in there I do not like, just like everybody 
else, but overall, cutting spending and cutting taxes grows the economy 
and creates jobs. So I stand in support of the rule and the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, how appropriate that we bring this piece of legislation 
in the early morning, deep in December, as our Nation braces for yet 
another cold winter.
  To my Democratic colleagues I say, you know, do not be too harsh on 
our Republican colleagues. Take heart in what Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
said. Remember this, that they are not bad people. In fact, they can be 
very well intended, but more often than not they are frozen in the ice 
of their own indifference, frozen in indifference to the cries of 
people from the rooftops of New Orleans or to fellow colleagues who 
come to the floor from Bay St. Louis and New Orleans and talk about 
people who still live in tents, frozen in their indifference to the 
elderly in this country who are refugees from their own health care 
system and have to go to Canada to get prescription drugs, frozen in 
that indifference and yet come to this Chamber with the temerity to 
talk about spending.
  We agree with you on spending. It is just that you lavish your 
spending on the oil companies and the pharmaceutical companies and only 
ask of the least amongst us to provide for the sacrifice that this 
Nation and you are going to place upon their backs.
  Roosevelt had it right: You are frozen in the ice of your own 
indifference.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I noted the gentleman's lavish description of the frozen tundra that 
people find themselves frozen in, and I would point out to him that $1 
billion will be put into LIHEAP, something that he failed to mention, 
that will assist all Americans who find themselves in a low-income 
situation and need of assistance for paying their utility bills, to 
make sure they have the adequate protection they need, a record amount 
of money, $1 billion. That has not been mentioned in amongst all the 
other comments about the cuts that people are facing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, there was a statement made earlier that the 
New Testament spoke about individuals as opposed to government, and I 
would be glad to enter into a colloquy with anyone who would purport to 
demonstrate that. I can show you for the remainder of the night a 
litany of scripture that would suggest almost unquestionably that 
government has a responsibility. Jesus authenticated government, and 
then Paul asked that we pray for the government.
  This issue that we are dealing with, if we are going to bring 
religion into it, I think we have some obligation to at least deal with 
the Holy Writ in the fashion that it was written.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to debate a very historic bill, 
although I do not believe the rhetoric from the other side is 
necessarily historic.
  We are hearing a lot tonight about cuts and compassion, but when I 
look at this bill, all I seem to see is increases in spending. So I am 
trying to figure out where the reductions in spending have actually 
taken place. Mr. Speaker, people are entitled to their own opinions. 
They are just simply not entitled to their own facts.
  After this set of reforms is passed, Federal outlays are going to 
grow 4.3 percent. Mandatory is going to grow 6.3. Medicaid is going to 
grow 7.5. I am still looking for the cuts.
  I think maybe, Mr. Speaker, I have found those cuts now that I look, 
and that is every time we increase a program of the Federal budget, we 
are having to decrease some program of the family budget.

[[Page H12240]]

  This is a very historic piece of legislation because tonight we start 
that process, those first few steps towards reforming out-of-control 
government spending. We know what that future is, Mr. Speaker, if we do 
not do something about it.
  Already Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve has said, ``As a 
Nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of 
retirees that we will be unable to fulfill.''
  The Brookings Institution has said, Expected growth in our 
entitlement programs along with projected increases in interest on the 
debt in defense will absorb all of the government's currently projected 
revenue within 8 years, leaving nothing for any other program. So no 
veterans program, no student loans, no housing programs.
  Where is the compassion in this, Mr. Speaker, if we follow the 
Democrat plan and do nothing for reforming our entitlement spending?
  The GAO says that we will have to double taxes on our children just 
to balance the budget if we do not begin this process of reform. Now, 
where is the compassion there?
  And when people start to lecture us about 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 yet to be born. Who represents 
them here this evening? Who speaks out for them?
  Let us have compassion for the next generation and let us enact this 
rule, let us enact this underlying bill, and let us save this next 
generation from a fiscal calamity.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, 3:10 a.m. The Republicans do all their best 
worst work at this time in the dark of night.
  Well, they have done a new thing here. They have bifurcated Santa 
Claus. We have two Santa Clauses. We have Santa thief who is going to 
wriggle down the chimney and he is going to steal from the least among 
us. He is going to take $16 billion out of student loans, kids 
struggling to get ahead. Why? So we can finance tax cuts on dividend 
paying stocks.
  He is going to take money from struggling families in the form of 
Medicaid, seniors on Medicare. Oh, he is going to give another $1 
billion to the LIHEAP program, thank you to Santa thief.
  He has also given $9 billion in subsidies to the oil, coal and gas 
industry in the so-called travesty of an energy bill that passed this 
House.
  But that old St. Nick, he is still alive, thank God. Republicans have 
kept him alive, but he is in the Bahamas with the expatriate people who 
are avoiding taxes, clinking champagne glasses, hopefully not French, 
owing to the sensibilities of the Republicans here and those French, 
and he is giving them wonderful benefits.
  We are going to reduce taxes on people who earn over $300,000 a year 
so their tax rate on dividends or capital gains is less than the tax 
rate paid by the checkout clerk at the supermarket. Now, that is fair. 
That is equitable. By God, because those people are going to trickle 
down on the rest of America, as they trickle we are actually creating a 
sea of red ink and their yachts float higher and their mansions get 
bigger. A few lucky folks will get to wash the decks of the yachts and 
to cut their lawns.
  Now, this is what the Republicans say. We do not have a revenue 
problem. We are hemorrhaging revenue. If we just restored the tax rates 
of the booming 1990s, when the wealthy were doing quite well, the 
yachts and mansions and increasing incomes, we would gain $386 billion 
if they just paid the same rate of taxes they did before you took over 
everything.
  That is 10 times the cuts here, 10 times what Santa thief is stealing 
from the students, the old folks and the poor, 10 times as much. We do 
not have a revenue problem. No, your contributor wealthy investor class 
is doing very well. They just have to wait until next year for their 
gratification, but we are going to stick it to the most suffering among 
us here early this morning.

                              {time}  0315

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the week before Christmas and here we are 
gathered, most of the children in their bed even in my district by now, 
and the elves have been working. So here we are.
  The Republican Party, since the days of Reagan, have lived by the 
motto of Mrs. Thatcher, that there is no society, there is only 
individuals. Now, that is contrary, as you heard from the gentleman 
from Missouri, to what the Bible says. We all start the story of the 
Bible, the Christian story, in Isaiah. And in Isaiah the prophet is 
categorizing what is going on in Jerusalem and why it is failing as the 
injustice and the materialism and the wealth accumulated. Here is what 
Isaiah said, verse 23, first chapter. Right off the bat: ``Everyone 
loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not defend the fatherless. 
The widow's cause does not come before them.''
  For us to be here in the middle of the night taking whatever it is, 
$50 billion, $60 billion, nobody on this floor knows what is in this 
budget, let us admit that right up front, except about six people who 
wrote it. We are all taking it that we are going to take $60 billion 
and we are going to tell the poor people, you know, you are so lucky to 
live in America. We are going to throw you a little something.
  In our history, every one of us has been raised with the Christmas 
story, either the biblical Christmas story or the Dickens Christmas 
story of the coal and the Grinch. You think about all the stories we 
have about what happens at Christmas time, and you have the nerve to 
come out here with a budget at this time of year where you cut child 
support, you cut food stamps, you cut Medicaid; and then you say to 
people, Merry Christmas and a happy new year.
  That takes the height of gall, or else no feeling whatsoever. There 
is no way you could stand up and talk about these issues if you 
understood what people at the bottom really have to deal with. Most of 
us make $150,000 as a minimum. The average income in this country is 
about a quarter of that, or a fifth of it. Those people are scraping 
along, and we are doing everything we can to make it impossible for 
them to live a decent life because of our own, as the prophet says, our 
own greed and materialism.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing there are all these vicious 
tax cuts. There are no cuts in this bill. A vote for this bill means we 
are voting not to raise taxes.
  And it has done my heart good to hear so many religious references to 
Jesus and to the Bible. I would point you in that direction. Jesus 
never said, go ye and use and abuse your taxing authority. Take from 
others to give. He said, you do it. And I would offer you the example 
of Zacharius when he met Jesus. What did he do? He went and cut taxes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Shame, shame, shame. You know, I am 
really glad that I am not a Republican. You know, Christianity is not 
what you say; it is what you do. And today you all practice what I call 
all the time reverse Robin Hood. During Christmas time you are robbing 
from the poor, the working people, to give tax breaks to the rich. 
Humbug.
  The Republicans today are trying to be the Grinches that stole . . .
  Not Christmas, but health care from the poor.
  Republicans are practicing what I call reverse Robin Hood, robbing 
from the poor to give to the rich.
  In this season of giving, the Republicans are taking from the poor to 
line the pockets of the wealthiest Americans.
  Well, I say Bah Humbug!
  Bah Humbug to you and your policies.
  Those who will suffer will be: single mothers seeking child support; 
students struggling to pay their college loans, foster kids; the sick 
and the poor whose only access to health coverage is Medicaid; and 
those whose nutrition depends on food stamps or school lunches.

[[Page H12241]]

  Christianity what you say not what you do.
  If you are going to talk the talk, you must walk the walk. And the 
Republicans today are not walking with the poorest among us.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, we have worked our way through Dickens, Dr. 
Seuss, and the entire New Testament. I wait to see what else awaits us.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me 
this time and for her eloquent presentation of this rule against this 
terrible, terrible, as the Congresswoman from Florida said, shameful 
bill.
  I want to also pay tribute to Mr. Spratt of South Carolina, our 
ranking member on the Budget Committee, as I rise in opposition to this 
rule and in opposition to this bill. Mr. Spratt, anybody in our country 
who cares about fairness, about opportunity, about responsibility, 
about community is enormously in your debt for the values budget that 
you put forth and the great and excellent work that you do on behalf of 
the American people. Thank you, Mr. Spratt.
  Mr. Spratt called me earlier this evening and told me, well, actually 
it was earlier this morning, and he told me he had just received the 
budget bill, 700 pages. Now, we all know one thing for sure. No one in 
this Congress has read that bill. So later, in just a short while, we 
will be voting on a bill that no one has read. But we do know certain 
things about it that make it very objectionable, not just to us but to 
the religious community in America.
  Mr. Speaker, ``Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat, please 
to put a penny in the old man's hat. If you haven't got a penny, a 
ha'penny will do. If you haven't got a ha'penny, God bless you.''
  With this budget bill, the special interest goose is getting very, 
very fat. Do we say God bless you with this budget when Congress leaves 
here without passing a budget which comes close to meeting the needs of 
America's families who are struggling to pay their home heating bills 
and pay the price at the pump? This same Congress gave obscene 
subsidies to oil companies that are making historic profits this year; 
yet we give a small token to America's families to help pay the bills 
to those oil companies.
  Do we say God bless you with this budget when we leave here without 
extending the time that our seniors need to understand the befuddling 
prescription drug bill that has been handed to them with a time limit? 
Democrats have a better idea of extending the time for seniors and 
lowering the cost of prescription drugs. But, no, the pharmaceutical 
and health industry goose is getting fat off this Congress at the 
expense of America's seniors.
  And, really, what is so sad about it is that when it comes to meeting 
the needs of our young people and opportunities for them, we do not say 
God bless you, we say to them we are adding $5,800 more to those who 
use student loans. How could that be right while at the same time we 
give tax cuts to those making over $1 million a year; and at the same, 
at the same time we are growing the deficit and heaping mountains of 
debt onto those same young people?
  Mr. Obey calls this Scroogenomics. Scroogenomics. But, really, 
associating Scrooge with this Republican budget gives Scrooge a bad 
name. He saw the evil of his ways, Scrooge did. These Republicans are 
so blinded by the greed of their special interest friends that they are 
stuck in their cruel ways.
  That is why leaders of every religious denomination have prayed in 
this rotunda, have prayed in churches across America, and as recently 
as a couple of days ago were arrested, over 100 of them and their 
representatives on the steps of the Cannon Building, to protest this 
budget.
  Religious denominations prayed and lobbied Congress that Congress 
would do the right thing. They said that they were drawing a moral line 
in the sand against this budget. Democrats joined them in drawing that 
line in the sand between a Republican government of the privileged few 
instead of the government of the many, which is the American way.
  Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman 
from Florida when she says, shame on you. It is shameful that this 
Congress will adjourn passing this immoral budget, meeting the greeds 
of the special interest friends of the Republicans instead, again, as I 
said, of the needs of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, as we leave for this Christmas recess, let us say God 
bless you to the American people by voting against this Republican 
budget statement of injustice and immorality. And let us not let the 
special interest goose get fat at the expense of America's children.
  The gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott) quoted the 
prophet Isaiah. My favorite saying from Isaiah is when he said: ``To 
minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore 
those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.''
  Let us vote ``no'' on this budget as an act of worship and for 
America's children.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I came prepared for the wrong 
debate. I brought the good economic news that is being told and shared 
and being invested all across this great land. Productivity numbers up, 
unemployment at 5 percent, nearly full employment for the country. 
Record numbers. Robust GDP growth quarter after quarter after quarter. 
The news that important reforms to Medicaid and Medicare will be moving 
forward, allowing those programs to continue to grow at, in some cases, 
double the rate of inflation, double the rate of the CPI that most 
people use as their common benchmark. And the news that there is a 
record amount of money into LIHEAP.
  We brought those facts and figures to a debate that was about deficit 
reduction, that was about the future of America. The other side brought 
Dr. Seuss. The other side brought Dickens and nursery rhymes and enough 
theology to field an old-time revival, but to do nothing about the 
fiscal health of this country; to do nothing about the fact that if we 
move forward with their Dickens economic plan, that if we move forward 
with their Dr. Seuss approach to economics that two-thirds of the 
Federal budget will be on autopilot; that if we move forward with their 
plan, these programs will continue to have the inefficiencies and the 
waste and the fraud that makes for an unresponsive, unreactive 
government that confiscates people's money and then does not even 
invest it back into a program that serves the very people who need it 
the most.
  That is the crime in this, Mr. Speaker, that we have a thoughtful, 
long-term plan for the fiscal health of this country, something that 
future generations will say marked the turning point, the first 
reconciliation bill, the first real attempt at deficit reduction since 
1997 to turn that ship of state toward a brighter tomorrow. It cannot 
be summed up in some cute little nursery rhyme. It is important stuff. 
Sometimes it is dry stuff; sometimes it is dull stuff. But, by golly, 
it is important.
  It is important to each and every American because it impacts how 
much money their government takes from them and how wisely that 
government uses that money for the needs of its people.

                              {time}  0330


                             General Leave

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H. Res. 639 and H. Res. 640.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________