[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 164 (Sunday, December 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H12269-H12277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1932, DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 640, I call up
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1932) to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the
House of today.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have a plan to reform the government and achieve
savings. We present that plan to the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have before us a conference report that everybody should understand
there has really been no conference in which House and Senate Democrats
have had any meaningful role.
Our objection to this bill begins with its title: The Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005. Let us be honest, this bill does not reduce the
deficit. When this reconciliation bill with spending cuts is paired
with its counterpart, the reconciliation bill with tax cuts, the
deficit is actually increased, not decreased; and the increase in the
deficit gets worse when you add, as I think you should, the $50 bill in
other tax cuts passed by the House over the last few months.
At the outset, the proponents of this bill called it necessary in
order to help pay for hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That has proven to
be a false claim, too. This bill has nothing to do with paying for
Katrina. It has everything to do with facilitating further tax cuts.
This bill comes out of a budget resolution that calls for a total of
$106 billion in new and additional tax cuts, $70 billion reconciled,
$36 billion unreconciled.
So the spending cuts in this bill are really just the first step in a
three-step process. Step two will come when the tax cuts reconciliation
bill emerges from conference. When these two bills are paired, the
result will be a deficit bigger by about $60 billion over 5 years.
Then there is a third step. There is an increase in the national debt
pending, an increase in the national debt ceiling of $781 billion
necessary to accommodate budgets like the 2006 budget being passed here
tonight. This increase was deemed approved when the Republican budget
resolution passed the House several months ago.
Over the last 4 fiscal years, to make room for budgets of the Bush
administration and budgets that have been passed by the majority in
this House, we have had to raise the legal debt ceiling of the United
States by $3.15 trillion to accommodate those budgets.
Once upon a time, the purpose of reconciliation was to rein in the
deficit; but as you can see from the charts I am about to put up, and I
knew this was just what you wanted me to serve you for breakfast this
morning, more numbers and more charts, so I did not disappoint.
First of all, when you put this chart up, you can see what the debt
increases have been over the last 4 or 5 fiscal years: $3.15 trillion.
As Casey Stengel said, ``If you don't believe it, you can look it up.''
$3.15 trillion.
Next, let me show you what reconciliation in past years has
accomplished as opposed to what reconciliation this year will
accomplish in terms of reducing the deficit. In past years, for example
the Bush budget summit in 1990, the deficit reduction due to
reconciliation was $482 billion. In the Clinton budget in 1993, the
deficit reduction due to reconciliation was $433 billion. In the
balanced budget agreement of 1997, reconciliation produced savings of
$118 billion over 5 years. This bill saves nothing. It aggravates and
worsens the deficit.
Now, it is fair to ask: Why have the Republicans, those who put this
budget together, why have they put spending cuts in one bill and tax
cuts in another bill? Why did they not just combine the two so we could
keep tabs on everything with one reconciliation bill? Which is
typically what we have done in the past.
Well, there is a reason for this hiatus between spending cuts and tax
cuts. The spending cuts made by this bill will hit the young, the old,
the sick, and the poor, and hit them rather hard. The savings realized
from these spending cuts will help offset tax cuts for top-bracket
taxpayers. Our Republican colleagues want to avoid that connection, so
they have produced two separate bills, one for tax cuts, and then a
little later on, one for spending cuts.
Who bears the brunt of these bills? Single mothers still do. Despite
some moderation in the effect of the cuts that were proposed
originally, single mothers still take about a $2 billion hit. Students
struggling to pay for their college education. The hit on student loans
is $12.7 billion. The sick and the poor, whose only access to medical
care is Medicaid. Medicaid still suffers a hit of $7 billion.
So these cuts have been moderated in the conference with the Senate,
but
[[Page H12270]]
some of the worst of the House bill provisions are still there. A bit
less significant, but still hurtful to the people who are the victims
of these particular cuts.
And bear this in mind. Bear this in mind. This bill still increases,
for all of the cuts it makes, still increases the deficit, still uses
spending cuts to offset tax cuts, and still cuts services for the least
among us, the most vulnerable and poorest Americans.
In short, there are many reasons this bill does not live up to its
title, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. It makes deep and painful
cuts still, only to pave the way for new and additional tax cuts and
never mind the deficit. The result is a larger deficit. So in this
respect, today's legislation is like the budget resolution that set it
in motion. This is one of a series of fiscal actions that will cause
the debt ceiling of the United States at the end of this year to be
move to $3.15 trillion.
Bear in mind that when the Bush administration came to office, it
inherited a surplus and predicted that this surplus would endure even
if its trillion dollar tax cuts were adopted. Well, the Bush budget was
adopted, and in fiscal 2005 the bottom line was not a surplus of $269
billion, as once projected, but a deficit of $319 billion.
{time} 0515
Realistic estimates from CBO show that if you take the Bush budget of
2006 as last proposed in July, and they are updated, if you take that
budget and run it out 10 years with all the assumptions made in the
Bush budget, these are the results. The deficit of last year, which was
$320 billion, this is CBO, will go to $640 billion, if you follow the
trajectory shown here, the curve shown here. The deficit goes from $320
billion to $640 billion. It doubles.
Debt service on the debt goes from $182 billion last year to $458
billion in 10 years, and the national debt doubles. That is the course
we are embarked upon as we do one more part of a long series of fiscal
actions that are leading us deeper and deeper into debt, and nobody
should be fooled by what is happening here on the House floor tonight.
Once the pieces are all put together, and you can see the whole puzzle,
this means a deeper deficit and no resolution to the problem before us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would just note for the record that it is
now the break of dawn. It is no longer the dead of night.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it may be 5:15 in the morning, but that is
not our fault. We would liked to have done this in the light of day
with a little more time to look at this package. Here is what we have
got just 1 hour ago.
When we unpacked the package to see what was in it, we had the
Speaker's press release, which told us earlier in the evening that, by
golly, you would come up with $41.6 billion in total spending
reductions. We got this package, and, finally, looking through 700
pages, we finally got a summary of the action taken, and they came to
$39.7 billion. It was $1.9 billion less than the Speaker had claimed
earlier. Even for government work, that is not very close.
Here is the Speaker's press release. We discern that this difference
came from the fact that between the Speaker's press release and the
release of this voluminous document here called the budget resolution,
or the budget reconciliation bill, there was a deal made with the
medical equipment manufacturers and suppliers with respect to Medicare
reimbursement, a deal that costs your total package $1.9 billion.
If I am not right, I would like to be corrected, which leads us to
ask, if you could adjust for them to the tune of $1.9 billion, couldn't
we have gone back and looked at student loans and moderated the cuts
being inflicted on them? Couldn't we have gone back and looked at
children with delinquent dads and moderated what we were doing with
respect to the cuts in child support enforcement, foster care, and the
other things that are still in this bill? If you could do that for the
medical equipment manufacturers, couldn't you do it for the least of
these?
Mr. Speaker, it may be 5:20 in the morning, but Mr. Dingell is still
up and ready for a good fight. I yield to the gentleman for 4 minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the conference report. I
urge my colleagues to vote it down. This might be called a Christmas
Carol. The Republicans give tax cuts to every Ebeneezer Scrooge and his
friends, and they raise the costs to the Cratchit family and take
medical care away from Tiny Tim.
There is no way to hide the fact that these cuts hurt beneficiaries.
Cuts in the Medicare program come directly from the families who depend
on them, by raising their payments, making health care unaffordable, or
by not paying for needed treatments when those families seek care.
Millions of children will lose medically necessary benefits and face
increases in the amount that their parents have to pay for them to go
to the doctor.
Because this conference report allows, in fact it almost requires
States to charge families four times more today than they do to see
their doctor at this time, we know this size increase will force people
to forgo needed care. Millions of families will seek cuts in important
services in mental health, physical and rehabilitation therapies,
dental and vision benefits.
What good can come from allowing States to deny eyeglasses to
children who cannot see in school or hearing assistance to children who
cannot hear. One in nine children with special health care needs are
those who reside in military families and rely on Medicaid for
supplemental health care jeopardized by this bill.
The conference report seeks to raise health care premiums on
individuals who depend on Medicaid. A major portion of the savings of
this provision will come from families, including children, losing
health insurance coverage. There are more than 45 million uninsured now
in this Nation. This bill will add significantly to that number. Nearly
40 children's groups, March of Dimes, Family Voices, oppose these cuts.
AARP has written to urge the Congress not to harm those who rely on
this program for long-term care. One hundred forty national groups,
American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, wrote
in opposition to benefit cuts and increases in cost sharing.
There is another little thing here that my colleagues will want to
know about, and that is very interesting. The conference report takes
away from the moneys that we could give to first responders to
adequately respond from the spectrum sales that will occur, and it
gives those monies as it gives other monies to tax cuts for the well-
to-do.
The end result, my dear friend, is that first responders, public
health, public safety will be shortchanged. Our first responders risk
their lives to leave no one behind, but the Republicans here leave the
first responders behind, and they are going to have a nice little tax
increase for those who are going to see their television sets go blank
because of the change from the normal analog spectrum to the digital
spectrum which is going to take place shortly.
You can expect to hear from all of your constituents that they have
had to go out to spend $60 to get a converter box to go on top of their
television. This, my friends, is a Christmas present of our Republican
friends to the American people, tax cuts for the wealthy, cost
increases on health for the small children and for the families on
limited income and cuts in needed services to the first responders and
spectrum and increases in the cost to ordinary citizens to continue
watching television.
This is a bad program. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Ruth Marcus, a reporter for the Washington
Post, wrote the other day that those who forget history are condemned
to be spun by it. I remember history. I have been here for a quarter of
a century, and I have heard the representations made by Republicans in
the administration and on this floor over those years, telling me how
their policies were going to lead to fiscal responsibility, reduction
of deficits, elimination of debt. It hasn't happened. Not
[[Page H12271]]
in one of the 17 years has that happened.
In fact, when Washington is under the total control, absolute control
of Republicans over the last 5 years, we have had the worst deficit
performance in our history, and we have had much larger spending than
we had under Bill Clinton.
There is only one person that can stop spending in America. You have
heard me say this before. It is the President of the United States. He
can veto a bill, and we have never in the 25 years I have served here
overridden a President's veto that said we were spending too much.
As a matter of fact, the only veto override that I remember in the
Reagan years was when we overrode a veto where President Reagan said we
did not spend enough money. In that instance it was on defense; $4
trillion of deficits under Republican Presidents, $62.5 billion surplus
under a Democratic President. That is the experience of the 25 years.
My friends, if we were responsible people, we would say we will cut
spending, and then we will cut revenues. Because if we have the courage
to cut spending, then we do not need to pay for the things that we cut.
But if we do not have the courage to pay for what we buy, we are
misserving the American public and, even more deeply, our children and
our grandchildren. That is the consequence of your policy.
You come here cutting revenues. That is an honest policy, but you do
not have the courage to cut the spending. You cut $50 billion, you say,
in this bill, but you then cut $56 billion in revenue. You don't have
to be much of a math expert to know that that is a $6 billion addition
to the deficit.
Ladies and gentlemen, America expects better of us. America expects
honest leadership. America deserves honest policies. The absence of
honest policies has led to us incurring $1.5 trillion of deficits in
less than 60 months. We can do better. We ought to do better. We must
do better. Reject this irresponsible bill.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume
just to tell the gentleman from Maryland that our tax policies have
created 4.5 million new jobs in the past 30 months. Our Nation's
unemployment rate has dropped to 5 percent lower than the average rate
of the last three decades. Revenue coming into Washington has increased
this year by 15 percent, and we have reduced the deficit over the last
2 years by over $200 billion.
We have a plan. It is reforming government. It is reducing the
deficit, and we need to pass that plan, and we need to stop just
talking about fairy tales and Dickens and all sorts of things that are
very interesting but are certainly not getting us to the results that
we need. We have a plan to provide those results, and we need to pass
that plan this morning.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HOYER. The chairman of the Budget Committee came to this floor
and put a bag over his head because he was ashamed of serving in this
House. He was ashamed.
Mr. NUSSLE. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. HOYER. Not yet.
Mr. NUSSLE. Well, the gentleman referenced me.
Mr. HOYER. I did reference you and I may do it again, but I will not
yield yet.
He came to this floor, and he said he was ashamed. He was ashamed
because of a bank scandal. It wasn't handled very well but there were
no tax dollars involved, nobody lost anything and the account at Riggs
Bank was never overdrawn. But, my friends, under his administration
over the last 5 years, $1.5 trillion in deficits.
Now, let me tell you something. Economic performance, these are
facts. This is not Dickens or Chaucer or Shakespeare or anybody else.
These are facts from your budget book. Average weekly earnings, Bush I,
minus 1.1 percent; Bush II, minus three-tenths of 1 percent; Bill
Clinton, plus eight-tenths of 1 percent; Median household income, Bush
I, minus eight-tenths of 1 percent; Bush II, minus nine-tenths of 1
percent; Clinton, plus 1.6 percent.
{time} 0530
Poverty, Bush I, went up 1.8 percent. Bush II it has gone up 1.4
percent; Clinton, down 3.5 percent. Jobs, you talked about jobs. Bush
I, plus-2.13 million; Bush II, now about 4 million; Clinton, 21 million
new jobs average. Now, let me give you the averages. Bush I, 44,500 per
month; Bush II, 34,678 per month; Clinton, 228,464 per month. Real GDP.
Bush I, up 2.1; Clinton, plus-3.6 percent; Bush II, plus-2.6 percent.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, we like a lot of polls. The Dow Jones,
that is sort of a poll on economic security, growth, confidence in our
economy, Dow Jones under Bush I, up 46.7 percent. Under Bush II, now it
has gone up a little bit the last few days, about 1 percent, from the
time he took over to now.
Now, listen to this, my friends. This is a poll that counts about
people who think our economy is doing well. Up under Clinton, remember
it was 46 percent under Bush I, 1 percent under this President, under
Bill Clinton, 255 percent increase in those 8 years.
So in conclusion, my friend, I will tell you that on every statistic,
the representations you have made have been wrong. I will tell you the
last 2 months, the last 2 months, ladies and gentlemen, the deficit in
America went up $130 billion of deficit spending in just the last 2
months. That is the fiscal management that presents this program on the
floor today. America ought to reject it, and we surely should on their
behalf.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, at this hour of the night, I am not sure
who in the world is listening to whom. Certainly, none of our
constituents are awake. They have all fallen asleep, except those who
are total insomniacs.
But I had the experience last week when I was home of going to the
City Club in Seattle. And they have a yearly meeting where they talk
about how the year has gone and what they expect for the next year. It
is sort of looking forward to the next year and what is going to
happen, and they pick out important citizens from our city to put on
the panel. And the question was asked of the panel, what is the thing
you worry about most in the future?
Now, one of the panelists was a guy who some of you may know, his
name is William Gates, Sr. He is the father of Bill Gates. He runs the
Gates Foundation. And his answer was this: I worry most that people do
not realize how close we are to economic collapse in this country. The
spending that is going on, and he went on to elaborate, in terms of the
issues that we face today, with a bubble of real estate out there, with
everybody buying houses on interest-only loans, on the huge credit card
debt in this country, on people working full-time and not having any
increase in their wages.
Now, you can look at certain figures and we have the battle here of
the figures. And if you are sitting at home thinking what are people
thinking about all those flying back and forth, because their
experience is that their wages are not going up. Prices are still going
up. Their cable TV is costing more than it did and their gas is costing
more than it did. But their wages are not going up.
Now, they read that the GDP is going well and that more taxes are
coming in. That is not affecting the basic people in this society. And
this bill, this so-called reconciliation bill, I do not know whoever
thought that that was a good term for it, because we are not
reconciliating the people at the top and the people at the bottom. This
is a bill directed at the people at the bottom. The people on the top
are doing great.
There is nobody in this room who is going to suffer for one single
minute in the next year. Not one single one of you will be cold or
hungry or without the ability to go see a physician or receive a dental
appointment when you need it, when you have got a toothache.
How many States are there in the United States that still have a
dental program for the people on TANF? Practically none. And we stand
out here and say that this is a great budget and you are going to cut,
it is baloney. It is a sham and we ought to vote ``no'' on it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, lest anyone think that we are about to launch a bill
here that
[[Page H12272]]
will lead us to a balanced budget, let me disabuse you of that
illusion.
First of all, let us look at some of the specific items in this
particular package to see whether or not they are real in the way of
budget reduction.
For example, this bill calls for the abolition of mandatory spending
to administer the student loan program. Now, how do you administer the
student loan program if you do not provide the funding for it? If you
do not provide the mandatory funding for it, it has to come out of
discretionary funding. That means we will be underfunding No Child Left
Behind and other discretionary educational programs by $2 billion a
year more, because that is where the money for administration of the
student loan programs will have to come from if you bar its coming from
mandatory spending. It is a phony cut.
Secondly, $3.6 billion is scored as a revenue to offset these
spending increases, $3.6 billion in PBGC premiums. Now why is that not
allowable? In my good accounting book, if you book all of the
liabilities that PBGC is faced with over the foreseeable future, there
is no net balance in that account, even after you add this $3.6
billion. That money is entrusted. It is encumbered and it cannot fairly
be said to be available in the general fund to offset other spending.
In truth, it will be spent much, much too soon anyway, and we will have
to replenish it.
Third, child support enforcement. You have moderated that. You have
brought it down from $4.9 billion, which was absurd, to $1.5 billion,
which still hurts. You either shift that expense to the States that are
responsible for child support enforcement, or parents who are looking
to delinquent parents to pay their child support will have less
assistance, and they will collect less in the way of child support. It
is a false economy.
You say there are no tax increases in your bill. But the PBGC premium
increase is certainly equivalent to the same thing. It will come out of
paychecks. And the Medicare part B under your provisions is certainly
going up. It will come out of Social Security checks. It is offset.
And then there is another thing about your bill that is myopic that
gives us real problems with it. In looking for places to cut, you
wholly ignore any kind of revenue effects connected with your tax cut
agenda. And the way you are able to do this, and avoid responsibility
for it, is you break the tax cuts into so many small pieces that you
clutter the audit trail and make it hard for anybody, Members and
otherwise, to follow just how big the tax tab, the tax cut tab is
adding up to.
So let me take two charts here and try to reconstruct the path, the
audit trail of tax cuts that has been implemented since the budget
resolution for 2006 was passed just a few minutes ago, a few months
ago, and what it means for the bottom line, that is, the deficit.
Let us start with the highway bill passed earlier this year. This
revenue impact is about $500 million over 5 years. Next comes the
energy policy act. Revenue loss over 5 years is $7.9 billion. Then
there is the Katrina tax relief act of 2005, which we adopted a few
weeks ago. It has a revenue head of $6 billion.
The biggest tax cuts come from that bill that is waiting in the wings
for this bill to be passed; and it will come along a little bit later,
the Tax Extension Reconciliation Act of 2006, 20005. It entails tax
cuts for $56 billion over 5 years passed by this House, $80 billion
over 10 years. Then there is the so-called Stealth Tax Relief Act,
patching the alternative minimum tax for this year so that it affects
no more taxpayers than it affected last year. The cost for 1 year:
$31.2 billion. Covers only 1 year.
The Tax Revision Act of 2005 is just a sundry assortment of tax
measures; but it has a revenue cost too, $153 million over 5 years. And
finally there is the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, revenue impact:
$7 billion.
Now, add all of these together and you will see that the total
revenue impact entailed by these tax policies comes to $110 billion. So
this reconciliation bill offsets about $40 billion of that amount,
leaving an additional debt of around $80 billion. That is the net
effect of this reconciliation bill. That is why we say it does not
decrease the deficit when you pair it up with this other reconciliation
bill, the tax cuts. It increases the deficit. But that is not all. That
is not the worst of it.
As we have shown, in patching up the AMT last year and again this
year, it has to be fixed or it is going to raise the taxes of middle-
income taxpayers for whom it was never intended. If we do basically in
future years what we have done this year, the revenue impact of
patching the AMT is shown right here, $167 billion. That makes the
revenue impact of all seven tax cuts $307 billion. Offset your 40
billion against that, you have still got $267 billion in tax reduction
over the next 5 years. That is why I say it is myopic. You are looking
for solutions to this problem and overlooking one of the bases of the
problem, ignoring the fact that if we are going to tackle a deficit
worth 320 and rising, we have got to have action on the spending side
of the ledger and on the tax side of the ledger as well.
That is the problem here, and that is why I say if you leave here
thinking, after voting for this bill, that you have begun a series of
fiscal actions that will bring the budget to heel, that you will
finally reduce the deficit of $320 million, you are badly, badly
disillusioned. Once again, let me show you a chart the CBO did for us
last September when we asked them to take the budget that they had just
portrayed out over a 10-year period of time and apply to it the
President's budget policy as enunciated in his July mid-term review.
This is what happened. They said, you are going to follow this path
right here that takes you to 640 billion total deficit, a doubling of
the deficit over 10 years. You are going to increase the debt service
in the United States from $182 billion to $458 billion 10 years from
now, and you are going to double the national debt. That is the path we
are on, and this bill tonight will not divert us 1 inch. Indeed, it
will aggravate that path and that is the plea that I am making to you.
That is why you should vote against this bill. Reject it now. Come back
next year. Let us do something realistic about deficit reduction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on the heels of reducing the deficit over
the last 2 years by $200 billion, this year we Republicans passed a
good budget plan, and it is continuing to work. This year, and we just
completed the work, but the House of Representatives, under the
leadership of chairman Jerry Lewis, passed its bills for appropriations
on time and under budget. We just completed that work, and it is the
first nondiscretionary freeze in over a generation.
{time} 0545
We also committed that we were not going to allow an automatic tax
increase on the American people, and Chairman Bill Thomas delivered.
We want to continue the strong economic growth and job creation, and
it is working. And tonight we pledge to reform the automatic spending
programs to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, and eight committees
stepped forward to do the hard work to bring us here tonight.
Mr. Speaker, we have a plan. They do not. It reforms important
government programs and saves money for the hardworking American
taxpayers.
Let us pass our plan, finish our work, and let us go home.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have before us perhaps the
most important piece of legislation that we will vote on all year, the
Budget Reconciliation Spending Cuts Act. This $40 billion of spending
cuts have turned everything we believe in as a country on its head. The
Republicans are actually asking the poor, the downtrodden, the disabled
and the young to sacrifice on behalf of the rich. I want to emphasize
that these cuts are not meant to free up money to rebuild the gulf
coast, or reduce the deficit. In fact, many of these proposed cuts will
actually hurt those affected by Katrina. Overall, the plan before the
House, when combined with the tax cuts for the rich, will increase the
deficit and the national debt.
From a healthcare perspective, there are 45 million Americans living
today without any health insurance at all, but this budget cuts $6.9
billion over 5 years from Medicaid and State Children's Health
Insurance Program, SCHIP. Among other provisions, this bill increases
cost-sharing for Medicaid beneficiaries and permits States to reduce
benefits. Most of the billions of dollars of savings over 5 years is
passed directly on to you, the constituents. This bill decimates health
care funding for children, the elderly, and people with disabilities
and making it even harder for families to afford nursing home care.
[[Page H12273]]
The conference report includes provisions that will reduce spending on
Medicare by a net total of $6.4 billion over 5 years.
As founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's caucus, as a
person who understands the value of our Nation's youth, and as a mother
of two children, I really want to bring focus on the effect this bill
will have on our Nation's children. If you have children who are in, or
who are considering going to college, I want you to listen to this:
this Republican spending cut will place an added burden of $12.7
billion directly on our students over the next 5 years. This is
accomplished through added fees on students, and increases of interest
rates. Students borrowing money for college will pay thousands of
dollars more on their students loans! This is in the face of college
costs up over 7 percent this past year alone. Further, this bill
targets child support funds as a wasteful government program, cutting
$1.5 billion from collections programs for dead-beat dads. It
accomplishes this by ending the Federal match on child support spending
that States finance with incentive payments.
Another important aspect of this bill is the addition of $600 million
for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I appreciate the
addition of this money in to the conference report, but am concerned
that this will not be sufficient. Especially around the gulf coast and
in my district of Houston, we are experiencing abnormally high energy
costs after the damage caused by Katrina and Rita, and many of the
infrastructures of homes in the area has been damaged. I hope we can
consider subsidizing this LIHEAP program further in this upcoming
session.
I would also like to express my concern over the loss of $400 million
from the house bill to the conference bill of funding that would go to
Katrina health care relief. The $2.1 billion towards Katrina health
care relief is a small part of what should be a much more substantial
recovery package for the region. I again hope we can find it in our
budgets next year to further help the damaged gulf coast and its
inhabitants.
Allow me to cite some of the specific cuts I, and our constituents
across the country, will find so objectionable in this conference
report:
Medicaid--The bill cuts Medicaid spending by $6.9 billion nationwide.
Medicare--The bill cuts Medicare spending by $6.4 billion nationwide.
Student Loans--The bill cuts spending on student loan program by
$12.7 billion over 4 years.
Child Support--The bill cuts $1.5 billion from child support programs
over 5 years by ending Federal incentives to states for collections.
This is not how we take care of our own in Texas, and this is not how
we do things in the United States. This bill launches an unabashed
attack on the American way by slashing funding towards those that are
most vulnerable. And don't you be fooled! These spending cuts aren't
meant to offset the costs of rebuilding the gulf coast, these spending
cuts are meant to offset tax cuts that will benefit the rich.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the burden of the $50 billion in tax
cuts to be placed on the backs of our Nation's neediest families. The
decision to vote up or down on this legislation isn't a blurry line
involving political ideology; it isn't a debate of republican vs.
democratic philosophy. This is black and white. This cut hurts the
children, it hurts the poor, it hurts the old and it hurts the young. I
am strongly opposed to this legislation, and I implore my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to vote against these unreasonable cuts.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Let's be clear about this: the majority
is moving this bill to make way for tax cuts in the order of $106
billion over five years. To make room for those tax cuts, we have to
cut programs that help middle-income and low-income Americans. That's
correct: this morning, we are cutting nearly $40 billion over five
years from important domestic initiatives. The net result will be a
double-whammy on most Americans: an increased deficit that will fall on
the shoulders of every man, woman and child and painful cuts to our
neediest citizens. Let's take a closer look at who is targeted by this
misguided legislation. First, college students. The conference report
cuts $12.7 billion to student loan programs. Students will have to pay
higher fees for their loans, parents will have to pay higher interest
rates. The barriers to higher education just got higher.
Next, America's farmers. This bill cuts important farm conservation
programs by $934 million. It cuts the Conservation Security Program by
$649 million, it zeroes out the Watershed Rehabilitation Program; and
it cuts the Environmental Quality Incentives Programs by $75 million.
Next are America's uninsured families. Even though the number of
uninsured Americans at an all-time high of 45 million, this Congress
has decided to decimate their safety net, the Medicaid program.
The conference report increases Medicaid cost sharing and will make
it far more difficult for families to get the care they need. The
Senate-passed bill had not included any provisions cutting health care
benefits or increasing families costs to see their doctor. In addition,
under this bill, States may provide any child, without regard to
income, with a lesser benefits package than they have today. States may
supplement this reduced level of coverage with additional benefits if
they choose, but the requirement for a basic level of care is
eliminated by this bill. As a result, low income children are no longer
guaranteed vision screenings, therapy services, medical equipment, or
other key benefits. From now on, States may offer a choice of coverage
to beneficiaries between a ``benchmark'' package or a so-called Health
Opportunity Account, eliminating any requirement that individuals are
covered for needed benefits. This bill sharply increases cost sharing
for prescription drugs and would allow States to charge up to 20
percent of the cost of each medication. Medicaid beneficiaries who take
many drugs will have to forgo some needed medicines. It also lifts
limits on emergency room copayments for all but the poorest
beneficiaries.
Last but not least are our seniors and persons with disabilities who
rely on Medicare. It has been 8 years since the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, a bill that Republicans said would ``slow the rate of Medicare
growth'' by $130 billion, but in truth slashed more than $260 billion
hurting nursing homes, home health agencies, hospitals, doctors, and
most importantly, beneficiaries. Two years after BBA's enactment,
Congress began passing a series of ``fix'' bills to repair the
unanticipated damage from several provisions; to this day, some of the
more egregious mistakes, such as outpatient therapy caps and the flawed
``sustainable growth rate'' formula for the physician fee schedule have
still not been fixed. That is why it is so disappointing as we review
this bill to see that Congress has not learned its lesson. Today, with
the needs of children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities even
greater than in 1997, the 109th Congress is back with a bill that
ignores the urgent needs of those who care for Medicare beneficiaries
and fails to address serious problems with a Medicare drug plan that
has befuddled and frustrated millions of seniors and their loved ones.
I am deeply disappointed that the House did not even try to address
needed reforms in Medicare. Now we are looking at $8 billion in
Medicare cuts that were not considered in the Ways and Means or the
Energy and Commerce Committees. We now have a band-aid physician
payment fix; unjustifiable arbitrary caps on rehabilitation therapy
services, no improvement in payments for lifesaving cancer screenings,
higher Medicare Part B premiums for many seniors, no reduction in the
unnecessary ``stabilization fund'' for Medicare HMOs. This was a flawed
process and it led to an even more deeply flawed bill. I urge my
colleagues to reject this conference report and return in the new year
to consider real improvements to these vital programs.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
conference report on H.R. 4241. This will be the third time this year I
have voted against an irresponsible Republican budget plan to cut
spending on programs important to the poorest Americans in order to pay
for a tax cut for the wealthiest. Frankly, I'm tired of it, and Rhode
Islanders are too. We need to return our budget to balance, but not on
the backs of those who can least afford it.
The Republicans claim this bill is necessary to offset the enormous
costs of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, but their actions show
the majority's true motives. Shortly after H.R. 4241 passed the House
in November, Republicans voted for more than $50 billion in tax cuts,
much of which benefit the top earners in the country. These tax cuts
cost more than the savings in this bill. However, these paltry savings
will come at a high cost, namely higher costs for health care,
education and other important services.
I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this irresponsible
conference report and instead focusing on real debt reduction based on
fairness and shared sacrifice.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding time, and
I rise in strong support of the Deposit Insurance Reform legislation
included in the conference report to S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005.
I want to begin by thanking Financial Services Committee Chairman
Oxley for his relentless efforts on moving this deposit insurance
reform legislation. He has shown tremendous leadership in steering this
complex bill through the legislative process, and I am deeply grateful
that he gave me the opportunity to work on this landmark piece of
legislation. I also want to thank the Ranking Member of the Committee,
Mr. Frank for his support. This was truly a bipartisan effort, and I
[[Page H12274]]
believe we have a better legislative product because of that. Senator
Shelby and the other Senators on his committee are also to be commended
for their fine work.
Deposit insurance reform has been thoroughly discussed and debated
over several years. During both the 107th (H.R. 3717) and 108th (H.R.
522) Congress, I introduced comprehensive deposit insurance reform
legislation. The legislation was a byproduct of recommendations made by
the FDIC in early 2001, a series of hearings held in my Subcommittee on
proposed reforms to the Federal deposit insurance system, and broad-
based bipartisan cooperation. H.R. 3717 passed the House in the 107th
Congress by a vote of 408-18, and H.R. 522 passed the House in the
108th Congress by a vote of 411-11. During this Congress, Congresswoman
Hooley and I introduced this same legislation--H.R. 1185--with Chairman
Oxley and Ranking Member Frank. On May 4, 2005, H.R. 1185 passed the
House by a vote of 413 to 10. The legislation is supported by the
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) as well as all of the
banking a credit union trade associations.
Federal deposit insurance has been a hallmark of our Nation's banking
system for more than 70 years. The reforms made by this legislation
will ensure that this system that has served America's savers and
depositors so well for so long will continue to do so for future
generations.
What does the legislation do? First, it merges the separate insurance
funds that currently apply to deposits held by banks on the one hand
and savings associations on the other, creating a stronger and more
stable fund that will benefit banks and thrifts alike.
Second, the bill makes a number of changes designed to address the
``pro-cyclical'' bias of the current system, which results in sharply
higher premiums being assessed at ``down'' points in the business
cycle, when banks can least afford to pay them and when funds are most
needed for lending to jumpstart economic growth. By giving the FDIC
greater discretion to manage the insurance funds based on industry
conditions and economic trends, the legislation will ease volatility in
the banking system and facilitate recovery from economic downturns.
Third, the legislation makes monumental changes to law with regard to
deposit insurance coverage levels. The system has gone 25 years without
such an adjustment--the longest period in its history--and the
increases provided for in the legislation are critical if deposit
insurance is to maintain its relevance. The conference report
establishes a permanent indexation system to ensure that coverage
levels keep pace with inflation by indexing coverage from its current
level of $100,000 every five years. The indexation, which begins in
2010, applies to all accounts, including retirement and municipal
accounts. Without these changes, deposit insurance will wither on the
vine, which is an unacceptable outcome for the millions of Americans
who depend upon it to protect their savings.
The legislation also immediately increases deposit insurance coverage
available to retirement accounts, including IRAs and 401ks, from its
current level of $100,000 to $250,000. Particularly in light of
volatility on Wall Street and other developments that have shaken
confidence in the markets in recent years, senior citizens and those
planning for retirement need a convenient, conservative, and secure
place for their retirement savings. With the higher coverage levels
provided for in this bill, the American banking system will give
seniors that safe haven. That is why the AARP has enthusiastically
endorsed the coverage increases in this bill.
All of us have heard from community bankers in our districts about
the challenges they face in competing for deposits with large money-
center banks that are perceived by the market--rightly or wrongly--as
being ``too big to fail.'' By strengthening the deposit insurance
system, the conference report will help small, neighborhood-based
financial institutions across the country, particularly in rural
America, continue to play an important role in financing economic
development. The deposits that community banks are able to attract
through the Federal deposit insurance guarantee are cycled back into
local communities in the form of consumer and small business loans,
community development projects, and home mortgages. If this source of
funding dries up, it will have devastating consequences for the
economic vitality of small-town America.
I want to again commend Chairman Oxley for the tremendous leadership
he has shown in steering this complex bill through the legislative
process. I also want to thank Ranking Member Frank and Congresswoman
Hooley for all of their work on this legislation.
Let me also take this opportunity to thank the staff members on the
House Financial Services Committee who worked on this legislation. Both
Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank are to be commended for
assembling such a talented group of staff to work on Deposit Insurance
Reform legislation. On the majority side, I would like to thank Bob
Foster, Carter McDowell, Peggy Peterson, Tom Duncan, Peter Barrett and
Dina Ellis who serves as my designee on the Committee. I want to give a
special thanks to Jim Clinger who recently left the Committee to work
at the Department of Justice. Without Jim's hard work, dedication and
knowledge we would not be here today, and I am grateful for all of his
efforts. I would also like to thank Larry Lavender, Warren Tryon and
Kim Olive of my staff for their work on this issue. On the minority
staff, I would like to thank the following staff members: Jeanne
Roslanowick, Jaime Lizarraga, Erika Jeffers, Ken Swab and Matt
Schumaker of Congresswoman Hooley's staff.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this legislation will
promote the stability and soundness of the banking system. It is also
provide assurance to working families, retirees, and others who place
their hard-earned savings in U.S. banks, thrifts, and credit unions
that their FDIC-insured deposits are safe and secure.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this Budget reconciliation spending cut bill
asks those with the least to sacrifice the most, while providing the
most fortunate with even more.
Today's Bill: This Budget reconciliation charade is such an affront
to working and lower-income families that our nation's religious
leaders have stepped in to say `enough is enough.'
The Lutheran Bishops sent a letter saying this bill is contrary to
Biblical teachings.
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has said this
reconciliation bill is ``tantamount . . . to blasphemy.''
And the Conference of Catholic Bishops have said they are ``deeply
disappointed'' with this legislation, especially ``its lack of concern
for children.''
The conference report before us includes a number of cuts that would
hurt children, the disabled and poor Americans.
This bill picks on our most vulnerable citizens who depend on
Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, child support, welfare and a host of other
critical programs.
Some of the most egregious items in the conference report include:
Unfunded Welfare Policies: includes new work requirements in the TANF
program without providing adequate funding for child care. According to
CBO, the bill is far short of the nearly $11 billion needed to
implement the new work requirements and keep child care funding even
with inflation.
Cuts Child Support Enforcement: CBO tells us that the reductions in
child support collections will reduce collections being sent to
families by $8.4 billion over the next 10 years.
Cuts Assistance to Relatives Caring for Abused Children: the report
eliminates Federal foster care payments to grandparents and other
relatives with limited incomes who are caring for abused children.
Delays Assistance to the Disabled: the report delays the payment of
past-due benefits to low-income disabled individuals who are eligible
for back payments.
Medicaid and Medicare cuts: the legislation before us makes
extraordinary cuts in Medicaid that will raise health care costs and
reduce benefits for our nation's most vulnerable children and
individuals. It also contains more than $6 billion of Medicare cuts,
including premium increases.
Protects Special Interests: this agreement protects special interests
at the expense of struggling families. Yet, the conference did not have
to pursue these Dickensian cuts. It could have accepted Senate language
that reduced overpayments to private insurance companies. Or it could
have gone further, and completely eliminated these overpayments, which
would negate the need for most of the pain and raise more than $20
billion over five years. Instead, it's gifts for the greedy, and cuts
for the needy.
I don't know what the poor, elderly, disabled, and foster children
have done to deserve this. And I don't know why the Republicans would
wait until the wee hours of the morning, just a few days before
Christmas, to show just how mean-spirited they can be.
For the Republicans to deal this heavy blow to the poorest among us
at the same time they reduce taxes for the very rich is not only wrong,
but it smacks of being immoral.
Future Tax cuts (February?):
The $56 billion Republican tax bill overwhelmingly benefits the very
wealthy.
Nearly 50% of the benefit from the extension of capital gains and
dividend rate cuts goes to households with incomes over $1 million
This tax bill grants these wealthy households an annual benefit of
more than $32,000.
In contrast--Middle-income families receive only 2 percent of the
benefit of the capital gains and dividend rate cuts, resulting in an
average annual benefit of only $7.
So the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class
gets left behind. That's Republican economics.
[[Page H12275]]
I urge a ``no'' vote on this shameful conference report.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to address a
particular provision included in Title VI of S. 1932, the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005. This provision, Section 6055, is very important
to my district, to my constituency, and to the Members of this body who
represent one of the U.S. territories. Over the past two years, since
arriving in Congress, I have worked to address the serious concern
relating to the application of the Medicaid program to Guam and the
other U.S. territories vis-a-vis the application to the 50 States.
In the 50 States, Medicaid is an individual entitlement. There are no
limits on the Federal payments for Medicaid in the 50 States as long as
the state is able to contribute its share of matching funds. However,
annual Federal Medicaid payments in Guam and in the other U.S.
territories are subject to different rules and may not exceed a certain
amount specified in law. These limitations are set under Section 1108
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1308(g)).
The reality is that Medicaid claims and expenditures in Guam and in
the other U.S. territories exceed the limited amounts or ceilings set
in U.S. law. Even if the Government of Guam is financially prepared,
able and willing to meet its share of the matching requirement, U.S.
law will not allow for Federal Medicaid payments to be made beyond the
specified limit. Fortunately, to account for inflation, the law was
previously amended to provide for increases beginning in 1999 to the
ceilings based on the annual percentage change in the medical care
component of the Consumer Price Index. Indexing the ceilings for
inflation was a needed and important improvement in the Medicaid
program for the U.S. territories. However, even with the inflation
indexing, the ceilings provided for in current law fall far short of
meeting actual Medicaid-eligible claims in the territories.
Apart from the fundamental and more inherent issues associated with
the disparate treatment of the territories in this entitlement program,
are the practical and public health problems caused by the seemingly
arbitrary and budget-driven federal funding limitations placed on the
territories. Medicaid is an important Federal safety net and it is
essential that the program be operated efficiently and to the fullest
extent needed in the territories.
I am pleased that the Senate receded to the House position and
accepted Section 3141 of H.R. 4241, the House version of this budget
reconciliation legislation, in the conference committee. This provision
will provide for adjustments to the Medicaid payments for the U.S.
territories under Section 1108 of the Social Security Act. These
Medicaid adjustments address critical health care needs in the
territories.
Specifically, Section 6055, as included in the conference report,
will provide annual increases for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 in the
ceilings placed on Federal funding for the Medicaid program in Guam,
the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico. The total adjustment for all
territories in Fiscal Year 2006 is $20 million and in Fiscal Year 2007
the adjustment is $28 million. For Fiscal Year 2008 and subsequent
fiscal years, the funding for the Medicaid program in the territories
will be calculated by increasing the Fiscal Year 2007 amount by the
percentage change in the medical care component of the Consumer Price
Index, in the same manner as currently provided in law. The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that these adjustments will
amount to additional $140 million in Medicaid payments for the
territories over the next five years, and $323 million over the next
ten years.
This provision has been included in this conference report as a
result of bipartisan negotiations. On September 8 and 9, 2004, in the
108th Congress, I offered an amendment to H.R. 5006, the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 that would have provided an
additional $8 million in Medicaid funding that year for Guam, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. A point of order was raised and sustained on the
amendment the first time it was offered. However, a modified and second
amendment filed to the bill for the same purpose, was debated the
following day. This amendment led to a serious and direct discussion
for the first time on the House floor on the issue of Medicaid payments
to the territories. Ultimately, I withdrew the amendment at the request
of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, who pledged to work with me,
my colleagues from the territories, and the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Burton, on this issue. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, the
Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, kept his word.
The gentleman and his professional staff and counsel have worked
patiently and diligently with us to address this issue.
The language included in Section 6055 of S. 1932 is a result of this
close collaboration and cooperation. I want to thank the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Barton, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, who has been
an ally and leader on this issue, and the leadership of the budget
committees, for their work on this provision.
In the case of Guam, the adjustment made to the ceiling by this bill
will bring the Federal Government, closer to meeting the actual amount
of recent annual Medicaid costs. This is especially the case when
factoring in Federal grants received under mandatory appropriations
made for annual Compact-impact assistance. Guam currently receives
$14.2 million every year from the Department of the Interior to defray
costs incurred as a result of increased demands placed on health and
social services due to the residence in Guam of citizens of the Freely
Associated States. This funding was authorized by the Compact of Free
Association Amendments Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-188).
However, despite the adjustments made to the ceilings set under
Section 1108 of the Social Security Act by this bill, a significant and
outstanding issue remains with respect to the application of the
Medicaid program in Guam and the other U.S. territories. The Federal
Medicaid matching rate, which determines the share of Medicaid
expenditures paid for by the Federal Government, is statutorily set at
50 percent for the territories (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)(2)). However, a
formula is used to determine the matching rate for the States. If
qualified for the formula the territories would receive rates as high
as 77 percent. I hope that at some point in the future the rate for the
territories could be set by the same formula as used for the states or
at minimum adjusted to be on par with the rate statutorily set for the
District of Columbia.
With the increase in Medicaid payment authorization provided by this
legislation, the territories can more effectively address health care
needs within the fiscal constraints of the Medicaid program. As has
been stated, the Medicaid program in the territories is significantly
different from the program in the states, and these differences present
unique challenges to the territorial governments.
I thank the conferees for their attention to and acceptance of this
important provision for the territories. This adjustment to Federal
funding for Medicaid in the territories will have a significant impact
in helping to address health care disparities between the states and
the territories. I look forward to continuing to work with my
colleagues from the territories, and the leadership of both chambers,
to effectively address and eliminate disparities in federal health care
financing between the states and the territories.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference
report for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
Several months ago, when the Committee on Agriculture was given
instructions to find savings within the programs under our
jurisdiction, we took the task seriously and reported to the Budget
Committee a total package that exceeded our original instructions. We
did so without the support of our colleagues from across the aisle and
found ourselves in a similar situation when the Deficit Reduction Act
was brought to the House Floor several weeks ago.
Our efforts to try to gain control of mandatory spending have been
politicized and demonized by Members of the other party who claimed
that this was the wrong time and the wrong way to rein in mandatory
spending. If not now, then when? If we continue to stand by and play
the passive observer role, in 10 years mandatory will grow to consume
62 percent of the federal budget. I will also note that throughout this
process, we have yet to see a comprehensive proposal from the minority.
This bill will not solve all of our problems and it isn't a magic
solution, but it is a step in the right direction. It is unrealistic to
think we can meet the pressing challenges facing our Nation without
reducing federal spending and redirecting priorities.
Additional costs associated with recent disasters further necessitate
the need for budget reform. The Agriculture Committee has worked with
our counterparts in the Senate to come up with a compromise that
contributes to the deficit reduction while maintaining the interests of
American agriculture. Our producers rely on our domestic agriculture
policy. The 2002 Farm Bill, provided our producers with a foundation
they could base their decisions on through 2007, which is when we will
re-examine the Farm Bill for reauthorization. It would be irresponsible
to rip the rug out from our producers midway through the Farm Bill and
I am pleased that this legislation keeps the policies of the 2002 Farm
Bill intact.
Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to limit or reduce funding for any
program, but it is imperative that instead of cowering away from the
problem, we take a stand and vote yes to reducing the deficit and vote
yes to responsible spending.
[[Page H12276]]
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to raise my concerns about the
Medicaid provisions in the House-passed budget reconciliation bill and,
in particular, the provision that imposes new documentation
requirements on individuals and on states.
There are many, many problems with the Medicaid bill. It would shift
costs and take away benefits from those who need assistance the most:
children, pregnant women, people with disabilities and frail senior
citizens. The House-passed bill would do real harm--30 million
Americans could face higher cost-sharing, 2 million children could lose
coverage altogether, and 26 million individuals could lose benefits
according to an analysis by the American Progress Action Fund.
One of the most disturbing provisions in the bill--Section 3145--
would impose strict new documentation requirements on Medicaid
applicants. Instead of allowing self-declaration of citizenship--as 47
states do today--applicants have to show documentation of citizenship
status--such as a birth certificate or a passport. The authors are
Section 3145 are apparently concerned that some ineligible immigrant
pregnant woman, children or seniors--will slip through the cracks and
get health care. Out of that unjustified and undocumented concern, they
have created a provision that will actually penalize citizens and state
Medicaid programs.
First, there is no reason for Section 3145. It is a measure that
seeks to address an illusory problem. Eligible immigrants already have
to provide proof of their legal status when they apply for Medicaid,
and states take steps to verify that status. Current law is working.
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) looked at this issue and
reported last July that they found no substantial evidence that
immigrants are falsely claiming citizenship to qualify for Medicaid.
OIG did not recommend eliminating the opportunity for self-
declarations. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has found
no evidence that there is a problem and state Medicaid administrators
have ``not seen a problem with self-declaration of citizenship'' based
on the results of their quality control review systems.
Second, Section 3145 would have a disastrous effect by erecting
Medicaid barriers for U.S. citizens. These new requirements will mean
that those who have no money to obtain these documents or no time to
wait for care will be unable to receive medical services. The Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities has concluded that the ``bulk'' of the
$735 million, 10-year savings from Section 3145 would come from
reducing or delaying enrollment for U.S. citizens.
Many citizens--particularly low-income citizens--do not have birth
certificates in their possession and do not have passports. And getting
those documents is neither easy nor cheap. Getting a birth certificate
can take weeks and cost up to $23. People born at home may not even
have a birth certificate--a particular problem for people in some rural
areas and elderly African Americans. According to information reported
in Population Studies, as many as one-fifth of African Americans born
around 1940 don't have a birth certificate. Getting a passport is even
more expensive and takes even longer. Passports cost about $90. Just
think about how these provisions will affect older women, living alone,
possibly cognitively-impaired.
Third, at a time when we are cutting federal Medicaid funds and
states are struggling to pay their share of Medicaid costs, Section
3145 would impose a brand new and costly administrative burden on them.
The OIG surveyed state Medicaid directors who allow self-declaration.
Twenty-five said that they were encouraged by the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services to simplify their application processes in order
to reduce barriers to health care access. 28 said the requirement for
documentations would delay eligibility determinations, twenty-five said
it would increase personnel costs, and 21 said it would be burdensome
and expensive for applicants.
This provision is not necessary but it is dangerous. It should be
rejected.
Mr. NUSSEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without
objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the conference report will be followed by a
5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con.
Res. 275.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212,
nays 206, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 670]
YEAS--212
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--206
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Buyer
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
[[Page H12277]]
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--16
Baca
Davis, Jo Ann
Emanuel
Gutierrez
Harman
Hostettler
Hyde
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kolbe
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Radanovich
Reyes
Roybal-Allard
{time} 0607
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________