[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.
____________________