[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H37-H60]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF S. 1932, DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 653 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 653

       Resolved, That the House hereby concurs in the Senate 
     amendment to the House amendment to the bill (S. 1932) to 
     provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. 
     Con. Res. 95).


                    Unfunded Mandate Point of Order

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against 
consideration of this rule, H. Res. 653. Section 425 of that same act 
states that a point of order lies against legislation which imposes an 
unfunded mandate in excess of specified amounts against State or local 
governments. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that a 
rule may not waive the application of section 425.
  H. Res. 653 states that the House hereby concurs in the Senate 
amendment to the bill S. 1932 to provide for reconciliation. This self-
executing rule effectively waives the application of section 425 to 
provisions in the underlying bill on child support enforcement which 
the Congressional Budget Office informs us impose an intergovernmental 
mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
  Therefore, I make a point of order that the rule may not be 
considered pursuant to section 426.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington makes a point 
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of that Act, the gentleman has 
met the threshold burden to identify the specific language in the 
resolution on which the point of order is predicated.
  Under section 426(b)(4) of the Act, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) each will 
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
  Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act, after that debate, the 
Chair will put the question of consideration, to wit: Will the House 
now consider the resolution?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H38]]

  Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that a lot of moderate Republicans wish 
they were somewhere else today, anywhere where they could escape the 
embarrassment of voting against the American people one more time in a 
brand-new year just after that State of the Union last night.
  Here we go again. The first legislative act of 2006 looks just like 
the last legislative day of 2005. Republicans call this a 
reconciliation, but it is really Republican resignation from meeting 
the needs of American people or addressing the issues that threaten our 
security.
  This vote will occur out in the open on the House floor, but the 
deals were cut in secret behind closed doors with the American people 
locked out and the Republican Party locked in.
  Until Republican leaders got what they wanted, and it is not in the 
best interest of the American people, we have before us today an 
example of the President's ownership society: you own the problem. This 
bill removes Federal money from child support enforcement and for 
caring for abused kids, requiring States to pick up the tab.
  Republicans will twist arms to pass this unconscionable and unfunded 
mandate. If you are a middle-class student, Republican reconciliation 
will have you seeing red because your college education will be awash 
in high-priced debt. Republican leaders care so much about middle-class 
America that they are cutting $12 billion in student loans.
  Want an education? Financial institutions give Republicans a lot more 
money than you do. Now you get to give the financial institutions a 
whole lot more money. That is some rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick. By the 
magic of Republican reconciliation, students will pay more, your 
parents will pay more when they try to help you, and America will pay 
more when we deny the next generation the opportunity to get a higher 
education.
  Republicans increase the interest rate for their core corporate 
constituency and increase the failure rate of the Nation investing in a 
more important asset: our next generation. Republican reconciliation 
offers dollars that make no sense. That is what happens when Republican 
Members have to answer to their leadership before their constituents.
  Republicans talk about security, but there is no security in gutting 
a student loan program that invests in America's future. There is no 
common sense either. That is no surprise, of course. Republican 
reconciliation sacrifices common sense for uncommon greed.
  Students from solid middle-class families will suffer. So will 
seniors who use Medicare, because almost $7 billion in Medicare cuts 
are buried inside this Republican reconciliation. Seniors will pay more 
so that America's wealthiest can keep more.
  The Republicans have squandered our commitment to America's 
distinguished citizens in order to trade need for greed. Part B 
premiums for some Medicare beneficiaries are going up because the 
Republicans locked themselves into a conference committee without the 
Democrats and locked the American people out.
  On Friday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office informed us 
that $28 billion in cuts to Medicaid in this bill would impose new 
costs on 13 million poor and working-poor recipients. These are the 
people the President said last night we are taking care of your health 
care. Brother, you don't want a guy like that taking care of you.
  By 2015, new fees would end insurance coverage for 65,000 Medicaid 
enrollees, 60 percent of them children.

                              {time}  1400

  Meanwhile, the cost of prescription drugs will rise and the number of 
people helped will fall.
  It all happened when Republicans gathered and locked out America. Why 
debate in public when you can decide it in secrecy? That is the way the 
Republicans like to do it. They hope no one will notice. They forgot 
that when middle America is floundering in a lifeboat with loss of 
pensions, loss of health care, loss of jobs, the Republicans capsize 
the boat. It is hard not to notice. Water is pouring in all around us, 
just like New Orleans. Remember when the President said, ``Brownie, you 
are doing a heck of a job.'' He sure did. Rarely have we seen so much 
lost over so little, dinner.
  Republicans have raised the bar with reconciliation. As bad as it 
will be for students and as hard as it will be for seniors, Republicans 
saved their worst tactics for our most vulnerable and defenseless 
citizens: Kids in foster care, kids in single parent households, kids 
in low-income families, and kids in families with a disabled parent.
  This reconciliation cuts almost $3 billion from programs for 
America's most vulnerable children. Deadbeat dads, have a great day, 
guys. The Republicans have given you a head start out of 
responsibility. Someone may find you eventually. The program to make 
sure that child support is paid crumbles under this Republican rule.
  Today Republicans have resigned from their responsibility to take 
care of America's interests. They say all of these problems are up to 
the States to solve on their own because that is what they mean by an 
ownership society: States own the problems.
  Republicans are now telling States to put more welfare recipients 
into make-work activities, but they do not provide any resources to 
achieve that goal. They do not even let child care funding keep pace 
with inflation. So States may have to cut child care assistance to pay 
for the new welfare requirements. It is just one more unfunded mandate 
for the States and one more burden for working families.
  Now, cash would be nice, but they have drained the Treasury to pay 
for the President's economic stimulus. Now it is an addiction. Just 
keep giving the wealthiest Americans more and more money. There is no 
end to how much money the President is willing to give them, and there 
is no end to how much money it will take from a host of foreign 
governments to finance a deficit rising higher than the sky.
  Reconciliation by Republicans is a one-point program: Make the rich 
richer. It was crafted in secret. At least now finally it is out in the 
open.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today has changed somewhat from its 
travels in the Senate. The rhetoric on the other side of the aisle has 
not. It is the same old tired class-warfare rhetoric, more befitting of 
a response to the State of the Union than anything at all related to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding unfunded mandates.
  The specific point as it relates to an unfunded mandate claim by the 
other side regarding the child support changes in the Deficit Reduction 
Act is simply not correct. According to the GAO, in 2004 the Federal 
Government paid 88 percent of all child support program costs. Eighty-
eight percent. Ten States made money on their program from the 
taxpayers from the other 40 States. Ten States retained more child 
support collections than it cost them to operate it. They actually 
generated substantial profit with the Federal Government picking up 100 
percent of their costs, the Federal Government obviously not being a 
nebulous concept, the Federal government being the other 40 States 
subsidizing 10 States' child support programs to the tune of a profit.
  Over the next 5 years, the Federal Government will spend nearly $20 
billion on child support program costs. That is after the changes that 
are made here in the Deficit Reduction Act, and still far more than the 
States are expected to spend. States continue to receive $500 million 
in Federal incentive funds every year, on top of $2 in Federal funds 
for every $1 of State funds spent for a 66 percent Federal matching 
rate. Not a bad deal.
  Set in this context, this claim of unfunded mandates is simply not 
correct and not meaningful. The child support savings in the Deficit 
Reduction Act result from ending the practice of States claiming 
Federal matching funds for spending Federal child support incentive 
funds, double dipping, if you will.
  This double dipping cannot be justified. Closing this loophole, which 
is what it amounts to, saves $1.6 billion over 5 years with no impact 
on services being provided to the clients. The change would not take 
effect until fiscal year 2008, giving States 2 years to adjust to the 
change. And States could replace every penny of expected Federal 
savings by increasing their own

[[Page H39]]

spending modestly with the Federal Government filling in the 
difference. States could unlock $2 Federal dollars for every $1 spent 
under the program's 66 percent match rate. So if States want to 
increase spending by $900 million, they would have to pony up $300 
million of their own. Again, not a bad deal for the States. I think it 
is a return that most investors would accept readily.
  CBO's letter that the gentleman refers to shows it is impossible to 
achieve even modest savings in this open-ended entitlement program 
without raising an underfunded mandate objection. Unless your goal is 
to prevent any reduction in Federal spending, which I think it is fair 
to stipulate is their goal, this is not a meaningful objection.
  Even with this change, CBO expects child support collections will 
grow each and every year and the projections bear that out, rising from 
$24 billion today to $28 billion in 2010 and $34 billion in 2015, 
clearly only a Democratic definition of a cut.
  Other features of the Deficit Reduction Act would provide States 
significant Federal welfare funds, including $17 billion in annual TANF 
block grants through 2010 and $3 billion in mandatory child care 
through 2010, a $1 billion increase above current law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who stopped the attempt to 
privatize Social Security.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, last night the President of the United States 
said, ``Wise policies such as welfare reform have made a difference in 
the character of our country.''
  What you are doing on the Republican side, I am afraid, is in 
character. It is not class warfare on our side, it is your warfare 
against the children of America.
  It is not our definition, it is CBO's and I quote from a letter of 
January 31 to Mr. Rangel: ``As requested by your staff, CBO has 
reviewed the child support provisions in the conference agreement for 
S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and we have determined that 
those provisions contain an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.'' That is what CBO says.
  And CBO says something else. That this conference report, with the 
changes you have made, will lead to a reduction in the amount collected 
for the kids of America in child support of $8.4 billion. That is CBO, 
not Democrats saying that.
  So I just want to tell everybody who is thinking of voting for this 
conference report, you should expect now, next week, June, July, 
August, September, October, and yes, in November, the citizens of this 
country and of your district, will be asking you to justify how you cut 
funding for child support in a way that would lead to the kids of your 
district and America combined losing $8.4 billion in child support. 
That is kids who need it, families who need it, from people who owe it.
  Yes, as the President said yesterday, there are some wise policies 
that make a difference in the character of our country, not what you 
are doing today.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I remind the gentleman that today we will spend $24 billion on the 
child support collection program to which he refers. By 2010, we will 
spend $28 billion on the same program; by 2015, $34 billion.
  The gentleman is worried about June, July, August, September, 
October, and yes, even November. We are worried about 2010, 2020, and 
2030, about getting our arms around an exploding entitlement program 
that is engorging the entire Federal budget, and your actions to stop 
any and all responsible budgeting to prevent entitlement spending from 
taking up two-thirds of the Federal budget within the decade, to 
prevent any meaningful Social Security reform that would guarantee that 
GenX-ers out there will have the same opportunities that those in their 
seventies have, to prevent the types of entitlement reforms that are 
needed to save the very programs that you are so proud of in Social 
Security and Medicaid and Medicare, that are worthy pillars of this 
domestic government, you block each and every time, including this 
action which is a very modest savings that still generates more money 
each and every year by substantial sums than the previous and still 
guarantees a high level of service to the young people.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the gentleman deny point blank the estimate of CBO, 
we do not control it, that this bill will lead to a reduction of $8.4 
billion in child support for the kids of America? Do you deny the CBO 
estimate?
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, nowhere in the CBO score 
for this report is there any estimates that States will lose TANF funds 
for failure to operate satisfactory child support programs. They would 
score as an additional Federal savings if they did, and that is just 
not there.
  I think I have answered the gentleman's question.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it probably does not surprise most Americans when 
Republicans and Democrats have different opinions on a bill, so let me 
highlight the opinion of a third voice, U.S. Conference of Catholic 
Bishops. Here is what they say about the legislation before us.

       Our Bishops' Conference is deeply disappointed that the 
     final budget reconciliation conference agreement coming once 
     again before the House of Representatives includes provisions 
     in these areas which we believe could prove harmful to many 
     low-income children, families, elderly and people with 
     disabilities who are least able to provide for themselves. 
     Because of these concerns, we ask you to oppose the budget 
     reconciliation conference agreement.

       Bishops' President Urges House To Reject Budget Agreement

       Washington (January 30, 2006).--The recent budget 
     reconciliation bill fails to ``meet the needs of the most 
     vulnerable among us,'' said Bishop William S. Skylstad, 
     president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 
     in a January 24 letter to the House of Representatives.
       Bishop Skylstad said the greatest concerns were over: 
     increased Medicaid cost-sharing burdens; cuts to child 
     support enforcement; changes in Temporary Assistance for 
     Needy Families programs which underfund work programs and 
     childcare; and cuts to agriculture conservation programs.
       ``We urge you to reject the conference agreement and work 
     for policies that put poor children and families first,'' 
     Bishop Skylstad said.

  The text of the entire letter follows.

                                                 January 24, 2006.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: In December, as President of the 
     United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I wrote to you 
     expressing serious concerns about provisions in the budget 
     reconciliation bill. The proposed changes in Medicaid, child 
     support enforcement funding, Temporary Assistance for Needy 
     Families (TANF), and agriculture conservation programs, in 
     particular, could have a negative impact upon the most 
     vulnerable in our nation.
       Our Bishops' Conference is deeply disappointed that the 
     final budget reconciliation conference agreement coming once 
     again before the House of Representatives includes provisions 
     in these areas which we believe could prove harmful to many 
     low-income children, families, elderly and people with 
     disabilities who are least able to provide for themselves. 
     Because of these concerns, we ask you to oppose the budget 
     reconciliation conference agreement.
       Among the areas of most concern to us are:
       Increased Medicaid cost-sharing burdens and eroding federal 
     benefit standards which can result in low-income children, 
     families, pregnant women, elderly and those with disabilities 
     not getting the care they need.
       Cuts to child support enforcement, which will mean 
     collecting billions less in child support for children and 
     families than under current law.
       TANF-related provisions, including:
       Immediate and significant changes in state TANF work rules 
     (although additional proposals to increase hours worked per 
     week were wisely abandoned) without providing sufficient 
     additional funding needed to run work programs and provide 
     child care. This will mean states may have to choose between 
     cutting child care for low-income working families, reducing 
     other services for low-income people, or cutting back on cash 
     assistance for needy families; policies that could have the 
     effect of disadvantaging two-parent families and married 
     couples; and failure to restore TANF benefit eligibility to 
     recently-arrived legal immigrants. Cuts to

[[Page H40]]

     key agriculture conservation programs, which will undermine 
     efforts to promote soil conservation, improve water quality, 
     protect wildlife, and maintain biodiversity.
       We recognize that the bill also includes positive elements, 
     such as additional funding for victims of Hurricane Katrina 
     and a program to promote marriage and healthy families. We 
     are also grateful that cuts to the Food Stamps program were 
     dropped from the package. However, we believe that, overall, 
     the impact of this bill will be to fail to meet the needs of 
     the most vulnerable among us. Therefore, we urge you to 
     reject the conference agreement and work for policies that 
     put poor children and families first.
       There are many challenges and much tumult in Washington 
     that demand the attention of our leaders. However, an 
     essential priority of government is to provide for the 
     general welfare of its people, especially ``the least among 
     us.''

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This debate has devolved into a 10-minute extension of the overall 
concept of deficit reduction. The unfunded mandates claim does not ring 
true. There is more money going into these States. States have been 
double-dipping, and the action in this bill today will simply close 
that loophole and end that practice, particularly by the 10 States that 
have been operating on Federal dollars at a profit.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is: Will the 
House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 201, not voting 6, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 2]

                               YEAS--226

     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)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     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
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     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
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     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 (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     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
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     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 (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
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hastert
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Istook
     Miller, Gary
     Shimkus

                              {time}  1436

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut and Mr. SCOTT of Virginia changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. AKIN, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, and Mrs. CUBIN changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the Deficit Reduction 
Act yet again to address some technical amendments that were made by 
the Senate. House Resolution 653 provides that the House agree with the 
Senate amendments to the House passed version of S. 1932. S. 1932 
provides for reconciliation as described in the Congressional budget 
resolution of 2006.
  As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee and 
a conferee on this legislation, I am pleased to bring this legislation 
to the floor for what we hope will be its final, final consideration.
  For the first time since 1997, the Congressional budget resolution 
included deficit reduction instructions to authorizing committees to 
find and achieve mandatory program savings for a more accountable 
government. It does this by finding smarter ways to spend and by 
slowing the rate of the growth of government, especially on the 
mandatory side of the ledger.
  The Deficit Reduction Act seeks to curb the unsustainable growth rate 
of mandatory programs that are set to consume 62 percent of our total 
budget in the next decade if left unchecked. The agreement will 
stimulate reform of these entitlement programs, many of which are 
outdated, inefficient and excessively costly.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this legislation, and I am proud of the 
work that this House, through its authorizing

[[Page H41]]

committees, through the Budget Committee process, through, in short, 
regular order has achieved. I am proud of that. I am proud that this 
legislation begins a long-term effort at slowing the growth of 
entitlement spending.
  Our goal was to control government spending so that Americans can 
keep more of their own money instead of having the government seize 
more. The authorizing committees from both Chambers have worked very 
hard to find savings within their individual jurisdictions that total 
nearly $40 billion in efficiency. The agreement allows programs and 
agencies to weed out waste, fraud, abuse, duplication of effort, so 
that we can channel more Federal dollars to programs that succeed and 
to the people who are truly in need, to serve the intended populations 
more efficiently, more effectively, and in smarter ways.
  I look forward to passing this reform bill and reaffirming sound 
oversight and fiscal responsibility here in Washington. This 
legislation is a step towards smarter, more competent government. I 
urge Members to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I insert in the Record two documents referring to this bill.
                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 2006.

         Budget Reconciliation and the Alexander Strategy Group


                         Vote No Until We Know

       Dear Colleague: Do you know why the pending Budget 
     Reconciliation Conference Report contains none of the $10 
     billion in cuts to pharmaceutical companies that passed the 
     Senate?
       Neither do I.
       But I have a guess. On the back of this letter is the 
     interim disclosure for the first six months of 2005, showing:
       PhRMA,
       The Alexander Strategy Group,
       Ed Buckham, and
       Tony Rudy

     all working together on ``Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription 
     Drug Issues, and Budget Process.'' (The final disclosure 
     forms are not due until February 15).
       Postpone the vote on Budget Reconciliation until after an 
     investigation is conducted on the role of the scandal-ridden 
     Alexander Strategy Group in the negotiations. Ask the Speaker 
     to create a bipartisan investigation.
       You don't want to vote in favor of a tainted bill. Vote No 
     until we know.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Henry A. Waxman,
                                          Ranking Minority Member.

[[Page H42]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01FE06.001
     


[[Page H43]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01FE06.002
     


[[Page H44]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01FE06.003
     


[[Page H45]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal from the 
Republican Party recently about its commitment to reforming the way the 
House does business.
  Again today the Republicans have told us that they have learned from 
their mistakes, and they will never again allow special interests to 
distract them from doing the work of the American people.
  Actions speak louder than words, and this budget bill before us today 
is proof that despite all the talk of reform nothing has changed with 
its leadership. This is a bill that cuts Medicare spending by $6.4 
billion. It cuts child support enforcement by $1.5 billion. It cuts 
$343 million from foster care programs.
  Last year, we knew what was behind this bill. It was tax cuts for the 
very rich. In order to offset the administration's unprecedented 
giveaway to the country's richest citizens, they are willing to cut the 
services to the neediest Americans. All of us, while we were home in 
January, heard from citizen after citizen, constituent after 
constituent, of the harm that this bill would do to them, begging us 
not to vote for it. Such an indefensible set of priorities is still the 
major reason why the majority gave us this bill again today, but this 
year things are even worse.
  We are being asked to vote on a bill that more than ever before 
proves that the culture of corruption is alive and well in this 
Congress. At the behest of the drug and managed care industries, who 
met with the key legislators in closed, backdoor sessions, the 
Republican conferees have changed this legislation so that it will save 
these industries a total of $42 billion.
  Now, how do they suggest that we pay for this new and improved 
giveaway to the corporate lobby? By increasing the co-payments and 
reducing health coverage for children, for seniors and for people with 
disabilities who rely on Medicaid.
  This last year showed us the terrible consequences of poor 
leadership. We saw a national disaster turn into a national tragedy 
because of a failed government response. We saw self-interest run amok 
as top lawmakers violated the people's trust, and they were indicted 
and forced to step down in the wake of scandal. We saw our troops and 
the people of Iraq struggle heroically to lift not just the weight of a 
vicious insurgency, but also the burden of poor planning and 
unfulfilled promises from the White House.
  Here again today, Republicans are acting to make the American people 
victims of unscrupulous, disingenuous leadership, while they talk of 
reform and change, and we cannot afford another year like the last one.
  Remember, that as you cut the very life out of these programs, you 
are doing it to provide a tax cut for the richest Americans.

                              {time}  1445

  Every Member of this body needs to know the serious consequences of 
this vote today. A vote for this bill is a vote to literally take away 
health care from our children so we can give more money to the super-
rich. A vote for this bill is a vote to weaken Medicare for our 
struggling seniors, who are having enough trouble with the so-called 
Medicare reform bill that we passed here and is giving everybody a fit 
trying to understand Medicare part D and that thousands are doing 
without their medication because of it.
  It will also put college education farther out of the reach of our 
students, even though the President last night discussed that our 
competitiveness depends on what we are teaching our students today, so 
we can fund more tax-cut giveaways. Remember, that is what you are 
voting for.
  A vote for this bill supports the culture of corruption, and also 
America can and must do better than this budget reconciliation and what 
this party is offering us today. I urge all of my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this bill and vote ``yes'' for a new day here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. 
Barton.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 
653, a resolution that will concur in the Senate amendment to S. 1932, 
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. In passing this resolution, the 
House will make important reforms in telecommunications and Medicaid, 
which are under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  This resolution is necessary because when the other body took up the 
budget reform package, or the reconciliation package, they struck three 
items of the conference report that had a nonfinancial impact under 
what is called the Byrd Rule in the other body.
  The three items are a report requiring value-based purchasing for the 
Health and Human Services Department to report to Congress on a date 
certain for a hospital or for a value-based purchasing program. That 
was the first thing struck.
  The second thing struck was a MedPAC report which would have provided 
a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report to Congress on that same 
hospital value-based purchasing program.
  The third thing that was struck was a section that would have 
shielded from legal liability certain hospitals and physicians who 
enforce cost-sharing requirements for nonemergency care in emergency 
rooms absent a finding of gross negligence.
  Those are the only three changes from the conference report that this 
body, the House of Representatives, passed by a six-vote margin before 
we recessed for the holidays. So, substantively, with those changes, 
the bill before us, if this resolution passes that brings the bill up 
for consideration, is identical.
  With regard to the issues that are in the jurisdiction of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, which I chair, the legislation would 
effectively put us in the Digital Age on February 17, 2009. America and 
television sets would go all digital on that day. The analog television 
signals that have come into our homes over the air since the birth of 
TVs since the 1940s, or maybe in some cases since the 1930s, would end; 
and we would have the new era finally before us.
  In 2004, at my first DTV hearing since becoming chairman of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, I announced that expediting the DTV 
transition would be a top priority. I also noted that the 85 percent 
loophole in the current law has delayed the consumer benefits of 
digital television, and it has prevented the clearing of very vital 
broadcast spectrum for critical public safety and wireless broadband 
uses.
  The DTV legislation in the pending bill brings needed certainty that 
will allow consumers, broadcasters, cable and satellite operators, 
manufacturers, retailers, and the government to prepare for the end of 
the transition. It includes a strong consumer education measure. It 
helps ensure that all consumers have continued access to broadcast 
programming, regardless of whether they use analog or digital 
televisions or whether they watch television signals broadcast by a 
local station or subscribe to cable TV.
  The package also includes necessary revisions to Medicaid. Medicaid 
is a victim of its own success. The program has grown so expensive that 
it is unsustainable in its current form. The Nation's Governors on both 
sides of the aisle understand the grim future of Medicaid without 
reform. They told us over and over in hearings before the Energy and 
Commerce Committee that Medicaid will bankrupt the States unless some 
reasonable reforms are enacted. These were Democrat Governors and 
Republican Governors. They told us what they needed done, and we 
attempted to do it.
  The proposal that is embedded in the pending legislation contains 
commonsense reforms and will help fix some of the flaws in the current 
Medicaid program to ensure that it will continue to be the safety net 
that protects our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.
  Some of these reforms include allowing States to charge some basic 
copays to higher-income beneficiaries, reducing Medicaid overpayments 
for drugs, and providing the States with the flexibility to tailor 
their benefit package to meet the specific health care needs of the 
beneficiaries. We would also make it more difficult to hide assets so 
that wealthy clients can pretend to be poor

[[Page H46]]

to qualify for long-term Medicaid coverage in nursing homes.
  We were tasked in the budget resolution to reduce the growth of 
Federal spending in this program. Overall, the net savings over a 5-
year period are a little over $4.5 billion. It is the right thing to 
do, regardless of the budget implication; but the budget implication is 
positive.
  I recognize that some of my critics will say that even a modest 
reform will hurt the poor. I would submit to you that Medicaid in its 
current form is hurting the poor.


  Clarifying the Treatment of Distributor Service Fees Under the New 
                Medicaid Pharmacy Reimbursement Reforms

  I want to clarify specifically how bona fide services fees, which are 
negotiated between a manufacturer and pharmaceutical distributor, 
should be treated under the new Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement metric. 
Manufacturers pay bona fide service fees for specific services provided 
by the distributor. Service fees are a relatively new business model to 
the pharmaceutical distribution industry and how they should be treated 
under federal reimbursement programs first came into question when the 
new Average Sales Price (ASP) metric under the Medicare Modernization 
Act was being recently implemented.
  I am pleased to note that Congress specifically did not include 
service fees as a price concession to be incorporated into the 
calculation of ASP and CMS subsequently confirmed that, ``Bona fide 
service fees that are paid by a manufacturer to an entity, that 
represent fair market value for bona-fide service provided by the 
entity, and are not passed on in whole or in part to a client or 
customer of the entity should not be included in the calculation of 
ASP.''
  The conferees did not intend to have bona fide services fees included 
in the calculation of the Medicaid Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) 
based reimbursement methodology as established in the pharmacy 
reimbursement provisions of the conference agreement.


     Clarifying Changes to Medicaid Third Party Liability Standard

  The provision regarding the meaning of a new Medicaid third-party 
liability provision included in section 6036 of the conference 
agreement on S. 1932, the ``Deficit Reduction Act of 2005'' seeks to 
clarify the obligation of third parties that are legally responsible 
for payment of a claim for a health care item or service, and the 
requirements for third parties to provide states with coverage 
eligibility and claims data. Specifically, that section amends the list 
of third parties named in section 1902(a)(25) of the Social Security 
Act for which states must ascertain the legal liability to pay for 
medical care and services available under the state's Medicaid plan. 
The provision adds ``pharmacy benefit managers'' to this list, and 
introduces a new phrase ``legally responsible for payment of a claim 
for a health care item or service''.
  Under current law, Medicaid is the payor of last resort. In general, 
federal law requires that available third parties must meet their legal 
obligation to pay claims before the Medicaid program pays for the care 
of an individual. The Conference Report amends the list of third 
parties named in Section 1902(a)(25) of the Social Security Act for 
which states must take all reasonable measures to ascertain the legal 
liability to include, among others, pharmacy benefits managers.
  I would like to clarify that the addition of pharmacy benefit 
managers to the definition of liable third parties is in the instance 
when they are at risk for the underlying benefit, such as operating as 
a plan sponsor for purposes of providing health benefits or as a risk-
bearing entity under the new Medicare Part D program as a stand-alone 
PDP. This addition is not meant to make pharmacy benefit managers 
liable when they are acting merely in an administrative capacity on 
behalf of a liable third party.
  The intent is not to create an additional liability where none exists 
today. Pharmacy benefit managers may or may not be liable third 
parties. It is dependent upon whether they are ultimately responsible 
for the payment of a claim. It is my understanding that the health plan 
or employer contracting with the pharmacy benefit manager is ultimately 
at risk for the underlying claim, so it is my belief this will not 
create new liability for the pharmacy benefit manager. I understand 
that this same intention was addressed in a colloquy on the Senate side 
between Senator Bond and Senator Grassley on December 21, 2005.


           Clarifying Medicaid's Coverage for EPSDT Services

  There have recently been some public discussions about what benefits 
states would be required to provide for children under the benefit 
flexibility provisions contained in Section 6044 of the Deficit 
Reduction Act. Section 6044 specifies that states may provide flexible 
benefit packages, but only if such package provides, for any child 
under age 19, wrap around benefits packages that consist of ``early and 
periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services defined in 
section 1905(r).''
  This language reflects the clear legislative intent by both the House 
and Senate that all children should continue to receive access to 
coverage of early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment 
services (``EPSDT'') services. That was what Members agreed to and the 
language was drafted accordingly. In addition, this is exactly how the 
Congressional Budget Office (``CBO'') scored this proposal. In the most 
recent score of S. 1932, CBO said that ``states would be permitted to 
enroll children in a benchmark benefit plan but would be required to 
provide supplemental coverage of all other Medicaid benefits, including 
early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services.''
  In a statement released during the Senate debate on S. 1932, CMS 
Administrator Mark McClellan also indicated that CMS had determined 
that children under age 19 will still be entitled to receive EPSDT 
benefits if they are enrolled in benchmark or benchmark equivalent 
coverage. Further, Administrator McClellan said that in implementing 
section 6044, CMS would not approve any state plan amendment that does 
not include the provision of EPSDT services for children.
  Congress clearly intended for all children under Medicaid to continue 
to receive EPSDT services and we will work with Administrator McClellan 
to ensure that all children will continue to receive access to these 
important services.


             Clarifying Medicaid's New Co-payment Policies

  In implementing the new premium and cost sharing provisions contained 
in section 6041, it was the intent of Congress that Medicaid 
populations below one hundred percent of the federal poverty level 
would be exempt from the general application of cost sharing and 
premiums. The only two exceptions to this rule were that these 
individuals could still be subject to minimal co-payments for non-
preferred drugs and could be charged co-payments if they sought non-
emergency services in an emergency room.


  Clarifying Intent on Medicare Advantage Budget Neutrality Adjustment

  The phase out of the budget neutrality adjustment for Medicare 
Advantage plans under section 5301 of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction 
Act and the joint statement which accompanied the Conference Report in 
the Senate requiring adjustments for differences in coding patterns is 
intended to include adjustments for coding that is inaccurate or 
incomplete for the purpose of establishing risk scores that are 
consistent across both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage settings, 
even if such coding is accurate or complete for other purposes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to criticize the contents of this 
reconciliation bill because it hurts children, single-parent families, 
students struggling to finance their college education, and many others 
who are the most vulnerable among us. But I rise today to criticize the 
process because this a process known as reconciliation; and the purpose 
of reconciliation is that as you come to the end of a budget season, we 
use this to change mandatory spending and change revenues so that you 
reconcile the actual budget to what otherwise would occur.
  Ordinarily in the past, reconciliation has led to deficit reduction. 
That is the purpose. That is the reason it is a priority process in the 
budget process. In the budget summit agreement of 1990, we saved $482 
billion in budget reconciliation; in 1993, we saved $433 billion in 
reconciliation; in the balanced budget agreement of 1997, we saved $118 
billion.
  So what do we save today when you put together this spending-cut 
bill, $39 billion in reconciled spending cuts, with the tax bill that 
will follow it, the reconciliation tax bill? You add $17 billion to the 
deficit over that period of time. There is no deficit reduction.
  Worse still, if you look back at all of the taxes we passed in this 
budget cycle this previous year leading up to fiscal year 2006, 
starting with the transportation bill and including the energy bill and 
including a 1-year patch, $31 billion, in the Alternative Minimum Tax, 
the total tax reduction comes to $122 billion. But let me remind you, I 
just included and we have just included, they just included in this tax 
bill, $31 billion, a 1-year fix in the AMT. If all of these taxes are 
reflected

[[Page H47]]

on a 5-year basis, there is an additional $167 billion to add to that.
  Here is the bottom line. Here is what you are voting for today if you 
vote for this bill. If you look at it over a true 5-year time period 
and add up all of the taxes in addition to the reconciliation tax cuts 
that have been passed in this budget cycle, the addition to the deficit 
is $380 billion after deducting the $40 billion included in this 
reconciliation bill. That is the net effect on the deficit.
  So anybody coming here to the well of the House or going to the 
voting machine to register his or vote thinking that this is going to 
reduce the deficit has another thought coming. This bill will increase 
the deficit, considering the tax cuts that have been passed this past 
year. It will leave us with a deficit increase of $280 billion over the 
next 5 years. That is why the process is a sham and that is reason 
enough to vote against the bill.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Deficit Reduction Act. 
It takes another giant step in trying to get our own financial house in 
order here in Congress, and that is what the American people want. They 
want us to control the way we spend their dollars.
  We took a step when we cut taxes, as was pointed out just a minute 
ago. When you cut taxes across the board and you let people keep more 
of what they earn, well, guess what is happening? They get to decide 
whether to spend it, whether they want to save it, whether they want to 
invest it; and when that happens, the economy begins to grow.
  We have had 2\1/2\ years of positive growth in the economy. What 
happened? The deficit has gone down because more money comes into the 
Treasury when the economy grows.
  Then last year we took step two. We wrote a budget here in this House 
that actually reduced nondefense spending by one-half of one percent. 
That is the first time that has happened since Ronald Reagan was 
President, and that is another giant step in the right direction.
  Here we are now, step three. We are looking at deficit reduction. And 
now we are looking at the areas in our budget that the appropriations 
process does not even impact. We are talking about the so-called 
mandatory spending, entitlement spending, the things that are on 
automatic pilot. That is where more than half of our money goes in this 
Congress.
  So we are simply saying for the first time in 7 years, let's begin to 
get a handle on that. Let's control that part of the budget. Because 
everybody knows the government needs money to provide services. But 
what we are saying right now is we need reform. We need discipline to 
rein in spending. We need courage to make decisions that are difficult 
at times because we have to live like every American has to live, by 
setting priorities and tightening our belts.
  Finally, this is an act that will bring commitment to make sure that 
every task of government is accomplished more efficiently and more 
effectively than it ever has been before. That is what this Deficit 
Reduction Act does, and I urge its passage.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I wish I had at least a half an hour to 
respond to my friend from Florida who just spoke.
  We have run up $1.58 trillion of additional deficits in the last 60 
months under your leadership. Last night, the President of the United 
States addressed the American people from this House Chamber. He 
demanded that we make his tax cuts permanent. Of course, he also urged 
new Federal spending, among other things for energy independence, a 
good objective; on education, math and science, a good objective; 
prevention and treatment for HIV/AIDS. All worthy endeavors of our 
great Nation.
  But President Bush and this Republican Congress, which have had 
complete control of our Federal Government for 5 years, continue to 
refuse to answer the most basic, most obvious and most necessary 
question: How do we pay for these plans and proposals?
  The plain truth is, they do not pay for them. The plain truth is, the 
President and this Republican Congress have pursued the most 
irresponsible fiscal policies in the history of our Nation, turning a 
projected $5.6 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit today, a 
$9.6 trillion turnaround in 60 months.
  Now President Bush and this Republican Congress want to enact tax 
cuts, even as we face record budget deficits and debt brought about by 
their policies, even as they prepare to ask for a $780 billion increase 
in the debt limit, the fourth time they have done so.
  Today's budget bill is part and parcel of the Republican Party's 
free-lunch philosophy. Our Republican friends claim that they are going 
to cut $40 billion to ``restore fiscal discipline.'' Now, you inherited 
$5.6 trillion surplus. You followed an administration that had four 
budget surpluses in a row.

                              {time}  1500

  And you want to restore fiscal discipline to the extraordinary fiscal 
irresponsibility you have been pursuing for 5 years. A good objective, 
folks.
  But the reality is they plan on cutting an additional $70 billion in 
taxes. Cut $40 billion in spending, cut $70 billion in taxes. You do 
not have to be much above the sixth grade to understand that is going 
to add to your deficit.
  No, while the President called for increased funding for education 
last night, this Republican majority today wants to cut funds for 
students going to college. While the President recognized the need to 
make health insurance more affordable, this majority today intends to 
cut funding for Medicaid to the poorest of citizens.
  Meanwhile, we now know that as the Republican budget axe fell on the 
poor and students, powerful special interests in the dark of night in 
the conference got $20 billion in cuts back, back. Half of all of the 
cuts they got back.
  I urge my colleagues, vote against this irresponsible, mean-spirited, 
negative proposal, which is contrary to the interests of the American 
people and the product of Republican fiscal irresponsibility, and a 
pretense of support for priorities of education and health care, while 
at the same time cutting our investment in education of our children 
and the health of our people, and imposing upon our children and our 
grandchildren the extraordinary costs of our fiscal profligacy.
  I would hope that a number of you would in fact be fiscally 
responsible and vote ``no'' on this bad package.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the senior member of 
the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, recently the Congressional Budget 
Office released its economic and budget projections for the coming 
decade; and they reiterate what we already know, that is, that 
mandatory spending is growing at an unsustainable rate.
  If we do not slow down the growth, we are going to have some very 
tough choices in the years to come and the days ahead, because the 
growth, by 2030, is expected to continue at 60 percent. At a time when 
the economy is strong and growing, we cannot forget the problems of 
mandatory spending programs, that they loom very large.
  In his State of the Union address, President Bush warned that the 
retirement of baby boomers will present future Congresses with 
impossible choices. And these are the choices: staggering tax 
increases, immense deficit, or deep cuts in each category of spending.
  Right now the House has a choice. We can either begin to address the 
growing entitlement by passing the Deficit Reduction Act, or we can 
continue to ignore the problem and leave those difficult choices for a 
future date.
  By passing the Deficit Reduction Act today, the House is choosing to 
address that problem. The Deficit Reduction Act will begin the process 
of reform in mandatory spending and save the American taxpayers $40 
billion over the next 5 years. The American people elected us to 
Congress to spend their dollars wisely. We cannot assert that doing our 
job as we have been allows those programs to grow without review.

[[Page H48]]

  The Medicare program, for example, has run on autopilot for almost 40 
years without any review. The Deficit Reduction Act will make important 
changes to reform Medicaid and other important programs to ensure that 
we are being responsible stewards of taxpayers' dollars.
  It is important that the House, as we begin 2006, that we show fiscal 
restraint. It is also important in the House that we unite behind the 
concept that bigger government is not better government. And it is also 
important in the House that we pass the Deficit Reduction Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have recalled that there was 
no conference on this important legislation. Instead, my Republican 
colleagues met behind closed doors with a bevy of lobbyists for the 
health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical houses.
  Democratic Members were entirely excluded from this. This is a 
product of special-interest lobbying, and the stench of special 
interest hangs over the Chamber as we consider it today.
  The bill was brought to the floor in the dead of night; and a couple 
of hours later, the Members of this body voted on it without ever 
having seen it, or without a copy of it ever having been printed. The 
Congressional Budget Office now tells us what went on behind those 
closed doors in those secret meetings. Special interests and their 
lobbyists, who were well represented, won. Everybody else was excluded, 
and everybody else lost.
  The conferees made important decisions on health care, because the 
House and the Senate took very different approaches to the issue. The 
Senate decided not to harm Medicaid beneficiaries, instead cutting 
overpayments to Medicare HMOs and reducing unjustified payments to drug 
companies.
  Our Republican colleagues heard the concerns of these special 
interests and instead chose to raise costs and to cut services to 
working families, to the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and children 
covered by Medicaid.
  Now, here are the specifics, and you can see them on this chart right 
here. The Senate cut $36 billion in overpayments to HMOs and Medicare. 
That included $26 billion in savings by more accurately calculating 
their payments.
  The negotiators, without any help from anybody but the lobbyists, 
rewrote the provision to save just $4 billion, providing a $22 billion 
windfall to the HMOs.
  The Senate also eliminated a $10 billion slush fund designed to 
induce HMOs to participate in the prescription drug program by 
overpayments. The Republican conferees dropped this provision, 
providing another $10 billion gift to HMOs, for a total of $32 billion.
  Finally, the Senate included a provision designed to get the best 
prices for Medicaid by increasing rebates from drug companies for a 
nearly $10 billion saving. My good Republican colleagues dropped that 
provision too.
  Instead, our colleagues on the Republican side went after the people 
who could not be represented in the room and who could not afford to 
have cuts. Through a combination of benefit reductions, increased 
copayments and premiums, along with rules making it harder for the 
elderly to gain access to nursing homes, they saved $25 billion. They 
sweated it out of the hides of the poor and the unfortunate.
  According to the CBO, about 13 million Medicaid enrollees will pay 
more to see their doctor. CBO reports that 80 percent of the savings 
comes from the decreased use of services. Look at what they did. Vote 
against it. This is an outrage.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should recall there was no open conference 
on this important legislation. Instead my Republican colleagues met 
behind closed doors to negotiate an agreement among themselves and, 
apparently, lobbyist friends. It was brought to the floor in the dead 
of night, and a couple of hours later Members voted on it sight unseen.
  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now confirms what went on 
behind those closed doors. Special interests and their lobbyists who 
were well represented won--everyone else was excluded and lost.
  The conferees had very important decisions to make in health care 
because the House and Senate took very different approaches to the 
issue. The Senate elected not to harm Medicaid beneficiaries, instead 
cutting overpayments to Medicare HMOs and reducing payments to drug 
companies. Our House Republican colleagues instead chose to raise costs 
and cut services to working families, the poor, the elderly, the 
disabled, and children covered by Medicaid.
  Here are the specifics: The Senate bill cut $36 billion in 
overpayments to the HMOs in Medicare. That included $26 billion in 
savings by more accurately calculating their payments. But the 
negotiators rewrote the provision to save just $4 billion, providing a 
$22 billion windfall to the HMOs.
  The Senate bill also eliminated a $10 billion slush fund designed to 
entice HMOs to participate in the prescription drug program. The 
Republican conferees dropped this provision, providing another $10 
billion gift to the HMOs for a total of $32 billion.
  Finally, the Senate included a provision designed to get the best 
prices for Medicaid by increasing rebates from drug companies for a 
nearly $10 billion saving. That provision was dropped.
  Instead our Republican colleagues went after the people who couldn't 
afford to be in that room--the Medicaid beneficiaries. Through a 
combination of benefit reductions, increased copayments and premiums, 
along with rules making it harder for the elderly to gain access to 
nursing homes, they saved $25 billion.
  According to CBO, about 13 million Medicaid enrollees will pay more 
to see their doctor. CBO reports 80 percent of the savings from this 
provision will come from decreased use of services. So this bill will 
be adding to the rolls of the uninsured--contrary to the goal of 
expanding coverage touted by President Bush last night.
  This bill is Exhibit A for special interests and lobbyists writing 
legislation behind closed doors at the expense of the ordinary citizen. 
Vote ``no.''
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Deal).
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about who won 
and who lost, let us talk about who did win. It was not special 
interests. It was those who qualify under the Family Opportunity Act 
who for the first time for families with disabled children who may be 
up to 300 percent of poverty will now be able to receive services. That 
will be 115,000 children who are disabled that will gain Medicaid 
coverage by 2015, according to CBO.
  The Home and Community Based Services, the estimate is that another 
120,000 enrollees will be able to take advantage of this, getting 
services in their own home or in their community, rather than having to 
go to a nursing home.
  With the program that is included of money following the person, 
instead of people having to go into a nursing home again, they will be 
able to have services in their own home; and it is estimated that 
another 100,000 people are going to qualify for that over the next 8- 
to 9-year period.
  So those are some of the people who are certainly going to be 
benefited. Now let us talk about the program overall. Medicaid is a 
program that is out of control. Even with the reforms of slowing it 
down by three-tenths of 1 percent over the next 5 years, it is still 
going to grow at an estimated 7 percent growth rate; and over the next 
10 years, we are going to be spending in State and Federal money $5.2 
trillion.
  Let us talk about some of the claims that have been made during the 
time we have been in recess that are without substance and fact. One is 
with regard to copays. The Governors told us they wanted to be able to 
put some personal responsibility back into the program and that copays 
were one way to do it. But we wanted to make sure that we did not hurt 
the most vulnerable.
  As a result, there are no enforceable copays to be charged to 
beneficiaries and families with incomes below the Federal poverty 
level. In addition, copays cannot be charged to a select group of 
individuals in these big categories: mandatory children, individuals 
receiving adoption and foster care assistance, preventive care and 
immunizations, pregnancy-related services, hospice residents, 
institutional spend-down populations, emergency services, family 
planning services, women who qualify for Medicaid under the breast and 
cervical cancer eligibility.
  Also one of the claims is that we would do away with the early 
screening of children. It is specifically included in the plan that 
these children must be

[[Page H49]]

included in the so-called ESPDT program regardless of whether the State 
elects to provide services in an optional format or otherwise.
  One of the other areas is with regard to the reforms we have made in 
asset transfers, the so-called ``millionaires on Medicaid.'' Yes, we 
have tightened the rules, as we should do. But we have specifically 
made sure that anyone who is in a legitimate hardship area will have an 
exclusion, and States are required to provide a review process to make 
sure that that happens.
  So we believe overall that the reforms are needed. There are the 
kinds of reforms that the Governors have asked us to make so that we 
can keep the program solvent; otherwise, as the Governors' national 
representatives on a unanimous basis told us in the committee, if we do 
not, Medicaid over the long haul will be unsustainable.
  So therefore I urge you to adopt the provisions that are included in 
this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, 
last night the President stood before this Nation and said that it was 
important that we educate new math and science teachers and that we 
bring new people to the math and science fields and that America's 
students start to study math and science and engineering so that 
America can remain competitive in the world.
  Today, we vote to make student loans far more expensive for those 
students who take up the President's challenge. We make it more 
expensive for those students, and we make it more expensive for their 
parents. Of the $12 billion, the $12 billion, the largest cuts in the 
history of the student loan program that this legislation takes out of 
the budget, almost 70 percent of those savings are generated by 
increasing, by continuing the practice of forcing students and parent 
borrowers to pay excessive interest rates, and in many cases by raising 
the interest rates on the parents who then borrow additional money to 
finance their children's higher education.
  Many Members are standing up on the Republican side of the aisle and 
talking about the courage that they have to make these cuts. What is 
the courage, what is the judgment, what is the morality of making it 
more difficult for young people to achieve a higher education, to 
achieve an advanced degree, to participate to the fullest extent of 
their talents in the American economy, and to participate in the quest 
that the President had asked for, to make our economy more innovative, 
more competitive in a globalized world?
  I do not understand it. I do not understand the message of the 
President saying we want more of your children to get more higher 
education, and then the budget cuts today that say we are going to make 
it $12 billion more expensive for these children to do this.
  We are going to increase the fees on parents that go into debt, on 
students who go into debt. Most of those students are working at jobs 
while they are trying to get that education. But that is what happens 
in this legislation today.
  Either the President has it right and you have it wrong, or the 
President was not telling us the truth about what he truly wanted to do 
on behalf of increasing math and science education, and advanced 
degrees in math, science and engineering. And yet we understand the 
imperative of this being done, because of the competition that we face 
from China, India, North Korea, Japan, and other nations of the world 
who now are graduating 300,000 engineers in China and the same in 
India, and we are graduating 70,000.
  Do we understand the imperative nature of getting these degrees done? 
Apparently not. Because we are going to make it more expensive with 
this legislation. Actually, you are going to make it more expensive, 
because I am not voting for this bill, because I understand what 
parents and students go through to try to figure out how to finance 
that education, and how they sit around the kitchen table and figure 
out the sacrifices that they can make.
  The better idea that the Republicans have is that they are going to 
make it more expensive for students to go to college, an idea that we 
ought to reject; and I would hope that others on the Republican side of 
the aisle would reject this very bad idea.

                              {time}  1515

  It is an idea that we ought to reject, and I would hope that others 
on the Republican side of the aisle would reject this very bad idea.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who also serves on the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, yet again we consider this historic 
piece of legislation, and it is historic because today we can begin the 
process of reforming out-of-control government spending. What happens 
if we listen to our Democrat friends who tell us we should fail to act?
  Retiring Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said, ``As a 
Nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of 
retirees that we will be unable to fulfill.'' That is the Democrat 
plan.
  The Brookings Institution has said expected growth on entitlement 
programs along with projected increases in interest on the debt and 
defense will absorb all of the government's currently projected 
revenues within 8 years, leaving nothing for any other program. No more 
veterans programs, no more Federal student loans, no more low-income 
housing programs. That is the Democrat plan.
  The General Accountability Office has said that without reforms that 
we are going to have to double taxes on the next generation just to 
balance the budget. That is the Democrat plan.
  Mr. Speaker, during this debate we are hearing a lot about budget 
cuts. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not 
entitled to their own facts.
  I looked up ``cut'' in the dictionary. It means to reduce. Yet, under 
this modest set of reforms, we see that Federal spending will grow at 
4.3 percent a year. What we call entitlement spending will grow 6.3 
percent a year. Medicaid will grow 7.5 percent a year. TANF and other 
welfare programs will grow at 8.5 percent a year, and the list goes on 
and on and on.
  What we will cut if we do not pass this legislation is the family 
budget. It will be cut by $40 billion. That is $40 billion that could 
help nearly 2 million families to make a down payment on a new home. 
$40 billion could help almost 1 million families put a child through 
college. We need to realize that every time we increase the Federal 
budget we are cutting the family budget. Democrats want to cut the 
family budget, double taxes on our children and call that compassion.
  We need to adopt this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it seems the House has voted on this 
legislation countless times, and people may be wondering what has 
changed about this conference report since the House passed this bill 
at 6:00 in the morning late last year.
  This is it. Here is what has changed. This is a Washington Post 
article: Closed door deal makes $22 billion difference. The Washington 
Post reported last week the Republican leadership met with lobbyists 
behind closed doors to restore a $22 billion slush fund for HMOs, a 
slush fund that the Senate had the decency to drop from this 
legislation. As one health care lobbyist said, ``$22 billion is a lot 
of money.''
  But instead of foregoing this latest example of corporate welfare, 
Republicans have instead put these cuts on the backs of those who 
cannot afford lobbyists. These include poor children and working 
families who will face new costs and higher premiums, reducing care for 
1.6 million Americans and kicking over 65,000 Americans, mostly whom 
have kids, off of Medicaid. Others who will be off of Medicaid are 
working but do not receive health care through their employer. This, 
less than 24 hours after the President's call to expand health care in 
his State of the Union address.
  $22 billion is a lot of money, enough to restore the $12.7 billion in 
student loan assistance cut from this legislation, the $1.5 billion of 
cuts to child

[[Page H50]]

and foster care support, and the $7 billion of cuts in health care for 
families.
  Some may look at this brazen example of cronyism at its worst, at all 
the indictments and plea bargains we have seen, and say, well, that is 
just the way Washington works. That is how Washington operates today 
under Republican leadership and a Republican administration.
  But that is not the way that it ought to work. Regardless of which 
party is in power, the people's business ought never to be made and 
done behind closed doors, much less critical budget decisions that can 
mean life and death for some families.
  The American people deserve better from this body. It is time we gave 
them a reason to expect better.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman may inquire.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I have heard all the debate and I am curious. 
To my friend Mr. Putnam, the President just left Nashville, and out of 
curiosity does the President know that you all are introducing this 
after what he said last night?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to correct the gentlewoman from Connecticut with regards 
to the Washington Post article. As is common in this media culture of 
get-it-fast instead of get-it-right, there was no lobby fix.
  The Deficit Reduction Act establishes a timeline for phasing out 
overpayments to Medicare advantage plans. The Secretary of HHS had 
already proposed correcting those payment levels but had not set a 
timeline. Until the Secretary acts, Medicare is currently paying too 
much to those Medicare advantage plans, and the Deficit Reduction Act 
sets the timeline for the Secretary to fix it.
  The simple explanation for the $22 billion reduction in CBO score is 
that the Deficit Reduction Act assumes that once the payment system is 
fixed over the next 5 years the Secretary will have the good sense to 
keep paying them at the proper level.
  So it is incorrect to say that there was a $22 billion giveaway. 
CBO's estimate assumes that the Secretary will revert to overpaying 
those same people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the rule and of the Deficit Reduction 
Act. It is an important first step toward restoring public confidence 
in the fiscal integrity of our national government.
  2005 will be remembered as a year of good intentions, bad disasters 
and promises kept. Congress early last year adopted the toughest budget 
since the Reagan years and, under the leadership of the Appropriations 
Committee, reported one bill after another on time and on budget.
  And then came Katrina, 90,000 square miles of our gulf coast 
destroyed and $60 billion appropriated in just 6 days. After the storm, 
many here in Congress thought that fiscal discipline was the last thing 
that Congress should be thinking about, preferring to raise taxes or 
increase the national debt instead of making tough choices, but not 
this majority.
  Seeing that a catastrophe of nature could become a catastrophe of 
debt, dozens of House conservatives challenged our colleagues to offset 
the cost of Hurricane Katrina with budget cuts, and I will always 
believe that that effort sparked a national debate that led to this 
moment.
  The American people wanted Washington to pay for Katrina with budget 
cuts, and Washington got the message. In direct response to the call 
for cuts, Speaker Dennis Hastert unveiled a bold plan which we consider 
today to find cuts from every area of the Federal Government, and the 
Hastert plan, with nearly $40 billion in entitlement savings, becomes a 
reality.
  So, Mr. Speaker, for Americans troubled by a rising tide of red ink 
here in Washington, D.C., 2006 begins with reason for optimism, as this 
Congress demonstrates the ability to make touch choices in tough times 
to put our fiscal house in order.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the Deficit Reduction Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to this 
misguided and irresponsible bill.
  Just last night President Bush spoke about working together to build 
prosperity for our country, but this legislation pays for the 
prosperity of the richest, the wealthiest in our society while cutting 
vital services to very needy individuals.
  Since President Bush has been in office, the number of Americans in 
this country living in poverty has grown by 6 million people. In total, 
13 million children, including 4.7 million children under the age of 
six, now live in poverty because of this administration.
  Health care costs have risen by 60 percent, and the number of 
uninsured keeps skyrocketing. More than 13 million Latinos alone 
continue to be uninsured.
  The cost of college education increased by 40 percent because of this 
administration's misguided approach, forcing typical students to borrow 
$17,000 in Federal loans and leaving almost 40 percent of student 
borrowers in unmanageable debt.
  Yet this bill cuts another $40 billion in vital programs, Medicaid, 
Medicare, student loans, and protects more than $70 billion in tax 
breaks for the wealthy. These programs are critical, not just to low-
income people but to the working class Americans of this country.
  The reality is that this legislation will do very little to reduce 
the budget. It will do nothing to help the most vulnerable in our 
society, and it will do nothing but continue on the wrong path, down 
the wrong road. Working men and women and children will continue to 
fall, and our senior citizens will also be caught up in that net.
  The bill is not compassionate, it is not decent, and I do not support 
this legislation. I urge my colleagues to please protect the health and 
well-being of our citizens and to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  For those of us that are deficit hawks and have pushed this bill to 
cut spending by $40 billion, I think it is important to recognize that 
between 1995 and 2005, we have seen spending swell on the part of the 
Federal Government from $1.5 trillion to $2.5 trillion. We have seen it 
go up $1 trillion in 10 years, and we could cooperate I guess to push 
it up another trillion, but let me explain my concerns with the 
national debt that is past $8 trillion and a deficit that is projected 
to hit $337 billion.
  If we fail to confront this challenge of ever higher spending, 
crowding out the private sector, then the coming decades will be very 
difficult. Our standard of living will decline, and we will become a 
much more vulnerable country. This Deficit Reduction Act, this $40 
billion, is a good start.
  I think that we recognize that Americans, if they ran their personal 
finances the way the Federal Government has been run, we would be close 
to bankruptcy. I think Americans recognize it is time for belt 
tightening, and I think they know that an attempt to just keep 
increasing the public sphere at the expense of the private sphere and 
increasing taxes as a result is not the answer.
  We need fiscal restraint. We need common sense when it comes to the 
budget. The future of all Americans depends on an economy free of 
crippling deficits, free of crippling tax hikes and free of a 
skyrocketing national debt.
  It is incumbent on all of us that we step up to the plate and take 
responsibility for the Nation's future and that immediate future holds 
frankly a massive cost that I think all of us know is before us because 
we have a generation of baby boomers that are set to retire. If we are 
to ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security then 
we must ensure not only that the budget is balanced but that we begin 
to pay down our enormous national debt.

[[Page H51]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, a number of us believe that there 
is no finer orator in the House than my friend from Indiana who runs 
the Republican Study Committee. I wish he were still here because I was 
struck by some words he used.
  He said that this was the toughest budget since Reagan. He said that 
we were in very tough times and this budget was laden with tough 
choices.
  Where my good friend and my very eloquent friend from Indiana was 
mistaken is who are we tough on. If this was truly the toughest budget 
in 20 years, if it had sacrifice all across the board, there would be 
support for it from the more conservative Members on this side of the 
aisle. If this were truly a budget that made tough choices and directed 
those choices at all of our people and not some of our people, there 
would be significant support for it from the conservative side of this 
aisle.

                              {time}  1530

  There is a reason why there is not. Because it is not tough on 
everybody.
  The average person, Mr. Speaker, earning over $1 million a year, the 
people who will benefit so handsomely from the President's tax cuts, 
will get a tax cut this April 15 of $103,000. You could lower that 
number to $90,000, Mr. Speaker, and recoup every single Medicaid cut 
that is made.
  And I am sure my friends on the other side will say, well, yes, we 
need to cut Medicaid. Understand who goes on Medicaid. It is not the 
people who are sitting in this Chamber or our families. It is people 
who are crushed at the poverty line or near the poverty line. They are 
the ones whose wages have been frozen. This budget would make them, 13 
million of them, pay more than they do today for the cost of Medicare. 
And it is projected it would put 60,000 of them off the Medicaid rolls 
all together.
  The one word we have not heard in this debate, and it ought to inform 
it, is not just the word ``tough'' but the word ``fair.''
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, last night the President said that in order 
to keep America competitive, we need to invest in America. So what is 
the first thing the Republican Congress does? It cuts $12.5 billion 
from college assistance for kids who are trying to go to college. It is 
a fascinating way to invest in America's competitiveness and the 
future. I wonder why nobody else has thought of that.
  This is the Republican Congress where the rhetoric of the President 
last night meets the Republican reality. We kept $14.5 billion in 
subsidies to big oil and big gas companies, $22 billion in subsidies to 
the HMO slush fund, and $49 billion for the pharmaceutical industry, 
all the while we cut $12.5 billion from children trying to go to 
college, $8 billion from child support collection, and $16 billion from 
Medicaid.
  We increased copayments and premiums leaving thousands of children 
without children's health care; but we kept in place the subsidies to 
big oil, big energy companies and big health care interests. What has 
happened in America?
  We have seen a 38 percent increase in college costs in the last 5 
years under the Republican watch, and you guys cut $12.7 billion from 
kids going to college in assistance. We have seen a 78 percent increase 
in the cost of energy; yet you subsidize Big Oil with $14 billion in 
taxpayer subsidies. We have seen a 58 percent increase in health care 
premiums, $3,600 to the average family in America. So what do you do? 
You cut 6 million children from health care and give the HMOs a $22 
billion additional hit for their slush fund and give pharmaceutical 
companies everything they need.
  This budget maintains the status quo. It says of the last 6 years, if 
you like the economy you have, if you like the investments you have, we 
will give you two more years to sign on for that.
  It is time for a change. It is time for a new direction. It is time 
to put the American people first by investing in their education, their 
health care, and child support collection. It is not just the poor that 
are being affected. This budget and these cuts affect the middle class.
  As my colleague from Alabama said, we have heard the word toughness, 
but we have not heard the word fairness from you. It is not every 
American in the boat. This is a narrow budget that divides America, 
rather than unites America.
  While Americans are struggling with wages and incomes that have been 
stagnant for 5 years, with rising health care costs, rising college 
costs, and rising energy costs, you guys cut children on college 
assistance, nutrition, health care, and child support. When it comes to 
women and children, you give a whole new meaning to women and children 
first. It is time to put the American people first and to set new 
priorities and change the direction.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me this time.
  This is kind of funny. It keeps happening. Any time we are having 
this debate, we hear words or phrases like ``fiscal integrity'' and how 
we are making these cuts because we are going to ``balance the 
budget.'' No one is balancing any budget here. Who are we kidding? We 
are borrowing the money, billion upon billion upon billion, from the 
Chinese to fund tax cuts that are going primarily to the top 1 percent 
of the people.
  You are making cuts that are hurting middle-class and poor kids. That 
is the fact. I am not making this up. But if we try to talk about 
cutting the energy subsidies or cutting the subsidies to the HMOs or 
asking simple things like having the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services negotiate the drug prices on behalf of the Medicare 
recipients, or asking for reimportation for drugs coming in from Canada 
to help lower the price, we cannot even hear a word from the Republican 
majority on these issues.
  I had a meeting the other day with a school board member from 
Youngstown city schools. And I asked him, I said, how many kids live in 
poverty in this school district? He said, 90 percent. Ninety percent of 
the kids that go to school in Youngstown city schools live in poverty. 
And I asked him how many qualify for free and reduced lunch, to maybe 
get another number. He said, we don't even hand out the form any more 
because it costs us more to administer the form and the program than to 
just give it to everybody.
  Ninety percent of the kids in Youngstown and you are cutting $12 
billion from giving these kids an opportunity to go to college? No 
Child Left Behind is underfunded in Ohio $1.5 billion a year, just in 
Ohio alone, while some of these other countries are graduating much 
higher percentages of kids in math and science.
  Let us wake up. We need these kids on the field competing in a global 
economy, and you will not get them there by cutting education and 
cutting health care. You want to compete with China? You want to 
compete with India? Fund these programs.
  We are not saying you don't need to change some things, and we are 
willing to work with you to do it, but for God's sake don't cut 
programs to kids living in poverty and middle-class kids. You are 
cutting their health care, you are cutting their education, and you are 
giving tax breaks to rich people. Period, dot.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to first of all congratulate Tim Ryan, because I think 
he framed this debate as clearly as he should, and as clearly as it has 
been today, along with both Artur Davis and Rahm Emanuel.
  Mr. Speaker, I will yield to Mr. Davis to finish his point, but 
before doing

[[Page H52]]

that, the only point I wanted to make is that I thought I heard the 
President say all these things last night about making investments to 
make the country more competitive. And I just don't know if he knows 
you all are doing this today. Maybe we should call him and let him 
know. I am going to send him something, along with Artur and Rahm and 
Tim, to let him know what we have done, and maybe he won't sign this if 
and when it arrives on his desk.
  I want to clarify something my colleague, Artur Davis from Alabama, 
said. He said if we cut the tax cut that will go to millionaires this 
year, it is an average of $103,000. So if you earn $1 million and you 
are watching, listen closely. If not, it doesn't affect you. You get a 
$103,000 tax break if you are a millionaire. If we cut it to $90,000, 
what can you do?
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding 
to me. That cut was from $103,000 to $90,000.
  Mr. FORD. And that is still a tax cut; is that right?
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. It is still a tax cut, and it would yield 
approximately $2.6 billion, enough to recoup the Medicaid cuts.
  And I make that point, Mr. Ford, simply because last night we heard 
the President tell us that we are all bound together in this long 
twilight struggle against terrorists around the world. And if we are 
all bound together to face terrorists around the world, it is very 
interesting that a day later we sever a lot of those bonds when it 
comes to whether we care about education or whether we care about 
health care.
  The President had it right last night. Either we are connected to 
each other or we are not. And that is where this budget is so wrong.
  Mr. FORD. So, Mr. Speaker, so if millionaires took a $65,000 tax cut 
as opposed to a $103,000 tax cut, we could pay for the student loan 
program.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, both of the gentlemen are very eloquent, 
except they miss the overall point, which is that we are debating the 
technical amendments to what the House passed long before the 
President's State of the Union speech.
  The three changes that were made by the Senate, that we are dealing 
with today and that are different than what we have already voted on as 
a body, deal with a value-based purchasing report, a MedPAC report, 
MedPAC being the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and medical 
liability. Three items that, for technical rule reasons in the Senate, 
were stripped, causing the bill to be sent back over here.
  The timing of this, situated as it is the day after the President's 
State of the Union, is irrelevant to the overall issue. We have already 
voted on this except for these three changes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, just for the gentleman from Florida, you are 
saying that these cuts that are being talked about today are imaginary, 
or are they real? And I would be happy to yield to the gentleman. Are 
they imaginary cuts or real cuts? Maybe we have got the wrong bill.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Under your definition, sir, people continue to get more 
money year after year after year and it is a cut. Under your 
definition.
  Mr. FORD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I love Mr. Putnam, but he 
knows he is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, we are making cuts. The President asked us to make 
investments. That is the reality of what we are doing here this 
afternoon.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on my 
side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 1 minute 
and 10 seconds remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. In 10 seconds, for the 13 million families who 
will have to pay more money for health care, that is a cut. Because 
that is less money they can use on food that now they are having to use 
on health care. And these are the poorest people in our country, Mr. 
Putnam.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  It is interesting to listen to my colleagues who talk about the 
President's suggesting we invest in America and somehow they heard 
government only invest in America. Isn't that interesting?
  I can tell you that my folks that I represent in Iowa, when they hear 
invest in America or invest in Iowa or invest in your community, they 
think that means them. They think that means Americans investing in 
America.
  Unfortunately, we actually have people, ladies and gentlemen, who 
believe that when somebody says invest in America, what that means is 
take money from Americans, take it to Washington, invent fancy 
programs, fill fancy white buildings full of bureaucrats, create all 
sorts of bureaucracy and red tape and paperwork, and have those 
bureaucrats, with our blessing, invest in America.
  Now, I do not know about you, but I heard it a little differently 
last night. The President and I, and those of us who agree with the 
plan that we have adopted this year, believe in and trust that people 
make better decisions about their daily lives and the investment in 
their businesses and their families and their communities much better 
than the government can for them.
  We have a plan. That plan calls for growing the economy by letting 
people make those decisions with their money. We talk about money out 
here all the time as if it is our money. It is not our money. Ladies 
and gentlemen, this is the taxpayers' money. They are the ones who earn 
it. They are the ones who sweat for it. They are the ones who are 
concerning themselves every day about ensuring that they can support 
themselves, let alone being able to send a little bit of it out here.
  And the reason why we believe, and it has worked, that we believe 
that reducing taxes actually helps us grow the pie is because the facts 
are in. In the last 17 quarters, as a result of us reducing taxes, our 
economy has grown.
  We have heard people come out here today to say when you cut taxes it 
means the government is going to have less money. It is exactly the 
opposite. I think we need some of the President's science and math 
education for maybe even some of us. Because every time in our history 
that we have reduced taxes, the math shows us that the economy grows 
and actually more revenue comes into the Treasury. Last year was the 
largest increase in revenue to our Treasury, in a year when we reduced 
taxes. Now, you cannot explain that unless you understand basic 
economics.
  Our plan calls for growing the economy and reducing spending, and 
that is exactly what we did this last year. We held the line on 
nondefense, nonhomeland security spending because we wanted to protect 
our country, but we knew we had to reform spending in the discretionary 
accounts.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Speaker, today marks the opportunity to close the books on this 
process, reform government spending.
  Let me remind you what kind of government we have got. In so many 
instances, we have what I believe is an ineffective Katrina 
bureaucracy. We saw a little bit of that down in the gulf coast, but 
what we all know is that same Katrina mentality and bureaucracy 
permeates so much of our bureaucracy here in Washington. Unless we 
constantly are vigilant about ensuring that we reform government at all 
levels, we are never going to get our arms around fiscal discipline and 
fiscal responsibility.
  Finally, this achieves savings, not cuts, not gouging people. My 
goodness, the kind of rhetoric you hear out here. We are trying to make 
a modest reduction, giving people at the local level, our Govenors and 
our authorities at the State level some flexibility so they can deliver 
a much better product for the people that we care about and are

[[Page H53]]

concerned about. These programs need our reform. You cannot assume 
because you have always done it one way, just continuing it without 
this kind of oversight and reform will continue to get good results.
  These programs have gotten good results in many instances, but too 
many of them are not achieving the results we need. We need those 
results. We can achieve savings. We have a plan to accomplish it. It 
allows us to do so by growing the economy, and I believe it is a fiscal 
plan that will continue to get us the success that we have seen.
  In the last 2 years, we have experienced $200 billion of deficit 
reduction as a result of this plan. I have no doubt we will hear from 
one more speaker that will second guess everything that we have done, 
and I will remind that speaker that the President last night, while 
they love to quote him about everything else, also said second guessing 
is not a plan, is not a strategy. If you have got a plan, if you have a 
strategy, we would love to see it. But thus far we have not seen it. We 
have a plan. It is working. We need to adopt it today, and we need to 
get about the business of reforming this government, achieving savings 
and ensuring that the taxpayers are supported in this body.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority 
leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member on 
the Rules Committee for her leadership in fighting the fight for a 
budget that is a reflection of the values and priorities of the 
American people and her leadership in opposition to what the religious 
community has called this immoral Republican budget.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday and later today we will continue the debate on 
a resolution honoring and celebrating the life and service and 
leadership of Coretta Scott King.
  One of the stories I like best about the Kings is in the 1950s they 
traveled to India to learn more about nonviolence, the nonviolence 
practiced by Mahatma Gandhi, and they brought that back to America and 
it was a major part of the civil rights movement.
  Why I mention it today is because in Sanskrit the name for 
nonviolence is also translated ``truth insistence.'' Wasn't that what 
the civil rights movement was about, the insistence on truth in our 
country? Truth insistence is exactly what is required when we talk 
about the Republican budget.
  Last night in the State of the Union address we heard a great deal of 
rhetoric about investments the President was going to make in 
education, research and development, and you name it. But that rhetoric 
is a far cry from the reality of the budget that the Republicans are 
bringing to this floor today, which not only does not make those 
investments in the manner described by the President, it indeed cuts 
them.
  Last night in the State of the Union address the President talked 
about the importance of educating our children to help keep America 
competitive. But this budget today tells a different story. The truth 
is the budget follows the track record of woefully underfunding No 
Child Left Behind. It increases the cost of student loans to America's 
families who are struggling to send their children to college. How can 
that help make America more competitive?
  Every time we invest in education, we bring more revenue into the 
Treasury than any other initiative you can name. No tax cut, no tax 
credit, no anything, nothing brings more to the Treasury of the 
Government than investing in the education of our people. So these were 
not only wrong cuts in terms of competitiveness, they also increase the 
deficit.
  Last night the President said in his State of the Union address, ``A 
hopeful society gives special attention to children.'' Now I would like 
to know what kind of attention that the President is giving to the 
children because the truth is this budget today slashes funding to help 
care for America's poorest children. It drastically cuts funding for 
the initiative that enforces the payment of child support. Others have 
talked about nutrition, and of course good nutrition has a direct 
impact on the education of these children.
  The truth is that this budget is an exact contradiction of the 
rhetoric that the President presented last night.
  Now let us look at the title of it. It is called the Budget 
Reconciliation Spending Cuts Act. Yet the truth is the policies in this 
budget will increase the deficit by $300 billion, heaping mountains of 
debt on our children, and the sad truth is all of this to pay for a tax 
cut for the wealthiest people in our country.
  Republicans will try to say to defend these measures, as evidence of 
their so-called fiscal responsibility, that this is about small 
government. But the fact is, the truth is, that this is not about small 
government, this is about small-minded, petty government that does not 
meet the needs of the American people.
  Republicans will try to defend these measures again by calling for 
fiscal responsibility, and I would like to talk about the $42 billion 
difference. It has been widely reported that this bill had a chance, 
there was an opportunity to reduce excessive Medicare payments that the 
Federal Government makes to big business HMOs because of a loophole in 
the law. There was bipartisan agreement that this would take place. But 
in a closed-door meeting the Republicans eliminated that, and they gave 
a $22 billion bonanza to the HMOs, and this at the expense of America's 
children and those in need.
  We also were going to get better drug prices for Medicaid, and this 
relates to the children, from drug manufacturers and eliminate a 
Medicare slush fund for managed care. By doing those two things, we 
were going to save the taxpayers another $20 billion. So it was a $42 
billion difference in this budget, at the expense of children and 
seniors to the benefit of the industries to whom the Republicans in 
Congress are handmaidens.
  In the conference committee, without a single Democrat in the room 
because Democrats were not allowed in the room, this $42 billion worth 
of savings disappeared from the budget. The $42 billion difference, 
that is the difference between a closed and corrupt Congress and an 
open and honest Congress.
  Since Democrats did not get a seat at the table in the writing of 
this bill, who did? America's low-income children did not get a seat at 
the table, and they are paying the price in their education, their 
health care and child support.
  America's seniors did not get a seat at the table because the bill 
makes it harder for seniors to qualify for long-term care, and even 
forces some to forfeit their homes in order to pay for long-term care.
  The truth is the drug manufacturers, managed care companies and HMOs 
clearly get a seat. They came up the big winners with the special 
interest driven Medicare prescription drug bill that was foisted on 
America's seniors, and they came up big winners in this budget bill. It 
would be nice if America's children and seniors had a seat at the table 
instead of big business.
  My colleagues, the truth is that, as our friends in the religious 
community, almost every religious denomination in the country, has been 
lobbying against this legislation. They call it a budget deprived of 
spiritual hope and of nourishing resources. That is the truth about the 
Republican budget and the Democrats insist that the public know it. I 
am very proud that we will have 100 percent of our Democratic Members 
voting ``no'' on this immoral budget.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, once again the other side is trying to have it both 
ways. In alternating speaker form, we are in turn told we are awash in 
a sea of red ink and that this measure is not adequate to deal with the 
deficit, and then the next speaker says we have consistently 
underbudgeted for the Nation's priorities and have not spent anywhere 
nearly enough money for all of the things that they would like to see 
spent.
  Their metaphors are as limitless as their desire to spend the 
hardworking Americans' money in the sense we have heard that we are 
going to throw away Tiny Tim's crutches when we did this at the end of 
last year, we were told that we were the Grinch, and we were quoted to 
extensively from literary and

[[Page H54]]

historic figures, and the bottom line is this: We have an explosion of 
baby-boomers in this country that will create a demographic crisis and 
we have an explosion on the mandatory side of our budget that will 
consume two-thirds of it within less than a decade. Already half of the 
Federal budget is on autopilot. This is the first step since 1997 in 
beginning to get our arms around that problem.
  I urge Members to support this first step towards long-term fiscal 
discipline and fiscal health for this Nation.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I rise in strong 
opposition to the Deficit Reduction Act (S. 1932). This is a second 
chance to right a wrong and I urge my colleagues to vote wisely. With a 
deficit of more than $300 billion in 2005, there is little question 
that something needs to be done about the federal budget. But S. 1932 
is nothing more than smoke and mirrors because it will actually 
increase the deficit. Let me explain.
  I've heard loud and clear from my constituents that they do not 
support this slash and burn budget. They do not want over $11 billion 
in cuts to student loans or $6.4 billion in cuts to Medicare, 
particularly at this time when the prescription drug plan is failing 
miserably. We already have a shortage of doctors on the Central Coast 
who accept Medicare patients, and this Republican-drafted bill freezes 
physician payments for doctors who accept Medicare patients. This 
misguided attempt at deficit reduction will further exacerbate our 
physician shortage.
  This kind of penny-wise pound-foolish legislation translates into a 
greater strain on state and local resources. And when our state, county 
and local governments cannot pick up the slack, families and children 
will only be left with smoke and mirrors. I urge my colleagues to stand 
up for middle class Americans and defeat this bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there has been 
some confusion about Congress's intent regarding the new section 1937 
of the Social Security Act, as added by the Deficit Reduction Act. This 
provision will give states the flexibility they need to provide 
benchmark benefit packages for Medicaid beneficiaries. Congressional 
intent is clear, however, that a State may not fail to provide Medicaid 
Early and Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) services 
for children.
  To address this confusion, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services (CMS) has issued a statement that clarifies section 1937 to 
specify that States requesting benchmark benefits will be required to 
provide EPSDT services for children. I submit for the Record the CMS 
statement to help clarify Congressional intent regarding this 
provision.

Statement by Mark B. McClellan, M.D., PH.D., Administrator, Centers for 
                      Medicare & Medicaid Services

       Questions have been raised about the new section 1937 of 
     the Social Security Act (SSA) (as added by the Deficit 
     Reduction Act of 2005) that permits states to provide 
     Medicaid benefits to children through benchmark coverage or 
     benchmark equivalent coverage. If a state chooses to exercise 
     this option, the specific issue has been raised as to whether 
     children under 19 will still be entitled to receive EPSDT 
     benefits in addition to the benefits provided by the 
     benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage. The 
     short answer is: children under 19 will receive EPSDT 
     benefits.
       After a careful review, including consultation with the 
     Office of General Counsel, CMS has determined that children 
     under 19 will still be entitled to receive EPSDT benefits if 
     enrolled in benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent 
     coverage under the new section 1937. CMS will review each 
     State plan amendment (SPA) submitted under the new section 
     1937 and will not approve any SPA that does not include the 
     provision of EPSDT services for children under 19 as defined 
     in section! 905(r) of the SSA.
       In the case of children under the age of 19, new section] 
     937(a)(1) is clear that a state may exercise the option to 
     provide Medicaid benefits through enrollment in coverage that 
     at a minimum has two parts. The first part of the coverage 
     will be benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage, 
     as required by subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), and the second part 
     of the coverage will be wrap-around coverage of EPDST 
     services as defined in section I905(r) of the SSA, as 
     required by subsection (a)(J)(A)(ii). A State cannot exercise 
     the option under section 1937 with respect to children under 
     19 if EPSDT services are not included in the total coverage 
     provided to such children.
       Subparagraph (C) of section 1937(a)(1) permits states to 
     also add wrap-around or additional benefits. In the case of 
     children under 19, wrap-around or additional benefits that a 
     state could choose to provide under subparagraph (C) must be 
     a benefit in addition to the benchmark coverage or benchmark 
     equivalent coverage and the EPSDT services that the state is 
     already required to provide under subparagraph (A) of that 
     section. Subparagraph (C) does not in any way give a state 
     the flexibility to fail to provide the EPSDT services 
     required by subparagraph (A)(ii) of section 1937(a)(1).

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to pass the Deficit Reduction 
Act. The House approved it in December, but another vote is required 
due to technical changes made in the Senate. This bill is an important 
step in removing wasteful and unnecessary spending from the budget. 
Certainly, more can always be done, but this compromise legislation is 
a first step on what will be a long road of getting our mandatory 
spending programs under control. The Conference Report reduces the 
deficit by more than $35 billion over the next five years, nearly $8 
billion of which falls into the Ways and Means Committee's 
jurisdiction.
  Under this Conference Report, the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act, commonly known as the ``Byrd amendment,'' will be 
permanently repealed, after a brief two-year phase out. The Byrd 
amendment is not a trade remedy; it is corporate welfare which benefits 
very few companies and results in negative consequences for many 
domestic manufacturers--as recently identified by the Government 
Accountability Office. In addition, it is inconsistent with U.S. 
international trade obligations. Repealing the Byrd Amendment is the 
only way to end retaliation against U.S. exports resulting from this 
violation.
  This legislation will reduce wasteful federal spending by eliminating 
a loophole that currently allows states to claim federal matching funds 
for spending federal child support incentive funds. The incentive 
payments will continue, providing states a total of $2.4 billion over 
the next five years. But states won't get additional federal funds when 
they spend these federal bonuses, thus ending this double dipping. It 
is also important to note that this conference agreement maintains the 
current generous federal matching rate of 66 percent for child support 
administrative expenditures.
  This Conference Report would also address some of the wasteful 
spending in Medicare while improving quality in the program. For 
instance, under the legislation, Medicare will pay for service and 
maintenance of beneficiary-owned durable medical equipment when repairs 
are actually required, as opposed to current law, which pays regular 
service payments regardless of whether the equipment is actually 
serviced. The bill also allows beneficiaries to own their oxygen 
equipment after 36 months of rental, while still providing coverage of 
necessary service and maintenance of that equipment.

  To improve quality, the legislation includes provisions to encourage 
hospitals to follow evidence-based guidelines that can reduce the 
incidence of preventable hospital-acquired infections.
  To explore ways to improve cooperation between health care providers 
and achieve savings in the health care system, the legislation provides 
for six gain sharing demonstration projects. As a conferee, I intend 
that these projects be tested broadly in order to produce valid results 
and policy recommendations. Also, I intend that these projects not be 
limited to six individual hospitals and that hospital chains and 
associations are eligible to apply and participate.
  To ensure accurate payment for Medicare Advantage plans, the 
legislation codifies the phase-out of the budget neutrality factor for 
risk adjustments for those plans. This change will ensure that 
traditional fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage plans are being 
compared and paid accurately. This provision requires adjustments for 
differences in coding patterns, and the intent of that section is to 
include adjustments for coding that is inaccurate or incomplete for the 
purpose of establishing risk scores that are consistent across both 
fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage settings, even if such coding is 
accurate or complete for other purposes. Other common-sense reforms in 
the Medicare program will add up to billions of dollars in savings, 
while improving quality and service for beneficiaries.
  Finally, this Conference Report will extend and improve the 1996 
welfare reform law for the next five years. It continues current 
funding for the nation's welfare to work program, despite a 60 percent 
welfare caseload decline since 1996. And it includes provisions 
encouraging more work and self-sufficiency, promoting healthy marriages 
and responsible fatherhood, and increasing child care funding by $1 
billion over the next five years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, once again, to support this 
legislation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I don't need to remind anyone in this 
Chamber of the saying that all politics are local. This budget has real 
effects on the local level, especially in my home State of California.
  As a former welfare recipient, I am concerned with the increased work 
requirements to TANF. The Legislative Analyst's Office (California's 
version of the Congressional Budget Office) has said that the State 
will not be able to meet these new requirements, costing them $400 
million in the first year alone.
  These requirements undermine the bipartisan work that has been done 
on the State

[[Page H55]]

level to help people get the education they need to obtain a decent 
paying job. Work requirements without the support of education and 
child care fail to address the real needs of the working poor.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue is too important to be buried in a budget 
conference report. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and give 
the reauthorization of TANF the careful consideration it deserves.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Budget Reconciliation Conference Report. The draconian slashes 
presently included in the report will cause serious harm to the 
millions of low-income children and families, elderly and disabled 
individuals who rely on Medicaid for essential health and long-term 
services and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) for critical income support.
  Of particular concern is the impact of Medicaid cuts on persons 
living with HIV/AIDS. Nationally, as well as in New York state, 
Medicaid is the single largest provider of health care for persons 
living with HIV/AIDS. There are an estimated 72,000 HIV-infected New 
Yorkers that are enrolled in Medicaid. This is a critical payer of 
health care for poor persons living with HIV. The proposed changes to 
the Medicaid system in the budget reconciliation bill would severely 
limit the ability of poor people with chronic health conditions to 
afford medical care and life-saving medications. Many residents of the 
10th Congressional District of Brooklyn rely on Medicaid to access 
life-sustaining health care services and medications. I am strongly 
opposed to the Medicaid slashes because they especially jeopardize the 
lives of these individuals, who are among the most vulnerable in my 
district.
  Also of grave concern is the negative impact of these slashes on 
education. This report includes the largest cut to financial aid in 
history. The significant cuts to the student loan program places an 
unfair burden on students and families in pursuit of the American dream 
of higher education. Many students, especially those studying at public 
universities like the City College of New York (CUNY), already face 
financial hardships. These student loan program cuts will make it even 
more difficult for struggling students to complete their education and 
will also force them to pay thousands of extra dollars back on their 
student loans. Clearly, this is unacceptable in our great Nation.
  I urge all Members of Congress today to stand in agreement and rise 
up in opposition to this Budget Reconciliation Conference Report. The 
draconian slashes included in the report will prove disastrous to the 
health and well-being of the American people.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, this is the third time the House has voted 
on this budget package and there is good reason this legislation is 
having such a difficult time receiving final approval from Congress. 
While we all agree that this Nation cannot continue to spend beyond its 
means at the expense of future generations, this budget package will do 
nothing to right our precarious fiscal situation. If you take even a 
cursory glance at this legislation, it is readily apparent that the 
Republican method of deficit reduction is to disproportionately pass 
the burden on to hard-working Americans and the poorest among us. It 
ignores the idea of shared sacrifice the American people expect and 
deserve.
  My constituents in Sacramento are outraged--I have received hundreds 
of phone calls and I have stacks of letters; they are astounded that 
this bill would cut funding for Medicaid, student loans and child 
support enforcement in order to finance up to $70 billion in tax cuts. 
Clearly, they have good reason to be outraged. In fact, I completely 
agree with them.
  For instance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
budget package will cut Medicaid funding by $28 billion over the next 
decade and impose new co-payments on participants. The result will be 
that 65,000 individuals will stop participating in Medicaid over the 
next decade, 60 percent of whom will be children. In total, 13 million 
Medicaid participants--over a quarter of whom are children--will face 
higher financial barriers to health care coverage.
  Yet, at the same time Congressional Republicans went ahead with their 
plans to worsen the health care crisis in this country, they modified 
one provision in this bill to save the health insurance industry $22 
billion over 10 years, according to the Washington Post. As their 
profits show, this industry is not suffering from falling profits, 
particularly when you factor in the lavish benefits they received from 
the President's disastrous prescription drug plan.
  Congress needs to get back to common sense budgeting that fairly 
distributes the burden of deficit reduction. And we need to reinstitute 
the pay-go budget rules that brought us fiscal surpluses during the 
1990s. Congress should be protecting the vital programs that our 
community depends on and the safety net that protects the weakest among 
us, while still ensuring long-term fiscal responsibility. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this legislation so we can start reducing 
the deficit in a way that is in the best interest of the vast majority 
of the American people.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
America's working families and in opposition to the spending cuts 
included in the budget reconciliation conference agreement.
  While I am committed to restoring fiscal discipline to the House, 
cuts to essential social services that aid the most vulnerable in our 
society are not the appropriate way to achieve this goal. Indeed, none 
of the savings from the cuts included in this legislation will be used 
to pay down the deficit, but rather to help finance reconciliation tax 
cuts for the wealthiest in our society.
  Under this bill, $39 billion over 5 years will be cut from social 
services programs that aid families in need. These spending cuts will 
negatively impact an estimated 58 million Americans who currently 
participate in Medicaid, student loans, child support, and Medicare.
  The package includes $28 billion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years, 
75 percent of which affect provisions that will increase the number of 
the uninsured and under-insured by raising co-payments and premiums, 
cutting benefits, and tightening access to long-term care. The 
misplaced priorities inherent in this bill will force the neediest in 
our society to pay more for health care, increasing the growing ranks 
of the uninsured in America.
  In addition to facing higher costs, Medicaid recipients will also be 
required to submit a passport or birth certificate to maintain or gain 
eligibility. This provision may prove to be a barrier for vulnerable 
families who participate in the Medicaid program. It will certainly 
result in fewer adults and children accessing Medicaid services or 
having to unnecessarily delay access to critical doctor visits or 
hospital stays.
  By cutting $12 billion in student aid programs, this bill will make 
it more difficult for students to afford a college education. It will 
raise the cost of college for students and their families through 
increased interest rates and loan fees. This bill will be the largest 
student aid cut ever and shows a lack of commitment by the majority 
party for the education of our next generation.
  Families and children who rely on child support payments and other 
safety net programs will also be hurt by this legislation; $2.6 billion 
will be cut from child support enforcement, foster care programs, and 
Supplemental Security Income. Regrettably, the reduction in child 
support enforcement funds will result in the loss of billions of 
dollars in potential child support payments, reducing child support 
collections by $2.9 billion over 5 years and $8.4 billion over 10 
years. This is directly taking money out of the hands of single parents 
struggling to raise their children on their own.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the shameful cuts offered by the 
majority hurt our Nation's most vulnerable citizens in a direct effort 
to provide more tax cuts for wealthy Americans. I, therefore, strongly 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, today, we have the opportunity to make 
significant improvements in our Federal Deposit Insurance system. We do 
this from a position of strength, as both the insurance fund and the 
banking industry are extremely healthy. What better time than to fine 
tune the system and establish a strong footing going forward.


          Basic principles of reform: Fairness and Flexibility

  The fundamental driving principles of reform were to provide fairness 
to all insured depository institutions by assessing each based on risk 
and provide the FDIC with greater flexibility to manage the fund to 
reflect different economic conditions.
  Regarding fairness: The bill provides greater fairness to insured 
banks in many important ways. First, it authorized the FDIC to revise 
the risk-based formula to better reflect the risk each institution 
poses to the insurance fund. In providing this authority, our Committee 
looked to and relied upon examples provided by the FDIC regarding how 
the new system might work, including FDIC representations that about 42 
percent of all banks would likely remain in the lowest risk category. 
We know that the very nature of bank loans involves risk. Therefore, we 
expect the FDIC to form a reasonable system that encourages appropriate 
risk-taking, consistent with safe and sound banking, and with premiums 
at a level that protect the best run banks from being overcharged and 
that don't inadvertently stop lending. In this bill, we make explicit 
that the size of the financial institution should not bar an 
institution from being in the lowest risk category. It is risk that 
matters, not size. We expect the FDIC to time assessments in such a 
manner that banks are able to plan for such an expense, thereby 
avoiding unexpected or untimely costs on the bank.
  Secondly, the bill recognizes that about 10 percent of institutions 
have never paid a premium to the FDIC to support its operations.

[[Page H56]]

This has put a burden on those institutions that fully capitalized the 
insurance funds in the mid-1990s. Thus, this legislation provides that 
those institutions that capitalized the fund with initial credits--in 
proportion to each institution's financial contribution to FDIC--that 
are intended to offset premium assessments for many years to come. 
Those institutions that have not financially supported the FDIC would 
not have these credits and would begin to pay premiums to the FDIC. 
Moreover, should the insurance fund grow to the upper regions of the 
normal operating range for the FDIC, banks would be entitled to a cash 
dividend in proportion to their historic financial contributions.
  Regarding flexibility: The bill provides FDIC greater flexibility to 
manage the insurance fund. The law that our bill replaces constrained 
the FDIC from charging most banks when the reserve ratio remained above 
a certain level and would force FDIC to charge high premiums, 23 basis 
points, at times when it made the least sense. Our bill allows the FDIC 
to manage the fund within a wide range, with the idea that assessments 
would remain reasonably constant and predictable.
  Importantly, this bill is not intended to raise more money than what 
the FDIC would have collected under the old law. Nor is this bill 
intended to encourage the FDIC to build the fund to the highest 
possible level. In fact, we know that each dollar sent to the FDIC 
means that there are fewer dollars that can support lending in our 
communities. And as we considered this bill, we heard testimony that 
suggested that each dollar sent to Washington means that eight dollars 
of lending is lost. We cannot afford to restrict lending in our 
communities just to have more money added to the nearly $50 billion 
already in the insurance fund.
  To protect against the fund growing too quickly, the legislation 
provides an automatic braking system that would return as a dividend 50 
percent of any excess when the reserve ratio of the fund is above 1.35 
percent. It also caps the fund level, providing a 100 percent dividend 
when the reserve ratio exceeds the upper limit of the range at 1.50 
percent. This assures that money will remain in our communities. And 
while we provided the FDIC some authority to suspend the 50 percent 
dividend under extraordinary circumstances where it expects losses over 
a 1-year timeframe to be significant, our expectation is that this 
authority be used rarely and be reviewed each year when the new 
designated reserve ratio is set. The intention of this exception is 
that it be temporary and not a regular event, and that the FDIC 
communicates to Congress and the industry its justifications.


                        Designed for the Future

  Not only does the legislation provide fairness and flexibility, it 
also anticipates needed changes in the coverage levels over time. We 
know that inflation has cut in half the real value of the current 
insurance coverage since it was last changed in 1980. We also know that 
as the baby boomers move into retirement, that the current coverage 
level was inadequate to protect their life-long savings. Thus, this 
bill increased to $250,000 the insurance limit on retirement accounts.
  The House has repeatedly voted overwhelmingly in favor of legislation 
that would automatically index coverage levels based on inflation. The 
other body has only recently passed deposit insurance reform. The 
indexing language included in the Senate reconciliation bill required 
the FDIC to ``determine whether'' to increase coverage based on the 
amount of inflation increase plus a long list of factors. The 
compromise language we have agreed to calls on the FDIC and NCUA to 
jointly consider just three narrow factors. Those factors are (1) the 
overall state of the Deposit Insurance Fund and economic conditions 
affecting insured depository institutions; (2) potential problems 
affecting insured depository institutions; and (3) whether the increase 
will cause the reserve ratio of the fund to fall below 1.15 percent of 
estimated insured deposits. If the FDIC and NCUA elect not to increase 
coverage, they must make the case based on these three narrow factors. 
The key language in the compromise is that the FDIC and NCUA, ``upon 
determining that an inflation adjustment is appropriate, shall jointly 
prescribe the amount by which'' coverage ``shall be increased by 
calculating'' the amount of inflation. This change in language, from 
``determine whether'' to ``shall jointly prescribe'' is a clear 
statement that Congress is establishing a presumption that the agencies 
will increase coverage if warranted by past inflation.


                           Stronger than Ever

  This legislation will make the insurance fund even stronger than it 
already is and, in combination with the extensive regulatory and 
supervisory authorities of the FDIC, ensures that the fund and the 
banking industry will remain strong for a very long time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have before us, for the 
third time, the Budget Reconciliation Spending Cuts Act. Reigning in 
spending is an idea that everyone in this House can agree on. Many of 
my colleagues and I are deeply disturbed where this $40 billion in 
spending cuts is coming from, however. In a time when it is getting 
harder and harder for the lower class to get by in this country, the 
Republicans are 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, or even help our troops in Iraq. In fact, many of 
these proposed cuts will actually hurt those affected by Katrina. 
Overall, these spending cuts, when combined with $86 billion in tax 
cuts for the rich, will increase the deficit and the national debt, and 
increase the burden placed on our neediest families.


                                Medicaid

  In the United States, there are 45 million Americans living today 
without any health insurance at all. We have one of the worst records 
of all of the developed nations when it comes to providing health care 
to our citizens. This conference agreement cuts $6.9 billion over 5 
years from Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
SCHIP. A large portion of the ``savings'' in Medicaid comes from 
language that will allow States to reduce the number of beneficiaries 
eligible for Medicaid, and increase the costs for others. The purported 
``savings'' in the Medicaid program found in this conference agreement 
will be paid for directly out of the constituents' pocketbooks. This 
bill makes it even harder for families in need to afford healthcare.


                                Medicare

  The conference report includes provisions that will reduce spending 
on Medicare by a net total of $6.4 billion over 5 years. The agreement 
reduces Medicare payouts for certain services, and requires 
beneficiaries to purchase, rather than rent certain medical equipment. 
In the agreement, also cut are payments to home health care providers, 
making it even more difficult to provide adequate care to the elderly.


                             Student Loans

  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, 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 
considering going to college, I want you to listen to this: this 
agreement, if passed today, will place an added burden of $12.7 billion 
directly on students over the next 5 years. This is accomplished 
through adding fees to the processing of student loans, and increasing 
the interest rates on paying back those loans. Students borrowing money 
for college will pay thousands of dollars more on their student loans. 
This is in the face of college costs up over 7 percent this past year 
alone. Voting ``yes'' for this agreement will harm one of our most 
precious national resources, our students.


                       Child Support Enforcement

  This conference report cuts matching funds to child support 
enforcement. In other words, we are cutting $1.6 billion to fund that 
enforces collections on dead-beat dads. It is said that for every $1 
put in to child care enforcement, $4 is collected for the families. 
This cut will seriously harm States' abilities to help families receive 
child support that is owed to them. The CBO estimates that this policy 
change will reduce child-support collections by $2.9 billion over 5 
years and $8.4 billion over 10 years.


                             Child Welfare

  The bill cuts $577 million from foster care programs by reducing the 
number of children eligible for foster care. The burden of covering the 
newly ineligible children is shifted to the states, who are already 
eye-ball deep in budget crises and will leave some children without the 
care they need.


                                 LIHEAP

  Another important aspect of this bill is the addition of $250 million 
for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for this year, and $750 
million for next year. I appreciate the addition of this money into 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.


                               Judiciary

  As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I would also like to 
briefly comment on the increased costs to citizens for access to our 
court system. The cost for filing in Federal appeals court will 
increase by 80 percent, and the cost for filing in Federal district 
court will increase by 40 percent. Fees for bankruptcy claims will also 
significantly increase. Increased fees are marginal to wealthy 
individuals, but could be restrictive to our poorer constituents who 
already feel that they have limited access to the judicial system.

[[Page H57]]

                                Katrina

  I would also like to express my concern over the reduction of $400 
million in Katrina health care relief funding from the original House 
bill. Further, unlike either the House or the Senate bills, this is a 
capped amount of money as opposed to a guaranteed funding stream. The 
$2.1 billion towards Katrina health care relief offered in this 
agreement is a fraction of what should be a much more substantial 
recovery package for the region. I again hope we can find it in our 
hearts and 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 report cuts Medicaid spending by $6.9 billion 
nationwide.
  Medicare--The report cuts Medicare spending by $6.4 billion 
nationwide.
  Student Loans--The report cuts spending on student loan program by 
$12.7 billion over 4 years.
  Child Support--The report cuts $1.6 billion from child support 
programs over 5 years. Custodial parents will receive $2.9 billion less 
child support over 5 years and $8.4 billion less over 10 years.
  Child Welfare--The report cuts $577 million from foster care programs 
by reducing the number of children eligible for foster care. The burden 
is shifted to the States, who are already deep in budget crises and 
cannot afford this extra strain.
  Judiciary--The report raises $553 million by increasing the fees paid 
to file for bankruptcy or for civil case filing.
  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 conference agreement 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 $40 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. Passing this conference 
agreement will hurt the children, hurt the poor, hurt the old and hurt 
the young. I am strongly opposed to this legislation, and I implore my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against these unthinkable 
cuts.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of a few minor 
changes the Senate made to this legislation after it passed the House 
last year. Those changes did not alter the defective nature of the 
underlying bill--or my fundamental opposition to it.
  From the single largest cut to student aid in the forty year history 
of the Higher Education Act to new burdens placed on poor people and 
children served by Medicaid, this reconciliation package targets those 
with the least in order to pay--or I should really say, partially pay--
for tax cuts that flow disproportionately to those with the most.
  That's right: When this $39 billion in spending cuts is paired with 
the $122 billion in tax cuts the House has already approved, the 
Deficit Reduction Act actually increases the deficit by over $80 
billion.
  Furthermore, as recent press reports have highlighted, it didn't have 
to be this way. When it comes to restraining government spending, there 
are plenty of other choices we could have made--like eliminating $22 
billion in overpayments to Medicare HMOs or terminating the $10 billion 
Medicare PPO slush fund or restoring $9.6 billion in drug company 
rebates to the Medicaid program. All of these provisions were stripped 
out of this conference report behind closed doors in the middle of the 
night.
  The Republican leadership here in Congress has allowed special 
interest lobbyists to drive the legislative process. As a result, the 
powerful win--and the people we are supposed to serve lose.
  Although several higher education provisions I authored related to 
curtailing excessive lender subsidies, strengthening the school-as-
lender program and providing mandatory deferment for active duty 
military are included in this report, these positive steps are in and 
of themselves not sufficient to overcome the overarching misdirection 
of the underlying bill.
  For that reason, we should reject this legislation and put an end to 
the special interest politics that produced it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, last night, the President charged 
us to encourage economic progress, fight disease, and spread hope in 
hopeless lands. Unfortunately, this budget bill ignores the economic 
wellbeing, health, and hopes of the poor within our own nation. Just 
the idea of some of these draconian measures is enough to send chills 
up and down one's spine because we are talking about programs that 
provide basic assistance to vulnerable, low-income families and 
individuals. The proposed cuts come almost entirely from healthcare and 
education. We are talking about cutting programs that provide help to 
people with disabilities, to people who make use of the earned income 
tax credit, to people who use Supplemental Security Income programs, to 
people relying on the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and to 
the elderly. Although I do not think it is the majority's intention, 
these cuts effectively target low-income and minority Americans.
  I am disappointed and discouraged that education bears one-third--31 
percent--of the budget cuts. Education is central to developing 
economic progress and a successful citizenry. These education cuts 
impede access to education for hundreds of thousands of low-income and 
middle-income students. Financial barriers are the key to determining 
whether most low income, first generation, and minority students will 
successfully complete college. Indeed, only 54 percent of lowincome 
students obtain degrees, compared to 77 percent of high-income 
students. I will soon introduce legislation to help meet the needs of 
these students, but I fear that it will not cover the ground lost here.
  The societal costs of these cuts are great, and my state and district 
will dramatically feel their effects. In Illinois, residents with a 
bachelor's degree enjoy almost double the salary of those with only a 
high school diploma, a 2.5 percent lower unemployment rate, and a 
dramatically lower likelihood of receiving public assistance. 
Undermining the ability of individuals to access education affects 
their long-term ability to be productive citizens. Moreover, 26 percent 
of Illinois residents have a bachelor's degree, most of whom required 
student loans to help them attain their degrees. In my district, I have 
over 40 institutions of higher education, each of which will suffer 
from this legislation. At the University of Illinois at Chicago alone, 
almost 10,000 students depend on the Direct Student Loan program to 
enable them to attend college. The increased fees and interest rates in 
this bill will burden a dependent undergraduate student at this 
respected university with an additional $2,500 in debt. It will burden 
a dental student with an additional $19,000 in debt over the life of 
their loan.
  This bill continues its war on the poor by undermining the adequate 
health care, with 50 percent of the proposed cuts coming from Medicaid 
and Medicare. Although health care coverage continues to be an issue of 
great concern to many Americans, the House leadership and the Bush 
administration have brought before us a bill that makes drastic cuts in 
our nation's health care commitments. Over the next 10 years, nearly 
$50 billion will be squeezed out of Medicare and Medicaid--the very 
programs that ensure health coverage for our most vulnerable citizens, 
low-income seniors, and children. The non-partisan Congressional Budget 
Office estimates that 65,000 Americans, 60 percent of whom are 
children, will lose access to Medicaid coverage by 2015. Furthermore, 
health care costs will increase for an estimated 20 million Americans 
and 1.6 million will lose vital dental, vision, and mental health 
services. I can just imagine what this will do to the more than 20 
hospitals, health centers, and private physician practices in my 
district. Imagine the large number of children and poor people who will 
not be able to access adequate health care. These provisions ignore the 
needs of our most vulnerable and will have a very real impact in human 
terms.

  Further, these cuts jeopardize the well-being of our most needy--
children and families needing temporary assistance. This legislation 
fails to provide the funding necessary to support low-income families, 
especially foster care children living with grandparents and other 
relative providers. One of the most egregious aspects of the bill is 
that it rewards states for cutting caseloads rather than for 
successfully moving individuals from welfare to work. This reward 
system defines success as low-numbers without attention to whether our 
most vulnerable families are making it. This legislation fails to 
provide the financial support necessary for families to meet the new 
requirements, and it sets parents up for failure.
  This bill also attacks relative caregivers on multiple fronts. As of 
2003, 23 percent of foster children lived with relatives, and, 
unfortunately, these providers are much more likely than non-kin 
providers to live in poverty. Rather than support these families, this 
bill reduces financial support to children living with relatives, 
encourages non-relative placements, and jeopardizes the ability of 
states to provide safe and stable placements for children. Given that 
African-American grandparents serve as kinship care providers at higher 
rates than other racial/ethnic groups, the elimination of federally 
funded foster care assistance for thousands of children who live in 
low-income homes with relatives unfairly discriminate against relative 
caregivers who are most often African American. These cuts are 
particularly

[[Page H58]]

upsetting to me because I represent a congressional district with the 
second highest percentage of grandparents caring for their 
grandchildren.
  The estimated ``savings'' from cuts in the welfare provisions are 
clearly at the expense of the states and families, and the cuts will 
negatively affect a state's ability to achieve safety, permanency, and 
well-being for children in the foster care system, in addition to 
creating a disincentive to care for these children in need. While 
noteworthy, this is unfortunately not the only place in this bill in 
which our most vulnerable citizens who hold little sway in Washington 
are squeezed to reward the connected and the wealthy.
  This legislation comes up short in terms of the needs of businesses 
as well. Small businesses account for 99.7 percent of America's 
employers, they are the economic engine that drives America because 
they create three-fourths of all new jobs, employ half our workers, 
account for half of our gross domestic product and contribute more than 
55 percent of innovations. Yet, the Deficit Reduction Act provides no 
money for the Small Business Administration's flagship 7(a) Loan 
Program. It is the agency's largest and most important program in terms 
of number of loans and program level supported. The 7(a) Program 
provides loan guarantees to eligible small businesses that have been 
unsuccessful in obtaining private financing on reasonable terms.
  One of the worst offenses of this budget bill is that it legitimizes 
cutting the basic rights of education, safety, and health to support 
$70 billion in tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. In essence and in 
reality, we are talking about Robin Hood in reverse; that is, take from 
the poor and give to the rich. We are allowing a tremendous burden to 
be put on working class families to cover budget irresponsibility. Ford 
Motor Company and General Motors announced plans to lay-off 60,000 
workers; workers who have families that are already trying to make ends 
meet in our in our sluggish economy. I am strongly in favor of our 
government operating on sound fiscal policies. I am in favor of 
reducing the deficit to the extent prudent and possible. I am in favor 
of budget reconciliation, but not on the backs of the poor, needy, and 
most vulnerable sectors of our society.
  This bill is bad for Chicago, for Illinois, and for the nation. I can 
do nothing less than oppose this bill. As a matter of fact, it would be 
a dereliction of my duty and responsibility if I were to vote for the 
Deficit Reduction Act that is before us. I will vote prudently and 
sensibly.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, when we passed the Federal budget last year, 
Democrats offered an alternative that would have achieved a balanced 
budget in 10 years, 10 years to spread out the pain of finally paying 
our bills again and freeing up the future for our children. When we 
passed this budget last spring, we were told there was no fat in it--it 
was all bone. When you cut bone, you fall down. Last year, the House 
struck out on this bill.
  Today the House is striking out again even if this bill passes today, 
let it forever be known as the ``3 strikes and you're out'' budget. 
Strike 1: It hits hard our senior citizens, currently struggling under 
a difficult Medicare drug benefit, strike 2: It squeezes our middle 
class that pays the taxes and struggles to pay the household bills, and 
strike 3: It hits our children and students, who represent the future 
of this Nation.
  Three strikes, today Congress hits all 3 components of American 
society with these budget cuts.
  But let's get to why this bill is before us today. We're not here 
because the hurricanes busted the budget. It's not the war, it's just 
that many people in this House demand that we spend the Treasury's 
money on tax cuts for wealthier Americans. Period. It's about nothing 
more than spending this money on tax cuts today which mean tax 
increases on our children tomorrow.
  Budgets are a reflection of who we are and what we value. The budget 
cuts offered in the House of Representatives today--which I oppose--
simply do not represent the values that we say are important to us in 
this nation. We value each other, we value the rule of law, we value 
education and keeping our families safe. South Texans have been 
astounded at the depth of cuts in the Federal budget, which mean Texas 
students will be less likely to stay in school or go to college. Low 
income Texas children will be sicker with the cut in health benefits. 
Seniors will lose essential services.
  Today's bill will increase the deficit by $17 billion, give more tax 
cuts to the wealthy, and hurt those who use student loans, who need 
health care and who benefit from rural programs. We have got to come up 
with a budget that represents the right priorities for students, 
seniors, Katrina families and rural Americans. We had an opportunity to 
vote for such a budget last spring, with the right priorities, that 
paid down the deficit--authored by John Spratt--but the House rejected 
it.
  When the $38.8 billion in spending cuts in this package are combined 
with the total of $122 billion in tax cuts passed by the House in 2005, 
Republicans are increasing the deficit by $83 billion over the next 5 
years. Plus, when an AMT fix is included over the 5-year period, 
Republicans are actually increasing the deficit by $321 billion. 
Calling this a deficit reduction bill is not truthful.
  It is incumbent upon all of us in Congress to help all Americans, not 
just the wealthy few. We can do better than this--and we must. This 
package is cutting vital services upon which working families depend, 
including the following:
  GOP conference report slashes Medicaid by $6.9 billion over 5 years 
and $28.3 billion over 10 years. The conference report allows states to 
charge Medicaid enrollees more to get the health care that they need--
allowing substantial increases in co-payments and premiums for many 
low-income enrollees. This increased cost-sharing achieves savings of 
$1.9 billion of 5 years and $9.9 billion over 10 years. Studies have 
shown that this increased cost-sharing will result in a decline in 
enrollees' use of health care services and a worsening of their health 
status.
  Seventy percent of the GOP Raid on Student Aid falls directly on 
students and parents. Seventy percent of the gross savings in higher 
education in the conference report are achieved by increasing college 
loan costs for parent borrowers and by continuing the practice of 
forcing student and parent borrowers in many cases to pay excessive 
interest rates on their loans.
  GOP conference report will result in $8.4 billion in reduced child 
support collections. CBO has estimated that the conference report will 
lead to $8.4 billion in reduced child support collections upon which 
hundreds of thousands of struggling single parents rely, pushing more 
children into poverty and letting deadbeat dads off the hook.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
nearly $40 billion cut from programs to help poor and middle class 
Americans.
  Last night, in the State of the Union, President Bush said, ``our 
greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and 
how we treat one another. So we strive to be a compassionate, decent, 
hopeful society.''
  Yet the Republican's first act after the President uttered those 
words is to take hope and help away from those who need it most.
  This Republican reconciliation bill slashes $11.9 billion from 
student loan programs to help kids go to college.
  It cuts $6.4 billion from Medicare and makes elderly beneficiaries 
pay higher premiums for their health care.
  It cuts $1.5 billion from programs to make sure that dead beat dads 
take responsibility for their actions and pay their child support.
  And it takes away $6.9 billion from Medicaid which helps the poorest 
and sickest children and families in our country get healthcare.
  And all of the money that is taken away from the poor and middle 
class will go straight into the pockets of millionaires. The Republican 
Reconciliation Tax Cut bill gives the top 1 percent of Americans who 
are millionaires will get $32,000 extra dollars a year. The average 
American family will get approximately $7.00 from that bill.
  While the Republicans claim that this Reconciliation process will 
reduce the deficit, it will have the exact opposite effect.
  The Republican Reconciliation package will increase the deficit by 
giving more and more tax cuts to the ultra-rich.
  While cutting Medicaid, Medicare and student loans will do little to 
offset the $122 billion dollars in tax cuts that the Republicans have 
passed over the past year, it will have an enormous impact on the lives 
of average Americans.
  What does this say about who we are and how we treat one another?
  It says that this Republican Congress believes that it is more 
important to make their fat cat friends fatter than it is to provide 
education, health care and child support to those who need it most.
  So much for compassion and decency.
  This Republican bill does not simply rob the poor of resources. The 
proposed cuts rob the poor of opportunity by targeting programs that 
work to bridge the gap between rich and poor and even the playing field 
for all American families.
  Our country deserves better than empty promises and recycled rhetoric 
from our leaders.
  Vote ``no'' on this irresponsible, short-sighted and immoral 
Republican Reconciliation package.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise in opposition to this 
misguided budget cut bill.
  Let me state clearly that I strongly support tough budget discipline 
to reverse the policies of the past five years, to rein in the annual 
deficits, balance the budget again and pay off the national debt. I am 
tremendously proud that in my first term in the U.S. House, Congress 
worked together with the White House in a bipartisan manner to balance 
the budget

[[Page H59]]

for the first time in a generation. That cooperative action produced 
broad-based economic growth and record budget surpluses.
  Unfortunately, the current White House and Congressional Republican 
Leadership have squandered those surpluses and passed reckless budget 
legislation that has replaced those surpluses with chronic deficits and 
record national debt. This bill offers more of the same.
  This conference report contains harmful cuts to essential services 
and does nothing to reduce the budget deficits or offset the costs of 
recovery from Hurricane Katrina or the ongoing war in Iraq. At a time 
when American families are getting squeezed, the budget reconciliation 
package cuts funding for priorities including Medicare and Medicaid, 
student loans, child support and food stamps that assist the. working 
poor and the middle class.
  Specifically, this legislation will cut Medicaid by nearly $7 
billion, cut Medicare by $6.4 billion, cut student loans by more than 
$12 billion, and cut child support by $8.4 billion. The bill also 
breaks the promise of the Farm Bill by cutting $2.7 billion from 
commodity, conservation and rural development funds. Although I am 
pleased this version of the bill abandons earlier attempts to open the 
Arctic Wildlife Refuge and coastal areas like the Outer Banks to oil 
and gas drilling and a few other modest improvements, these changes in 
no way compensate for the bill's fundamental flaws.
  Congress should reject this legislation and go back to the drawing 
board to produce a responsible federal budget for the American people. 
I support pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules to enact budget discipline 
and restore fairness and equity to the budget process. I want Congress 
and the President to work together across the partisan divide to 
balance the budget once again, pay down the national debt and invest in 
our people and our country's economic competitiveness in the 21st 
century global marketplace.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against these senseless 
budget cuts.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Deficit Act of 2005 has 
the noble goal of being a first step in a long time toward bringing 
fiscal sanity to the federal budget. Forty billion dollars is a small 
but correct step in regaining control of our budget, and we can not 
retreat and drop this burden on the backs of our citizens. For that 
reason it is important to pass this legislation, but like all bills 
with multiple titles there are some negative aspects hidden within the 
700 plus pages of monetary policy.
  I am very disturbed at the introduction of a certain new entitlement 
program with new mandatory spending in this reconciliation bill. The 
Academic Competitiveness Grant Program, inserted in Conference under 
Title VII, section 401 of S. 1932, authorizes $3.5 billion in new 
spending. It is wrong!
  This new entitlement offers scholarships to worthy kids who have 
completed a ``rigorous secondary school program of study''--that part 
is justifiable--``established by a state or local government education 
agency''--that part is obvious--``and recognized as such by the 
Secretary.''--that part is illegal and indefensible. Current law 
specifically prohibits this control of state curriculum by the federal 
government. It reads, ``No provision of any applicable program shall be 
construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of 
the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control 
over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or 
personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.'' 
(US Code, Title 20, Chapter 31, Subchapter ill, Sec. 1232a) The simple 
phrase, ``recognized as such by the Secretary'' will potentially extend 
federal intrusion into what is Constitutionally a state and local 
responsibility. The language does not openly insert the federal 
Education Secretary into education curriculum control, but opens the 
door for such control for the first time in history. A state not 
willing to subject itself to the deadening hand of federal control and 
regulation, will seriously harm students in that state and in their 
ability to finance a higher education. No state will be able to resist 
this type of financial extortion, and will ultimately succumb to the 
control of the federal Education Secretary. One can only hope this was 
not the subtle intent of the Senators who snuck this provision into the 
Conference Report, but it is the practical result.
  Also frustrating is the lack of deliberation over the merits of this 
new program and its new spending. The Academic Competitiveness Grant 
Program was slipped into the Conference Report for S. 1932 after 
versions without the program passed both the Senate and House. This new 
federal program of mandatory spending was never heard by a committee in 
the House or Senate. It was never voted on the floor of either House or 
Senate. It is a clear violation of the Senate's ``Byrd Rule.'' This 
program managed to bypass the scrutiny, input, and deliberation of 
regular order and was unwisely attached to a must-pass savings bill. In 
a bill dedicated to limiting spending, The Academic Competitiveness 
Grant Program creates a new almost $4 billion spending entitlement, 
diminishing the savings or making even deeper reductions in other 
legitimate programs.
  Even if the Academic Competitiveness Grant Program is the panacea for 
poor student scores in math and science, it is the wrong approach. It 
threatens to undermine the responsibility of states over education; it 
threatens to undermine federal law; and it threatens to undermine 
freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today cuts 
approximately $12 billion from the federal student programs. Under this 
bill, the tax cuts for the super-rich are placed on the backs of 
students and their families. Under this bill, student borrowers--
already saddled with $17,500 in debt--will be forced to pay even more 
for his or her college loans.
  The bill raises student loan interest rate caps and raises student 
loan taxes and fees. It places billions of dollars in student aid at 
risk by cutting $2.2 billion in critical funds used to carry out and 
administer the student aid programs.
  Some of the excessive subsidies to large lending institutions are 
finally cut but no protections are put in place to ensure that students 
will not have those costs passed on to to them as well. Rather than 
reinvesting those dollars into low-interest loans and additional 
grants, this bill uses the money for alleged deficit reduction.
  This bill is a travesty. It masquerades as a budget reconciliation, 
but is truly a tax cut for the wealthy paid for by students. The Higher 
Education Act was intended to help provide all Americans, regardless of 
their income-level, with greater educational opportunities. The Act 
recognizes the shared benefits, by both society and the individual, of 
a higher education. But instead of working to further those goals, the 
changes to student loan programs that we are faced with today undermine 
the goal of HEA.
  We must make it clear that we place students above tax cuts for the 
wealthy and defeat this bill. I urge my colleagues to stand with me and 
oppose H. Res. 653.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Deposit 
Insurance Reform legislation included in 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 
believe we have a better legislative product because of that. In 
addition, I want to express my deep appreciation for Senator Shelby's 
work on increasing coverage for retirement accounts to $250,000.
  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 and 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

[[Page H60]]

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 legislation 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, Congresswoman 
Hooley, Senator Shelby, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Enzi, Senator Crapo, 
Senator Enzi, and Senator Johnson 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 will 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. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss a provision of S. 
1932 that has caused great concern among hospitals throughout the State 
of Tennessee and in my own district. This provision relates to the 
calculation of Medicare disproportionate share payments for hospitals, 
commonly known as the DSH adjustment.
  Congress created the DSH adjustment to provide appropriate funding to 
hospitals and other Medicare providers who care for a disproportionate 
share of low income inpatients. However, since its enactment into law, 
there has been a dispute between hospitals throughout the country and 
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) over how to 
calculate the DSH adjustment. Fifteen hospitals in Tennessee took CMS 
to court over this dispute in the case of Cookeville Regional Medical 
Center v. Thompson. At issue in Cookeville was whether CMS should 
include all Medicaid days related to a patient's stay in the DSH 
calculation, even if the patient was only eligible for Medicaid 
benefits through a federally approved Medicaid 1115 waiver program. CMS 
took the position it would exclude Medicare waiver days from the DSH 
calculation prior to January 20, 2000, in its discussion of an interim 
final rule promulgated on January 20, 2000.
  On September 30, 2005, the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia agreed with the Tennessee hospitals that Medicare 
waiver days must be included for the years 1994 to 2000. The Court 
determined that Congress intended to include these days in the DSH 
calculation when it enacted the Medicare DSH statute. CMS's interim 
final rule did not change that. For the Tennessee hospitals, the 
decision in Cookeville means up to $100 million in corrected payments 
covering the years 1994 to 1999. CMS appealed the District Court's 
September 30th decision on December 23rd.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought that this resolved the matter, however I was 
disturbed to see language in S. 1932 that CMS might argue applies to 
the Cookeville case on appeal. Section 5002(b) of the Medicare Title of 
S. 1932 ratifies the interim final rule promulgated on January 20, 2000 
by CMS and makes it effective on the date it was promulgated. In other 
words, CMS might attempt to accomplish legislatively what it could not 
accomplish in Cookeville.
  I rise today to state, as a member of the House Budget Committee 
which has jurisdiction over S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act, that 
Sec 5002(b) should not be used to reverse the Cookeville decision and 
deny Tennessee its correct DSH payments as determined under the 
Medicare statute for the years 1994 through 1999.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________