[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.

                          ____________________