[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 168 (Thursday, December 22, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2641-E2642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1932, DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                       Sunday, December 18, 2005

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the American people, 
this reconciliation spending conference report arrives back in this 
Chamber substantially unimproved from its original form.
  Notwithstanding modest revisions in areas like food stamps, low 
income heating assistance and physician reimbursement under Medicare, 
this package represents a warped vision for America: take from those 
with the least, give to those with the most and tell our children they 
will have to pay for it all later.
  It would be a disgraceful document at any time of the year, but seems 
particularly Scrooge-like during this Holiday season.
  Take Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
(SCHIP), which this conference report slashes by $6.9 billion. The 
cost-sharing and premium increases mandated by this legislation fall 
entirely on the

[[Page E2642]]

poor--who have no other way to access basic health care for themselves 
and their families.
  Or the $2.6 billion in cuts for child support enforcement, foster 
care and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), designed to assist single 
parents, foster children and the disabled. Setting aside the immorality 
of deliberately targeting the most vulnerable among us, child support 
enforcement dollars actually save the government money through reduced 
public assistance costs.
  Then there's higher education, whose $12.7 billion cut accounts for 
about a third of this $39.7 billion conference agreement. Though $1.6 
billion less than the House's original draconian proposal, $12.7 
billion remains the single largest cut to student aid in the forty year 
history of the Higher Education Act. The resulting increase in interest 
rates, fees and other charges represents an unprecedented disinvestment 
in our students and their families--at precisely the time our young 
people are going to need that education the most.
  We already know that college graduates earn $1 million more over 
their lifetimes than their cohorts who do not attend college, which 
gives taxpayers a tremendous return on their federal financial aid 
investment. Additionally, over the course of this past year scores of 
CEOs from across the country have repeatedly told this Congress that a 
highly educated workforce is a critical prerequisite for maintaining 
America's competitive advantage in the knowledge, information and 
innovation economy of 21st century.
  Given these realities, it is the height of penny wise, pound foolish 
bean-counting to put college even further out of reach for the 
generation of Americans who will have to face these challenges. Yet 
that's precisely what this conference report does.
  Mr. Speaker, while I commend the conferees for embracing substantial 
reforms I have long advocated regarding the need to end 9.5 percent 
guaranteed floor loans and strengthen oversight of schools acting as 
lenders, this progress does not begin to redeem the damage done by the 
rest of the legislation.
  The $40 billion in spending cuts tonight's proponents take such pride 
in pronouncing are in fact dwarfed by $110 billion in tax cuts this 
same Congress proposes to enact this year--tax cuts whose benefits flow 
disproportionately to the wealthiest in our society.
  That's right: When all is said and done, the so-called Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005 and its accompanying tax legislation will 
actually increase the deficit by at least $70 billion over the next 
five years.
  Mr. Speaker, this fiscal policy is irresponsible and it is unjust. I 
urge my colleagues to vote no.

                          ____________________