[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 26581-26593]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4241, DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 560

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4241) to provide for 
     reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a) of the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. The amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two 
     hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4241 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3. After passage of H.R. 4241, it shall be in order to 
     take from the Speaker's table S. 1932 and to consider the 
     Senate bill in the House. All points of order against the 
     Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. It 
     shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting 
     clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the 
     provisions of H.R. 4241 as passed by the House. All points of 
     order against that motion are waived.


                    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 the 
consideration of this rule, H. Res. 560.
  Section 425 of that same act states that the 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 the Rules 
Committee may not waive this point of order.
  The first section of H. Res. 560 proposes to waive all points of 
order against consideration of the bill and against provisions in the 
bill, as amended.
  The legislation, H.R. 4241, brought up by the rule, includes 
provisions 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 this 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 the 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).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans on the front line in protecting and defending 
our most vulnerable children have been sending out an SOS. They do not 
merely solve problems every day. They save lives.
  Their message is loud and clear. The child support provisions 
included in reconciliation undermine the Federal commitment to child 
support enforcement. Republican reconciliation is reckless disregard 
for safeguarding children.
  It is a license for people to break their promise of child support 
because enforcement will be lax. Eighty percent of the children 
receiving support live in low- and moderate-income families. The bill 
would reduce the share of child support enforcement costs that are paid 
by the Federal Government from 66 percent to 50 percent by 2010. 
Federal funding to the program would be cut by $5 billion over the next 
5 years, a nearly 40 percent cut in funding for the program by 2010. We 
make the money go away, but not the problems or the needs.
  The CBO estimated that child support provisions in the reconciliation 
bill would reduce collections sent to families by $21 billion over the 
next 10 years.
  As a result, more deadbeat dads will be left off the hook, while more 
low-income families will look to State and Federal programs to make up 
the difference in lost income. But we will not be there, just like the 
deadbeat dads.
  In 2004, more than $4 was collected for every dollar spent in the 
program. Even President Bush's 2006 budget cites the program as 
``effective'' and ``one of the highest rated block formula grants of 
all reviewed programs government-wide.''
  A hard-working program will fall on hard times if we leave the 
reconciliation bill as it is. People will be hurt. Children will be 
hurt. Republicans will be responsible. And for what?
  Mr. Speaker, this is the season of giving, and Republicans are going 
to be very generous with those very few Americans rolling in dough.
  Republican leaders have scheduled their midnight express to roll 
through town again tonight. Republicans will climb aboard to run over 
the American people in the dead of the night.
  Child Support Enforcement, that is not even in the baggage car. 
Republicans like doing things in the dark, behind closed doors, in the 
dead of night, hoping the American people will not notice.
  Well, not today. Today's light shines on their darkness. If one 
candle can curse the darkness, we are going to use a search light. It 
is the Republican season of giving, and here is what it

[[Page 26582]]

means: we take from the sack of the poor children in this country 
330,000 child-care dollars and put it in the rich sock. It is Christmas 
time. Take $700 million from Social Security and put it in the rich 
stocking. Take child support, $21 billion from Child Support 
Enforcement and put it in the rich stocking.
  Take Medicaid from the poor, $10 billion, and put it in the rich 
stocking. Student loans, $14 million. I take $14 billion from student 
loans and give that to the rich stocking. And food stamps from 300,000 
tables we take and put it in the rich stocking. Finally, foster 
children, $600 million from foster children in this country goes into 
the sock, later tomorrow, of the rich because we have taken it from the 
poor and we have given it to the rich.
  That is what this bill before us is all about. Tonight in the dead of 
night you are going to give to the rich who do not need it and take 
from the needy who cannot afford to lose it. You will disguise this as 
a Christmas stocking with presents, just in time for the holidays. But 
it is a heavy-handed club used on the American people. The heartland is 
not heartless. Not even the dead of the night will hide what you intend 
to do to the American people tonight. Even the rich will be ashamed. I 
wonder if the Republicans will. They should be.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's clever props, notwithstanding the 
holiday stockings, I would point out to the gentleman who repeatedly 
referred to this being done in the dead of night that in his home 
district it is 5:30 in the afternoon and people are driving home from 
work. So for the dead of night on the west coast, the people on the 
east coast will know that we are not working a nine to five job and 
that we are pushing ahead with the agenda of reforming the 
inefficiencies that lay in government.
  I would also point out to the gentleman that between 1999 and 2003, 
total child support enforcement administrative expenditures went up 
almost 30 percent; 29 percent between 1999 and 2003, as the case load 
declined 8 percent. Again, their rhetoric does not match well with the 
facts.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is utilizing the rules that are at his 
disposal, and I think that it is appropriate that he do that. It is a 
positive reflection on this House that these types of tools are 
available to the minority to stymie the progress, and we appreciate the 
gentleman's ability to use those. But it would be important to have the 
facts be accurate, and the facts are that these administrative costs 
that are being discussed in this bill are a shift in what has been a 
double-dipping practice that has been used by States to draw down 
Federal dollars and then collect administrative costs as if the 
original Federal dollar had been generated in that State in the first 
place. This is not, as the gentleman has characterized, the Grinch or 
any other mean-spirited person taking treats from children or from 
their holiday stockings that have arrived a month and a half early.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Putnam, I will read you the facts from the 
Congressional Budget Office estimate, that this action will result in a 
reduction over the next 10 years of $24 billion in child support. That 
is the Congressional Budget estimate, and that takes into account 
adjustments the States might make in providing more money for 
administration. This is the most callous, callous reflection of your 
fiscal irresponsibility. You have driven yourselves and this country 
into so much debt, now you are reaching into the homes of this country. 
This is antifamily. This is antikids. There is no defense of it.

                              {time}  2030

  This money is for administrative purposes. We have been paying two-
thirds. The result of it, and it was part of welfare reform, is that 
child support has gone up and up. The kids have benefited. And now what 
you are going to do is to reduce those benefits. And we will hear from 
your side, oh, child support is going to go up, anyway. This is a fact 
and I close with this. CBO says if anyone votes for this, they are 
going to reduce child support payments over 10 years by $24 billion. I 
say to you, you go home, you face the kids in your district, you face 
the parents in your district, and you tell them you voted for this. If 
you won't tell them, we will.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's reference to 
the CBO numbers. We also have the CBO numbers. They are available on a 
bipartisan basis. The CBO numbers clearly show that total collections 
will continue to go up. $24.8 billion in 2006, $26 billion in 2010, 
$31.7 billion by 2015. The gentleman has referred to this provision as 
the most callous part of the deficit reduction package. I hope that 
everyone else on his team remembers that because you can only have one 
number one. You can only have one most egregious part.
  So as we get into the discussions about Medicaid and food stamps and 
student loans and all the things that we heard about this morning when 
we were talking about the continuing resolution, let us remember that 
this one is the most egregious, that this one is the most callous 
because you can only have one number one. I know that this is nothing 
but the first salvo in a historic debate about the direction that this 
country is heading.
  I agree with the gentleman that it is important that we go back to 
our districts and we talk about these plans, because the fact of the 
matter is we have a plan. And the fact of the matter is that you don't. 
The fact of the matter is that you can criticize all you want about 
where we have chosen to reform government, to find efficiencies, to 
better deliver services to the people who need them the most while you 
can go home and criticize the changes that we offer without having to 
defend your own plan.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. This chart says it all. CBO estimates lower spending on 
child support program leads to lower collections to the tune of $21 
billion. It is truly stunning to me that Republicans in this House 
would line up together to cut the funds used to collect child support. 
I just never expected to see them give deadbeat dads a pass, those 
deadbeat dads who refuse to pay what they owe for the upbringing of 
their own children.
  The majority Members of this body are quick to boast of their support 
for family values. Well, I ask you this, what kind of family value is 
it that cuts back on the efforts to make deadbeat dads pay what they 
owe, when deadbeat dads walk away from their obligations? It won't be 
you smug in your own comfortable life who will feel the pain. It will 
be young mothers who can't pay rent. It will be little children whose 
lives are upended by financial abandonment. For every dollar we spend 
collecting on child support, we collect more than $4. In North Dakota, 
that means for every dollar collected, the Federal Government gets 
$2.78 back in recoveries and costs forgone.
  State governments also gain, which is precisely why the Congressional 
Budget Office has found this to be an unfunded mandate. When 
Republicans cut child support collections, deadbeat dads win. State 
governments lose. That is why tonight's proposal is an unfunded mandate 
and must be stopped.
  CBO has estimated by cutting collections $4.9 billion as you do, we 
lose more than $24 billion in support not collected. That hits 
children. That hits families. And that hits States which is what makes 
this an unfunded mandate. Support the effort to stop this unfunded 
mandate. Support the effort to block this cut in child support 
enforcement.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the point of order from 
the

[[Page 26583]]

gentleman from Washington. I am here to speak to my colleagues, but 
especially the 235 of you who, like me, served in legislatures 
throughout the country prior to coming to Congress. The fiscal sleight 
of hand that we are undertaking here today is simply that of a 
financial shell game, and the loser is already clear, it is our States. 
You don't have to take my word for it.
  The Congressional Budget Office has spoken and they have identified 
that the reduction in child support without a change in the 
requirements is a violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
that many of you were here that supported on a bipartisan basis. It is 
a violation of the law.
  We can play this ridiculous game of pretend and safely ensconce 
ourselves in these walls but do you truly believe that the actions 
today will go unnoticed and that State legislatures are not watching 
what we do? I know that the National Conference of State Legislatures 
is watching. I hope that ALEC is watching, too, and I suspect that the 
National Governors Association is taking notes. I can assure you that 
they are tuning in to C-SPAN and taking careful notice of today's 
proceedings because besides illegal, today's vote will have a direct 
impact on their ability to serve the people of their States, the same 
people who live in our districts.
  In fact, President Ronald Reagan's promise of federalism today is 
nowhere in this Chamber. President Reagan's famous debate line with Mr. 
Mondale is frighteningly apropos in this exercise: ``There you go 
again.'' And yes, here we go again attempting to balance our Federal 
budget on the backs of 50 States.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  We have heard a lot about what devastation from this small little act 
we are going tonight to try to reform welfare and improve the system of 
delivering the services and goods to those who are truly in trouble in 
our culture.
  One of the things that is surprising to me, though, is that there is 
really no plan on the other side. I have seen in the hallways of the 
office buildings that house Members of Congress offices hold billboards 
that are put up about the Federal deficit and how we must do something 
about the Federal deficit, but I have yet to see a plan to try to deal 
with the deficit that the Democrats themselves are complaining about.
  Blue Dog Democrats, each in front of their office, have billboards 
that says the Federal deficit so much for each family to pay back, we 
have got to do something about it, but there is no plan. There are more 
plans on the television show West Wing than the Democrats have here in 
the United States House of Representatives. There are more plans on the 
other political shows about how to deal with the problems of today but 
we get no plans or help from the other side.
  So what I think we ought to see here is some Blue Dog Democrats that 
are the type of dogs that will actually hunt. Dogs that we have some 
bite instead of the bark, because right now all we hear is a lot of 
noise and we don't have any action or plan. We are hearing complaining 
about how we are trying to improve the system.
  I will give you one example quickly. In Kansas, delivering Medicaid 
is only correct three out of four times. One out of four times the 
payment is inaccurate. We need to reform that system. You would not get 
on an airplane today if you had a three out of four chance of getting 
to your destination. You would not start a trip today if you had only a 
three out of four chance of getting to your destination. When we make a 
Medicaid payment in the State of Kansas, our State government is wrong 
24 percent of the time. This legislation has reforms in it to help 
improve our Medicaid system, so those who are truly in need get the 
services they require.
  But we cannot do that according to the other side. We need to pass 
this legislation, reform the welfare system, and do the right thing 
about the Federal budget.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility of closure, 
right?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida has 
the right to close.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Does he have any other speakers?
  Mr. PUTNAM. We do not have any additional speakers, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 30 
seconds.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. He says a whole lot, but he has no one else to speak, 
Mr. Speaker, because they want the people to believe that this is a 
fight between Democrats and Republicans. But it is not true. In 
reality, Republican Governors oppose these child support cuts, 
including Governor Schwarzenegger of California. Republicans in the 
Senate oppose these cuts including Senator Cornyn of Texas. Religious 
organizations oppose these cuts, including the Conference of Catholic 
Bishops. All program administrators and poverty experts oppose these 
cuts. Cutting child support payments to needy families is a policy 
supported only by the extreme right wing which currently is running the 
House of Representatives. I urge the Members to vote ``no'' on this 
motion.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, this is an important opening to the grand 
debate that we are unveiling here this evening about the direction of 
entitlement spending and the direction of Federal spending in this 
Congress and for our Nation. We have heard an awful lot about the term 
``cuts'' and we have seen the cute props and we have heard the first of 
what will be many metaphors of snatching food from the mouths of 
children and all kinds of heated rhetoric. But at the end of the day, 
the numbers don't lie. The numbers are that child support collections 
under this proposal continue to go up.
  Do they go up as fast as the Democrats would like? Apparently not, 
judging by the rhetoric. But only in Washington and only in their 
rhetoric is that a cut. The bottom line is that this next fiscal year, 
2006, it is $23.8 billion. By 2010, it is $26 billion. And by 2015, it 
is almost $32 billion. Under every arithmetic, old math, new math, poor 
school districts, wealthy school districts, all across America, those 
numbers are going up. Those numbers mean more money to those States for 
the important task of enforcing child support responsibilities by all 
noncustodial parents.
  So despite the references to the smugness, despite the fact that we 
have been accused of being in the pockets of deadbeat dads, the numbers 
continue to climb for administrative costs. None of these even affect 
the actual program. They are defending the administration of the 
program instead of the outcome of that program, which is more money 
getting to those families, more fathers, more mothers who are 
noncustodial living up to their obligations. That is really what it 
ought to be about, is it not, the outcome? Not the administrative fees, 
that are going up anyway?
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the rule has given the 
gentleman this opportunity for us to open the debate in this way. 
Unfortunately his rhetoric outpaces the facts. I would urge the Members 
to reject this proposal and allow us to move forward with reforming 
government.
  With that, I would ask the Members to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 198, not voting 12, as follows:

[[Page 26584]]



                             [Roll No. 600]

                               YEAS--224

     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
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     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
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     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)
     Miller, Gary
     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
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     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
     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
     Hooley
     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
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     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
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Boswell
     Cardin
     Engel
     Fortenberry
     Hoekstra
     Hyde
     Mollohan
     Radanovich
     Ryan (OH)
     Towns
     Walden (OR)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2108

  Messrs. CARNAHAN, AL GREEN of Texas, WYNN, RUSH, PETERSON of 
Minnesota, ISRAEL and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. BEAUPREZ, HEFLEY, WELDON of Florida, SOUDER, POMBO, SHUSTER, 
MACK, Mrs. KELLY and Mrs. BONO 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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 Rochester, 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. Speaker, this is an historic evening, an evening when we have 
come together to truly chart the course for the Federal Government's 
spending over the next number of years.
  House Resolution 560 provides for consideration of H.R. 4241, the 
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is the 
first time since 1997 that such a measure has come this far. The rule 
provides 2 hours of debate and a motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  As a member of both the Rules and the Budget Committee, I am pleased 
to bring this historic resolution to the floor for our consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, most all Americans rely on the government to provide 
security for themselves and their families, for their Nation. After 
defense, though, expectations vary widely about what Americans expect 
out of their government. But those expectations, whatever they may be, 
they all are rooted in the common need, the common expectation that 
whatever government does, that it be done wisely, prudently, 
efficiently, without waste or abuse of their hard-earned tax dollars.
  The congressional budget process is a chance to ensure that our 
government behaves in a fiscally responsible and responsive manner to 
provide opportunity and security for today and for future generations.
  In my first term in Congress I was appointed to the Budget Committee. 
I was pleased that this assignment would afford me the opportunity to 
receive the full scope of all the programs that exist, all the 
agencies, all the departments that fall under the umbrella of the 
Federal Government. But I was shocked when I got on that committee to 
learn how little control Congress actually exerts over spending in many 
of these agencies and programs.
  Discretionary spending, that portion of the budget that consumes all 
the sound and fury that a Congress can manufacture, makes up less than 
half of total spending, half of the total budget.

                              {time}  2115

  Mandatory spending, entitlement spending, that spending that is on 
autopilot, accounts for 54 percent of the total budget and, if left 
unchecked, in a decade will consume nearly two-thirds, or 62 percent, 
of total Federal spending.
  I have been dismayed at how Congress has allowed its voice to become 
fainter and fainter when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars on 
entitlement programs. It is time that this Congress take responsibility 
for the entire spending picture. We cannot avoid the tough decisions. 
It is our job to set the priorities of government and then fund them 
appropriately. It is our job to practice thorough oversight of the

[[Page 26585]]

programs and agencies that consume our tax dollars. We must find the 
waste, the fraud, the abuse in the programs and blaze a trail to 
smarter, more responsive government.
  Anyone watching the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina would agree that 
government was neither smart nor responsive. The time has come for this 
House to reassert its role and take back control of both discretionary 
and mandatory spending.
  This legislation is another step towards smarter and more confident 
government. The congressional budget resolution called for a reduction 
in discretionary spending; and for the first time since 1997, it 
included deficit reduction instructions to authorizing committees to 
find and achieve mandatory savings for a more accountable government. 
It does this by finding smarter ways to spend and by slowing the rate 
of growth in the Federal Government.
  Eight different authorizing committees have worked hard to find these 
savings within their individual jurisdictions through regular order, 
through individual members practicing their individual expertise, 
through their individual interests on their authorizing committees. 
Regular order was used to develop this plan for a smarter government, 
and I want to commend those chairmen and all those committee members, 
not just the Budget Committee members, not just the Appropriations 
Committee members, but the entire House who participated in this 
process and, through their aggressive oversight, identified nearly $50 
billion in inefficiencies.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), our 
budget chairman, and his ranking member and all the members of the 
Committee on the Budget of the House for their hard work, for preparing 
the deficit reduction package.
  I look forward to passing this reform bill and reaffirming sound 
oversight and fiscal accountability here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I once said that budgets are moral documents. They 
reflect our choices, our priorities and they most clearly define our 
values, as a government and as a Nation.
  Today's 5-year budget reconciliation is no different, and that is 
exactly why the Republicans in the House are worried. They are worried 
that the American people will see that they have sold out our American 
values.
  So it should come as no surprise that it has taken a week of 
intraparty fighting in the Republican Conference and one false start to 
get the bill to the floor. Why? Because they cannot muster the votes in 
their own party to get this budget passed.
  One of my Republican colleagues captured it best in yesterday's CQ 
Daily when he said, ``If the Republican Party cannot stand for 
responsible spending, then we stand for nothing at all.''
  I agree with him on that point; and as this Republican leadership 
continues to flail and flounder, there can be only one conclusion drawn 
from this budget reconciliation, that this majority has come to stand 
for nothing at all, except for making the rich richer while the rest of 
America pays the bill.
  Because at its core, that is what this budget does, and it is what 
the budget was intentionally designed to do, cut vital programs and 
increase the national debt in order to create tax cuts for the rich and 
the superrich.
  I and many of my colleagues in this body, both Republican and 
Democrat, see nothing at all responsible about this agenda, and neither 
will the majority of the American people.
  This budget reconciliation is not worthy of the ideals of this 
Nation. If it gets out of the House tonight, this Congress should be 
ashamed.
  Republicans call this the Deficit Reduction Act, when very shortly 
they will actually increase our already-obscene deficit by another $5 
billion by passing the tax cut bill. Republicans will claim on the 
floor tonight that they are reducing the deficit, but it is a 
deception.
  Do not be fooled by their Enron-style accounting. The majority 
deliberately chose to separate this bill from its planned package of 
$56 billion in tax cuts for the rich, more than half of which goes to 
the superrich, those with incomes over $1 million a year.
  Without missing a beat, they are trying to finance the tax cut, as 
well as the skyrocketing debt, on the backs of the poor, the disabled, 
the elderly, and the middle class. As a result, working Americans will 
pay more and get less.
  For instance, the budget will cut student aid programs by $14.3 
billion, which will make college more expensive, or totally 
unaffordable, for you and your children and will ensure that literally 
millions of students will not have the means to achieve a higher 
education.
  Until earlier this evening, they were even planning to cut the school 
lunch programs for poor children and food stamps for needy families. I 
would ask, whose values are these? They certainly are not mine, and 
they are not the values of the hard-working families that I represent, 
which leads me to a very important point that I need to make here 
today.
  Three months ago, a stunned Nation watched as the national horror 
that was Hurricane Katrina unfolded on our television screens. No one 
could believe that this kind of widespread suffering could happen here 
in America. It was a sobering moment for this Nation. It was the moment 
that we understood that America had forgotten our moral responsibility 
to provide for the security and welfare of all our fellow Americans.
  I would ask my friends in the majority, in the wake of that 
realization, how can we cut the very programs that the victims of 
Hurricane Katrina will depend on to rebuild their lives? So that the 
richest among us can be even richer?
  Unfortunately, this majority sees fit to pull what little these 
victims have left right out from under their feet.
  The result of this budget will be the denial of affordable medical 
service to those who have nowhere else to turn and the creation of 
unprecedented health care premiums for those who can least afford them.
  Child support services are cut as well, making it harder for working 
parents to raise their children.
  I would ask my fellow citizens, have we learned nothing? Is this the 
America that you believe in?
  Last year alone, the salary of the major corporate CEOs increased by 
just an average of 30 percent. This year, the oil companies are making 
the highest profits in history. In fact, over the last 4 months alone, 
Exxon Mobil has earned just shy of $10 billion in profits, and middle-
class Americans at this time can no longer afford to fill their cars 
with gas.
  As the winter approaches, middle-class families in the Northeast are 
having to choose between paying their skyrocketing heating bills and 
buying food for their families, and it is only November. All the while, 
the majority is making it harder for your children to go to college and 
more expensive to get decent health care for your family. I cannot 
think of anything less American than this. I cannot think of anything 
more out of touch with the values of our families.
  After all, no responsible parent in America would fail to provide 
their children food and clothes or an education just so they could 
afford to buy a boat or take a trip, but that is the moral equivalent 
of what this majority seeks to do here today; and it is a subversion of 
every value we hold dear, because as Americans we meet our 
responsibilities. We take care of our families. We pay our bills, and 
we should demand the same thing from this Republican government.
  That is why I am asking my colleagues to oppose this rule and 
strongly oppose this bill, because the budget sells out America. I 
would ask, if we accept this, what will be next? If we say that it is 
acceptable to slash education, health care, trade protection, senior 
medical coverage, affordable housing, student loans, foster care and 
family planning, if we agree to abandon all fiscal responsibility and 
further increase the already record national debt, just so that we can 
orchestrate

[[Page 26586]]

one of the biggest giveaways to the rich, then what will be next?
  I know if we band together America can do better than this. We can do 
better than turning the American Dream into a privilege for the few, 
instead of a right for all. We must do better, and we need to start 
today by rejecting this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida, not only for his leadership but also working so diligently 
with the Budget Committee, including the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), our great chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight is an opportunity for the Republican majority to 
meet the demands of this great Nation when we talk about the ability to 
have a plan that will help control spending, where we can move forward 
to make sure that we better the circumstance that this country is in.
  Earlier this year, this Congress began engaging Governors from all 
across this great Nation about ways in which we could make Medicaid 
spending and Medicaid programs work more efficiently across this 
government. I participated with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) in 
meetings with Mark Warner, who is a Democrat Governor from Virginia, 
and Tom Vilsack, who is a Governor from Iowa. We talked about ways that 
this Congress could go about giving the Governors more flexibility and 
the ability to manage those processes and programs that they have in 
place.
  The Budget Committee, as a result of work that has been done by other 
committees, one-eighth of the bills which we bring tonight simply talk 
about ways that we can make sure that the spending that is done tonight 
is done more efficiently and more effectively, but done in a way that 
will create better services to the American public. What we find now, 
as we come to the floor to do the things that literally Governors all 
across this country have asked for, the flexibility to run their 
programs without just giving them waivers, but to let them run their 
own programs, we are told we are cutting services to poor people and 
how mean we are.
  The truth could not be further from that which is said, Mr. Speaker. 
The fact of the matter is that we are going to put more money than ever 
in Medicaid that will allow States the opportunity to take care of 
their problems.
  I am proud of this bill tonight. I support it, and I hope that the 
American people see it for what it is, a great opportunity to save 
money.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget reconciliation is a Republican raid on 
student aid: over $14 billion in cuts to Federal student aid programs, 
cuts that add $5,800 to the costs of the average student's education, 
$5,800. That is a lot of money for any family, especially the poor and 
the working poor.
  Actually, cutting student aid is a very clever new military 
recruiting tool because by discouraging students from attending college 
for financial reasons, their only choice is often to join the military.
  Nearly 50 percent of military recruits come from lower-middle-class 
to poor households. Mr. Speaker, in the year 2004, nearly two-thirds of 
Army recruits came from areas where the median household income is 
below the U.S. average, where joining the military is the only way to 
learn a trade or pay for school.
  The raid on student aid becomes a military draft through the lack of 
opportunity.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before we get too deep into this debate, let us go ahead and 
straighten out three myths.
  Myth number one is the myth of the cuts, because only in Washington 
and only in the other side's rhetoric is a reduction in the rate of 
increase considered a cut. When growth rates are going from 7.5 percent 
to 7.3 percent or from 6.3 to 6 percent and programs are getting more 
dollars the next year than they got the year before, that is not a cut.
  Myth number two, that it is mean. What could be mean about demanding 
that services to people who need them the most are administered 
effectively, wisely, and efficiently? Is it waste in programs that 
administer to our most needy and our most vulnerable, the worst kind of 
waste?

                              {time}  2130

  Do we not have a special obligation to root out those dollars that 
have been directed to the people who need them the most but are not 
finding their way there because of inefficiencies in our government?
  And, thirdly, that this is somehow part of an overall scheme that is 
tied in with preventing tax increases. There are two separate packages 
moving. You have an opportunity, you have an opportunity to vote 
against keeping the tax rates where they are and allowing them to rise. 
You have an opportunity to do that. But you have a separate 
opportunity, through regular order, through the ordinary process, 
through all the individual committees, to also take a stand to correct 
and rein in mandatory spending that is out of control and is gobbling 
up the Federal budget. You have that opportunity.
  Two separate votes. You can be for savings and still vote to let 
taxes go up on another day, but do not try to have it both ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett) to elaborate on these points.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Federal spending is just too 
high and basically it is in danger of spiraling out of complete 
control. But American families are really better off if they are able 
to keep more of their money to decide to spend it as they see their 
needs fit. But only when excesses and unnecessary spending are 
identified and eliminated will that happen. And that is really the 
responsibility of both sides of the aisle.
  The bill before us began with $34 billion in savings. We have another 
$15 billion roughly in savings on top of it. This will not fix our 
mandatory spending problems right away, but it is a first step in the 
right direction.
  Unfortunately, opponents on the other side of the aisle have been 
spreading lies about it when they say there are cuts in the Medicaid 
funding program. In fact, the reform program includes a 7 percent 
increase in spending for Medicaid. Programs like Medicaid simply cannot 
sustain themselves without any reform. No one can argue that Medicaid 
is a completely 100 percent efficient program. Reforms are necessary to 
protect the program and protect the services that are provided to the 
people who receive them. Right now, around 53 million Americans receive 
the benefits of this program. It is a State-Federal partnership. And 
unless reform is done now, we will see that program become disabled and 
cripple the States and eventually lead to bankruptcy.
  One area we see this is in prescription drugs. Time and time again, 
the Federal Government overpays for prescription drug benefits. And 
unless reform is made in this program, we will see that program crash 
as well.
  The other side has lied with regard to student loans as well. There 
are no cuts in the student loan program under this budget reform plan. 
That is another lie of the other side of the aisle. As the number of 
college students increases, the student loan program will grow as well. 
Under this bill, student financial aid will continue to increase as the 
number of kids in colleges increase. Financial aid actually goes up 
through increases in loan limits and reductions in origination fees.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, my young friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam) 
knows very well that his constituents and most Americans understand 
that when you reconcile a budget that you have two sides of that 
budget, the spending side and the tax side. I would

[[Page 26587]]

agree with many things that he says, that spending has run out of 
control. It certainly has run out of control in the last 5 years since 
this administration has been in and the Republicans have controlled the 
Congress and the White House.
  Americans also understand that we need to balance our books. They do 
it in their homes. They do it in their businesses. They do it in their 
local governments. That is the problem that most of us have with this 
process that is going on here.
  Today we are looking at a spending cut bill that is somewhere in the 
neighborhood of $50 billion, give or take a few hundred million. 
Tomorrow we are going to look at a revenue reduction bill that is 
somewhere in the range of $60 to $70 billion, depending upon what the 
Rules Committee reports out. In any event, what we will have will be an 
increase in the deficit, money that will have to be borrowed by the 
American people to cover those differences.
  The American people also understand that this United States 
Government has an $8 trillion Federal debt, that we have about a $500 
billion annual deficit, the highest in the Nation's history. We have 
the largest trade deficits in the history of the Nation. We have got a 
very expensive and controversial war in Iraq. We have got the highest 
gas prices in the history of this Nation. We have got interest rates 
that are going up on a monthly basis.
  Mr. Speaker, the economic model has suffered, and it is time to put 
it right with a bipartisan summit called by the President of the United 
States.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just point out that the gentleman has two votes coming up, 
one where he can do something about the spending and one where he can 
make clear the position on either raising taxes or not raising taxes. 
There are two separate and distinct votes. He cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensar-
ling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I believe that I will agree with our Democrat colleagues on very 
little this evening, but one thing I do agree on, Mr. Speaker, is that 
this is a debate about values. We value the family budget. They value 
the Federal budget. We value accountability. We value efficiency and 
rooting out waste and fraud and abuse. They value more government, more 
bureaucracy, more dependency. And that is the difference, Mr. Speaker.
  We all know that there is a fiscal hurricane coming towards America. 
The General Accountability Office said if we do not start this process 
of reforms and start it today that within one generation, we will have 
to double taxes on the American people. Mr. Speaker, that is simply 
unconscionable.
  Our friends on the other side will say we simply cannot cut 
government spending. Well, I wish, in fact, that we were cutting 
government spending, but instead, the Federal budget is going to be 
greater next year than last year. Mandatory spending is going to be 
greater next year than last year. Food stamps will be up. Medicare will 
be up. Medicaid will be up. That is falsehood.
  They tell us there is no waste, fraud, abuse, duplication in the 
Federal budget. Yet this is a Federal budget that in the past has paid 
five times as much for a wheelchair in one bureaucracy than another 
because one would competitively bid and the other would not. This is a 
bureaucracy that has paid VA benefits to dead people. And the list goes 
on.
  We will hear from the other side that tax relief is somehow the 
problem for all of our fiscal woes. Yet we have cut taxes and tax 
receipts are up and 4 million jobs have been created.
  And, finally, we will hear about compassion, Mr. Speaker. But where 
is the compassion in doubling taxes on our children in one generation, 
taking away jobs, taking away hope, taking away opportunity from those 
who are most vulnerable, those who do not vote, and those who are not 
yet born? There is no compassion in that, Mr. Speaker.
  We must pass this reform package.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cardoza).
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my presentation, I want to 
just say I cannot believe the comments from the gentleman who just 
spoke.
  Today, the national debt stands at over $8 trillion. That is more 
than $27,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. This fiscal 
mess is a direct result of the policies put in place by the leadership 
of this Congress and the Bush White House.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle want the members of the 
Blue Dog Coalition to join with them in their latest efforts to run the 
deficit even higher. Mr. Speaker, that will never happen. It is time 
for real reform, not more of the same. The Blue Dog Coalition has put 
forward a comprehensive 12-step program that would dig America out of 
its fiscal mess.
  Remarkably, our Republican colleagues have criticized the Blue Dogs 
for not supporting their sham reconciliation program, even though 
several of their original programs are put in the Blue Dog 12-step 
program. After refusing to reach across party lines to negotiate a real 
deficit package, the Republicans now accuse the Blue Dogs of 
partisanship.
  Are you all serious? My friends, you have abandoned fiscal 
responsibility and your way is not working. America has had enough. I 
have had enough. Each Member of Congress has a certain piece of these 
cuts that they hate the most, whether it be child support or Medicaid 
or food stamps. But ladies and gentlemen, for me it is personal. This 
bill includes several provisions that will reduce foster care 
assistance and services. This bill cuts foster care-related funding by 
$600 million a year. Our Federal budget is nearly $1 trillion a year.
  Ladies and gentlemen on that side of the aisle, are you serious in 
telling me that you cannot find any budget cuts that do not affect 
abandoned children? Are you telling me that you cannot find anyplace to 
pay for your tax cuts that does not affect abandoned and abused and 
neglected children?
  Ladies and gentlemen, I have two children that I adopted out of 
foster care. When I told them about these cuts, they told me, ``Daddy, 
don't let them do it.'' Ladies and gentlemen, they told me, ``Daddy, 
don't let them do it.''
  This is not the right place to cut, ladies and gentlemen. You have 
not consulted with us. This is not the right package. You need to 
change the way and the direction that you are going.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Blue Dogs are stuck in the dog box of their leadership. They need 
to get off of the porch and bring a plan to the table. The chairman of 
the Budget Committee testified before the Rules Committee, asking that 
a substitute be made in order. The 12-step plan was still stuck 
someplace else. The Blue Dogs were still on the porch. The Blue Dogs 
were still locked in the box. They did not come forward with an 
opportunity to present their own plan.
  They are free to criticize ours. We are big boys and girls. We are 
going to stand by this plan, and we are going to move it forward 
because it is important that we back up what their rhetoric is, which 
is that mandatory and entitlement spending is eating up this budget and 
somebody has got to do something about it besides just bark.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me 
this time tonight.
  I have spent 30-plus years as a CPA, professional background. I know 
a little bit about budgets, and we work them from two sides. One is the 
revenue side; the other is the spending side. Tonight we are talking 
about spending. To put the spending in perspective, it is a 5-year plan 
that reduces that spending by some $50 billion, which is a lot of money 
under any circumstance. But spending over that 5-year period in 
mandatory spending will be $8.5 trillion. If we do the math, that is 
not quite a rounding error. It is

[[Page 26588]]

just a little bit more than a rounding error in the overall spending. 
So what we are hearing in the rhetoric on the other side is that 
America is on a razor-thin edge of disaster, a \1/2\ percent razor-thin 
edge in mandatory spending.
  Yesterday's USA Today showed what spending will be like in 2050, a 
time when my children and grandchildren will be trying to bear this 
burden that we are currently after. Albert Einstein said the most 
powerful thing in the universe is compound interest, and that is great 
if you have got a savings account that you are adding to periodically 
and you are rolling that interest in there. But compound interest on 
the spending side is a disaster of biblical proportions. We will see in 
2050 what compound spending growth will do.
  What we are doing tonight with this original first step, modest first 
step, is to try to rein in the growth of Federal spending. It is not 
cuts, as my good colleague from Florida has said. It is simply a 
reduction in the growth of spending. Everybody can spend it any way 
that they want to.
  I would ask that we keep our comments tonight in a manner that 
behooves this body that we stick with the facts and that we be 
responsible for things we say here tonight. It is important. This is an 
important debate.
  Families cannot operate at a deficit. Small businesses certainly 
cannot. My clients certainly could not. About the only entity that can 
is the Federal Government. And because the Federal Government can 
operate at a deficit does not mean that it should operate at a deficit.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her 
leadership.
  I am absolutely amazed at you boys over there. I wonder what you are 
going to be when you grow up. For you to come to this floor and attack 
the Blue Dogs on fiscal responsibility demonstrates an unparalleled 
display of ignorance, stupidity, or just down-hard foolishness. I do 
not know which.

                              {time}  2145

  You stand there and say we are increasing spending, but we are 
cutting spending. I do not know whether you cannot add or subtract. I 
do not know what your problem is. But I can tell you this, and you can 
be cute, you can be smart, and you may even pull this off, son, but I 
tell you one thing, you are young enough, you are going to have to live 
with it. You are putting a tax on the next generation that they cannot 
pay and they cannot repeal it, and you are going to have to live with 
it.
  Do not ask for my time because I will not yield.
  I can tell you this: you are going to suffer the consequences just 
like everybody else in the next generation and those to come 
thereafter. And I cannot believe that you have the audacity to come to 
this floor with this assault on women and children and try to portray 
it, as this other Howdy Doody-looking nimrod said, that he wanted to 
talk about family values and values. That is unprecedented in this 
House.
  I have the time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. BERRY. I yield to the gentleman from California.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair, is it 
appropriate for Members of this House to address the Chair or address 
their remarks to other Members?
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the Blue Dogs were referred 
to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair advises all Members 
that they should address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, as I do proceed, let me continue to tell you, 
if you cannot take it, go home. Do not do this to our children and 
grandchildren. You cannot take it, you are not man enough to pass these 
rules and pass these laws and build this dam on our children and 
grandchildren until they cannot carry it any longer.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that 
remarks should be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my apologies for besmirching the reputation of the Blue 
Dogs. It is clear that their bark is still in place, though their bite 
is lacking.
  Mr. Speaker, that was quite a performance, and I respect the 
gentleman's passion; but I do not respect the fact that he chose to 
personalize the debate, an important debate about the future of our 
Nation. I do not like the way that he characterized me; I do not like 
the way that he characterized the gentleman from Texas. It seems to me 
that the sensitivities about the reputation of the Blue Dogs is where 
the thin skin really lies.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget is about the future and this organization 
has created the impression over a number of years of fiscal 
responsibility; and yet time after time after time when given the 
opportunity to truly do something about it, they just fade away. They 
just go back to the porch. Instead of taking the tough votes, instead 
of bringing real reform and making government work better so future 
generations of men and women and businesses and children and all 
aspects, instead of guaranteeing a bright future for all Americans, 
they just choose to talk about it.
  The gentleman is right when he said that our younger generation is 
going to be most impacted by these fiscal decisions. They are. That is 
why we are here today to try to do something about it. They are here 
today to just talk about it. Where is their plan to rein in the 
overarching growth of Federal spending? What are they going to do about 
the fact that entitlement spending takes up over half of the budget and 
will soon take up two-thirds? Where was their plan about what they were 
going to do for these same women and children, as if the country was 
only made up of women and children, that benefit from these programs, 
what about all Americans? What were you going to do about this 
generation and future generations' retirement security? The same thing 
you were going to do about this, just talk about it, but not actually 
take the tough votes to do anything about securing their future.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I think there is one thing we can all agree 
on tonight, and that is the deficit is too big. But the question is 
what are we going to do about it. There are only two ways we have a 
deficit, Mr. Speaker. Either we spend too much, or we tax too little.
  I know that the people of the Second District of Indiana do not feel 
like they are taxed too little, and I do not think that they are a 
whole lot different from the rest of Americans. The fact is we spend 
enough money around here. What we do not do is prioritize.
  We have heard and will continue to hear a whole lot of rhetoric that 
we are slashing spending.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is we are not cutting spending at all. Today 
we are simply slowing the future growth of government. The truth is 
that Medicare spending will grow next year. Food stamp spending will 
grow next year. Student financial aid will grow next year. Now, I 
understand that only in Washington smaller increases are considered 
cuts; but even by Washington standards, our efforts today are modest.
  When you cut through all of the rhetoric, what we are doing tonight 
is slowing the growth of government over the next 5 years from 6.4 
percent to 6.3 percent. That is one-tenth of one percent. That is 
equivalent to a family making $50,000 a year finding savings of $50 a 
year. Anyone who says we cannot find savings of one-tenth of 1 percent 
has no serious interest in making government more efficient, has no 
ideas other than to raise taxes on the economy and American families, 
and they only want to use how much we spend rather than

[[Page 26589]]

how well we spend as a measurement of success.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that spending money is 
easy and managing money is hard. Anyone serious about reducing the 
deficit by returning to fiscal sanity and starting to make government 
more self-sufficient will support this rule and support this bill. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to do so.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin to tell my 
Republican friends how disappointed I am, and I want to speak to why 
you are seeing so much passion on this floor tonight from Democrats, 
and especially from Blue Dog Democrats, of which I am a proud member. I 
am going into my fourth year here, and every year it has been the Blue 
Dog Democrats, not the Republicans, who have been at the forefront of 
trying to rein in deficit spending. It has been Blue Dogs who have been 
at the forefront to put forward pay-as-you-go.
  You say we do not have a plan. We have a 12-point plan. We have tried 
to institute pay-as-you-go principles from day one. We have begged, we 
have pleaded with the President of the United States to meet with us to 
make sure that we rein in the deficit. So when you see Blue Dogs coming 
down here mad as hell, you have to understand that the reason we are 
mad is because we are not going to stand idly by and see the hypocrisy 
of a party that squandered billions and billions of dollars in surplus 
in the last 4 years and then come down here and say you are leading the 
fight to cut deficits, when you have done more than any President, any 
party in modern times to add to the deficit. And then the worst thing 
you want to do is to squeeze in a tax cut of $70 billion and then to do 
it on the backs of those that can least afford it.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, back in Indiana when a tree falls on your 
house, first you tend to the wounded; then you start to clean up; then 
you sit down and figure out how you are going to pay for it.
  Well, tonight, thanks to the leadership of Speaker Hastert, in the 
aftermath of having spent over $60 billion in 6 days to meet the real 
needs of the families and communities affected by Hurricane Katrina, 
tonight Congress is going to figure out how to pay for it.
  In the Deficit Reduction Act, Congress will achieve more than $50 
billion in savings over the next 5 years to offset the extraordinary 
cost of Hurricane Katrina. While this is an important first step in 
restoring fiscal discipline, there is still work to be done. As has 
been said by my colleagues in the Democratic Party tonight, with an $8 
trillion national debt, with more spending on hurricane relief just 
around the corner, it is imperative that we not only pass the Deficit 
Reduction Act but that we move immediately on to the other serious 
work, to look for an across-the-board cut in this year's budget, 
ensuring that the cost of Hurricane Katrina will be borne by the 
entirety of our Federal priorities.
  We must do more, but we dare not do less. Tonight we will do that 
which is of first importance: we will begin the process of putting our 
fiscal house in order. President John F. Kennedy said it best when he 
said: ``To lead is to choose.'' And this is such a moment.
  Tonight, whatever the outcome of this vote, this is a moment of 
truth, where we will set aside the rhetoric on this blue and gold 
carpet, and the American people will see for themselves who in this 
Congress is willing to make the tough choices in tough times to put our 
fiscal house in order. Bring the vote, and I urge my colleagues of 
goodwill on both sides of the aisle to adopt the Deficit Reduction Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Bean).
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. One of 
the reasons I came to Congress was to bring a real-world business 
perspective to government. In the business world, accountability is 
survival. In this Congress, it is a catch phrase usually directed 
elsewhere.
  Demands for personal responsibility or corporate accountability 
abound, but rarely congressional accountability or fiscal restraint. 
Instead of sticking to the motto, If it is worth doing, it is worth 
paying for, this administration and this Congress have turned the 
largest budget surplus in history into the largest deficit in history 
with a reckless borrow-and-spend profligacy. It should be no surprise 
then that today's so-called Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 actually 
increases the budget deficit, fails to fix the broken budget process, 
and does nothing to reduce America's dependence on foreign capital.

                              {time}  2200

  I will oppose this irresponsible budget package which does not 
include pay go spending controls. We must pay as we go. It is a simple 
concept with a proven track record. The budget enforcement rules of the 
1990s were an important part of getting the budget back into balance. 
The pay-as-you-go rules were tested and they worked. Accountability in 
government should be more than a catch phrase. It is time for us to say 
the buck stops here.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to show you a picture of a place I 
think all of us know. It is Disneyland, the Magic Kingdom, the Magic 
Castle where fantasy is real. And we go down and we all pretend to be 
boys and girls for the day.
  Well, here is another place where fantasy becomes reality. It is our 
office building, the United States Capitol. Only here can you call a 7 
percent increase a cut. And what are the lap dogs, I mean, the blue 
dogs barking about? What I am saying is, when you increase the budget 7 
percent----


                             POINT OF ORDER

  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, does the speaker not have to address you and 
not a group or an individual?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members they 
should address their remarks to the Chair. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. KINGSTON. My point is that we can all live in the fantasyland of 
Disneyworld or the United States Capitol, and when a bill that is 
increasing Medicaid goes up $66 billion and people can call it a cut 
because they did not get their way, that it did not go up 7.3 percent, 
it only goes up 7 percent. You can find any excuse to vote no, and I 
guess in the fantasyland of Washington, D.C., you can call that a cut. 
But the reality is, all these posters and easels that are out in the 
halls of the Rayburn, the Longworth and the Cannon building are just 
fantasy. Here is a chance to actually reduce spending and you are 
barking at it and saying no.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) to address the fantasyland of this Mickey 
Mouse budget.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, this evening we are here to consider a bill 
known as the Deficit Reduction Act. And only here in a Republican-led 
Congress could something be called a deficit reduction act that adds 
$20 billion in new debt to this Nation's budget. Not only does it add 
$20 billion in new debt, but it also has nothing to do with paying for 
disaster relief. It is about cutting programs that matter to our 
children, our working families and our seniors to the tune of $50 
billion. It is about approving $70 billion in new tax cuts. I was not 
real good in math back in high school, but I think anybody can figure 
that one out. $50 billion in cuts, $70 billion in new tax cuts equals 
$20 billion in new debt. And what is being cut? Student aid, $14.3 
billion. As the father of a 17-year-old that is approaching college, 
like so many parents across this country, I am concerned about being 
able to pay for my child's college education. Parents all over this 
country

[[Page 26590]]

tonight are concerned that the Republican leadership are proposing $14 
billion in cuts for their children's college education. Medicaid, the 
health insurance program for the poor, the disabled, the elderly being 
cut by $11.4 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about my America. In Arkansas, half the 
children are on Medicaid. In Arkansas, 8 out of every 10 seniors in 
nursing homes are on Medicaid. In Arkansas, one out of every five 
people are on Medicaid, and this Republican-led Congress, tonight, 
plans to cut Medicaid $11.4 billion. And if that is not enough, they 
are going to cut agriculture programs $3 billion. My farm families back 
home in East Arkansas cannot afford these kind of cuts as they simply 
try to do what they do best, and that is provide a safe and reliable 
source of food and fiber for America's families.
  You know, as this debate unfolded tonight, as I was sitting here, I 
could not help but think about Matthew, chapter 25, verse 40. ``I tell 
you the truth. Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers 
of mine, you did for me.'' That is what I learned growing up in a 
little country church just outside of Hope, Arkansas, Midway United 
Methodist Church.
  Eight trillion dollars is the Nation's debt under this Republican-led 
Congress, the largest deficit ever in our Nation's history for a fifth 
year in a row. In fact, this Republican President and this Republican 
Congress has borrowed more money from foreign investors and foreign 
banks in less than 5 years than the previous 42 presidents combined. It 
is hard now to believe that we had a balanced budget from 1998 to 2001. 
Contrast that to today, when we are borrowing $907 million a day, 
sending $188 million a day to Iraq, $33 million a day to Afghanistan. 
This plan does not reflect America's values. This plan does not reflect 
my values. Vote no on this and vote yes to the Blue Dog 12-point plan 
which none of these Members are cosponsoring.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I have not memorized all of Matthew, but I 
am pretty sure he did not like calling kids Nimrods. I yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, actually I am going to come to the well of 
this House tonight to celebrate, not besmirch the gentleman's youth nor 
certainly his wisdom. The gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from 
Texas, it is you, of anybody in this Chamber tonight, it is you and the 
millions of your generation that you represent in this Chamber, in this 
people's House that we ought to be concerned about. You are the ones 
that should be passionate because you are going to get stuck with the 
bill.
  I thank both the gentlemen. And there has been a lot of heated 
rhetoric in here tonight. Let us talk at least a shred of truth. What 
this bill does is suggest that for a person to be Medicaid eligible has 
to have less than 3 quarters of $1 million of net worth. Now, is that 
harsh folks? Let us get real. Who out there in the real world believes 
that that is overly harsh, that to be on a welfare program, to be 
nursing home eligible, you have to have less than 3 quarters of $1 
million worth of net worth? Not the world that I came from.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the head of the Blue Dogs.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I guess that there is enough hot air that 
comes from this place to float any balloon, and I wish I was making up 
what I am about to say. But if you go to the www.publicdebt.treas.gov, 
you will find the things that I am about to say are there on the 
government Web site from the United States Treasury. The record is 
simply this. In 2002, this Congress raised the debt ceiling by $450 
billion. In 2003, by $984 billion. In 2004, by $800 billion, and in 
this budget reconciliation process, there is another $781 billion of 
debt increase, amounting to $3.01 trillion, all of which is done in the 
last 4 years.
  Now, I speak tonight as an American. We only have one dollar. We only 
have one Treasury. And for either party to claim some sort of mantle of 
financial responsibility here is absolutely ridiculous. No American 
political leadership in the history of this country has borrowed as 
much money as quickly as this Congress and this administration in the 
last 4 years. This is not an argument. This is fact. Go to 
www.publicdebt.treas.gov if you do not believe me. And what this means 
to us as Americans is in 2000, we had $50 billion a year out of the tax 
base that was available for education, for health care, for veterans. 
It is not available now because it is going to interest. I say what has 
happened is we, the Congress, and the administration, or you, the 
Congress and the administration, have levied a $500 billion plus tax 
increase on the American citizens over the next 10 years in the form of 
interest payments that you, in the majority, have built up over the 
last 4 years. That is not an argument. Go to www.treas.gov. That is a 
fact. Now, you might not want to admit it, but that is what has 
happened.
  Now, if that is not bad enough, 85 percent of this money that has 
been loaned to us and we have borrowed in the name of every man, woman 
and child that is a United States citizen, 85 percent of it has come 
from people that are not U.S. citizens. It is so bad right now that if 
China attacked Taiwan we would have to borrow the money from China to 
defend Taiwan. What kind of sense does this make?
  I am telling you, the Treasury reports that they are going to borrow 
$171 billion this quarter, the first quarter of 2006. And you come here 
with a reconciliation process that you say is cutting and then you turn 
around and stand up and say how much is being increased. I do not know 
which one it is, but I know that at the end of the day, this 
reconciliation process increases the deficit, not decreases it. And the 
American people want one thing, and I do not care whether it is 
Democrat or Republican, they want a government that works for them, not 
against them, and they want a government that does not enslave them in 
debt. What has happened here over the last 4 years is unprecedented. 
The amount of money that has been borrowed in our name by basically 
you, the majority, and the White House. It is not an argument. This is 
a fact. It is absolutely sickening. We are now, February 9, I want the 
American people to understand, February 9 are bringing back the 30-year 
bond. We have to because we owe so much money to primarily now 
foreigners.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, we were down here on the floor talking 
about this bill one night. I got an e-mail from a gentleman out in 
California, identified himself as a liberal Democrat. And he said, your 
House speech got it right. Programs started with the best of intentions 
will eventually outlive their usefulness, but their built-in 
bureaucracies have political champions that will not let these programs 
die ever.
  Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are seeing. We have before us a 
deficit reduction plan that would put us on a track to reforming 
government and yielding a savings. It is a good solid plan. It is a 
good solid start. Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle do not 
get it. Ronald Reagan had it right. There is nothing so close to 
eternal life on earth as a Federal Government program. And the reason 
that is true is because these folks built a bureaucracy to themselves 
out of 40 years of Democrat control and they have had a choice and they 
have chosen to support the bureaucracy. They have chosen not to reduce 
those programs even when Democrat governors of our own State in 
Tennessee say the Medicaid programs have to be reformed. They choose 
not to support those.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. MURPHY. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding.

[[Page 26591]]

  Mr. Speaker, some people want to scare others that this budget cuts 
services for needy Americans. Medicaid is one of those areas where 
facts are distorted. This bill increases Medicaid spending by $9.7 
billion the first year alone. It continues to increase Medicaid 
benefits for people who need them. Savings come from reducing Medicaid 
fraud like New York where there is $18 billion in fraud. It prevents 
wealthy families with more than $750,000 in home equity from earning 
Medicaid benefits they don't need. We incorporated many of the changes 
that the National Governors Association has asked for with 
unprecedented flexibility.
  We have to keep the Medicaid system from driving itself into fiscal 
oblivion. There is nothing compassionate about playing politics with 
people's hearts. We want to be sure that the Medicaid system is here 
for people today and tomorrow. That is why we need to give the 
Governors the flexibility they ask for in this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, earlier the gentleman from Indiana said that 
budgets are about choices. Unfortunately, here is what they mean when 
they say choices. They are asking the wealthiest Americans to choose 
between realizing their investment profits through dividends or capital 
gains while they are asking the poorest Americans to choose between 
health care or heating their home. That is the kind of choice that is 
being imposed by this budget. That is not a profile in courage. It is a 
profile in cowardice.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the Rules Committee the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have listened to Democrats and 
Republicans decry deficit spending. We have listened to Democrats and 
Republicans talk about the need to bring about reform so that we can 
ensure that those who are truly in need are able to have those needs 
addressed. No one in this institution wants to pull the rug out from 
anyone who is desperately in need. We know that the most effective way 
to ensure that those needs are met is to do what everyone knows has to 
be done. We have to bring about meaningful reform. Anyone who will 
stand in this Chamber and claim that the Medicaid program is free of 
any kind of abuse, that the food stamp program is free of any kind of 
abuse, that everything that we are looking at in this budget 
reconciliation bill is free of any kind of abuse does not understand 
the operations of the Federal Government.
  We know that these programs are filled with that kind of abuse and it 
is absolutely essential that we bring about this reform. Democrats and 
Republicans alike, Mr. Speaker, have the opportunity to bring about 
reforms to ensure that those who are truly in need have those needs 
met.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) who lost everything in Katrina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in south Mississippi tonight, 
the people who have electricity, who might be at a VFW hall or a parish 
church hall, who are living in two- and three-man igloo tents waiting 
for Congress to do something, have absolutely got to think this place 
has lost their minds. The same Congress that voted to give the 
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans tax breaks every time. Every time. 
Without a tax break. Out of the goodness of their hearts, no? To help 
their big contributors.
  Who is kidding who? The same America that are spending 4 to $6 
billion a month in Iraq where, by the way, 4,000 Mississippians are 
fighting tonight, 15 have already come home dead, a dozen more have 
been to Walter Reed, who never asked the Iraqis for an offset are 
suddenly saying in the name of the poor folks in Mississippi who lost 
their houses, poor folks in New Orleans whose houses were flooded, we 
can't do this unless we have to hurt some other Americans to help some 
Americans? Suddenly after taking care of those who had the most, we 
have got to hurt the least. To help the folks in Mississippi?
  Folks, this is insane. I have sat here. I remember the vote. May 9, 
2001. I remember a President who said he could cut taxes, increase 
spending and pay down the debt. We are $2.4 trillion deeper in debt 
than that night. I did not vote for that. Almost all of you did. I did 
not vote to tell the folks who make hundreds of millions of dollars a 
year, you deserve a tax break. You did. I voted for offsets for the war 
in Iraq because, yes, we went to war. My goodness, kids from 
Mississippi are dying there. I have got a kid who lost both legs 
volunteering in my office to answer the phone to help folks who were 
hurt in Katrina. Mississippi has paid their dues. Why should they have 
to pay their dues twice?
  This is an emergency. The one time you borrow money is when you go to 
war and for an emergency. And so, now you have to have an offset? Don't 
tell me you are being fiscally responsible. I sat here for 5 years and 
watched you take a budget surplus and run it into $2.5 trillion of new 
debt. So let's put these things in perspective. Yes, I was told the 
Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction and they are getting ready to 
use them.
  Yes, I was told that you could cut taxes, increase spending and 
balance the budget. But this is the cruelest lie of all, that the only 
way you can help the people who have lost everything is by hurting 
somebody else.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, America's heart and America's wallets have 
been opened for those who have been so devastated on the gulf coast 
just as they were a year ago for those Floridians who suffered four 
storms. It is a tragic thing and we are very sorry for the loss and the 
continued suffering that goes on. There have been a number of things 
discussed this evening as part of the kickoff of this debate about 
being truly serious about reducing the size of our deficit.
  I began by talking about the myths. All around America, the people 
who would be discussing what is going on here would have to find that 
something is odd about a budget that goes up 7 percent every year but 
is labeled a cut. They would find it an interesting juxtaposition that 
the only thing mean and ugly about what is going on in here has been 
the rhetoric. The action is to eliminate the waste from all of these 
areas, including FEMA. Including those areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge this House to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Putnam

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Putnam of Florida:
       Add at the end the following:
       Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment considered as adopted under the 
     first section of this resolution shall be modified as 
     specified in section 5.
       Sec. 5. The modification referred to in section 4 is as 
     follows:
       Page 13, strike lines 5 through 11, and insert the 
     following:

       ``(a) Eligible Households.--The Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) is amended--
       ``(1) in section 5----
       ``(A) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a); and
       ``(B) in subsection (j);
     by striking `receives benefits' each place it appears and 
     inserting `in fiscal years 2006 through 2010 receives cash 
     assistance, and in any other fiscal year receives benefits,';
       ``(2) in section 5(a) by adding at the end the following:

     `Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act except 
     sections 6(b), 6(d)(2), and 6(g) and section 3(i)(4), 
     households in which each member receives substantial and 
     ongoing noncash benefits under a State program funded under 
     part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 
     et seq.) provided for purposes of shelter, utilities, child 
     care, health care, transportation, or job training, and that 
     have a monthly income that does not exceed (before the 
     exclusions and deductions provided for in subsections (d) and 
     (e)) 150 percent of the poverty line, as defined in section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2)), for the forty-eight contiguous States and the 
     District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands of 
     the United States, and Guam, respectively, shall be eligible 
     to participate in the food stamp program.'; and
       ``(3) in section 5(j) by adding at the end the following:


[[Page 26592]]


     `Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (i), a State agency 
     shall consider a member of a household in which each 
     household member receives substantial and ongoing noncash 
     benefits under a State program funded under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
     provided for purposes of shelter, utilities, child care, 
     health care, transportation, or job training, and which has a 
     monthly income that does not exceed (before the exclusions 
     and deductions provided for in subsections (d) and (e)) 150 
     percent of the poverty line, as defined in section 673(2) of 
     the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), 
     for the forty-eight contiguous States and the District of 
     Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands of the United 
     States, and Guam, respectively, to have satisfied the 
     resource limitations prescribed under subsection (g).'.''
       Page 331, at the end of line 13, add the following: ``Such 
     method shall provide that not less than 25 percent of such 
     funds shall be allocated among States the population of which 
     (as determined according to data collected by the United 
     States Census Bureau) as of July 1, 2004, was more than 105 
     percent of the population of the respective State (as so 
     determined) as of April 1, 2000.''.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the amendment addresses two issues, food 
stamps and Medicaid transformation grants. On the issue of food stamps, 
it ensures that recipients of noncash TANF benefits will continue to be 
categorically eligible for food stamps and it addresses high growth 
States with regard to Medicaid transformation.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in 
support of the Deficit Reduction Act. The legislation we have before us 
is built on the simple notions of reforming government and achieving 
savings.
  If ever there was a vote in recent history that defines the 
difference in the two parties--this is it.
  We are the party of reform, the party of a more efficient 
government--the other party is one of more government, more spending, 
and more taxes.
  The Democrats have tried to use catchy rhetoric to describe what we 
are voting on today. They don't want to talk about the facts.
  The front page of last Tuesday's Roll Call said it all . . . ``This 
fall is not the time for Democrats to roll out a positive agenda,'' 
said a House Democratic aide.
  Instead of a positive agenda, they have resorted to using words like 
``cuts'' and ``slashing programs,'' and called this important plan 
``rotten to the core.''
  But once you peal back the rhetoric and look at what is in this 
legislation, you realize why they only have cute slogans.
  They don't want to talk about reforms that will save and strengthen 
Medicaid.
  Reforms largely taken from proposals offered by the bipartisan 
National Governor's Association that was led by Democratic Governor 
Mark Warner.
  They don't want to talk about supporting first responders by giving 
them bandwidth they so desperately need.
  They don't want to talk about a 50 percent increase in LIHEAP.
  They don't want to talk about ensuring that benefits paid for by 
taxpayers don't go to illegal immigrants.
  And of course they don't want to talk about lowering the cost of 
student loans.
  I could go on and on--but in the end, this legislation delivers 
common sense reforms that will achieve real savings and reduce the 
deficit.
  What about that, Mr. Speaker, is rotten to the core?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the devastation we 
will cause by passing this small little act tonight. In fact, we are 
trying to further reform welfare and improve the system of delivery of 
the services and goods for those in our society who need them most.
  Something that really surprises me, though, is there is really no 
plan from the other side. I have noticed in our hallways the Democrats' 
signs crying for action on the Federal deficit, but I have yet to see 
their plan to deal with the deficit.
  Blue Dog Democrats have billboards in front of their offices 
declaring how much each family owes on the federal debt, but they have 
no plan to reduce it. There are more plans on the television show West 
Wing than the Democrats have here in the United States House of 
Representatives. There are more plans on the other political shows 
about how to deal with the problems of today, but we get no plans or 
help from the other side.
  We need some Blue Dog Democrats that that will actually hunt. We need 
dogs with bite rather than a large bark. Right now all we hear is a lot 
of noise from the Blue Dogs, but there is no action and there is no 
plan. All we hear are complaints about trying to improve the system.
  I will give you one quick example. In Kansas, Medicaid claims are 
only correct 3 out of 4 times. One out of 4 times the payment is 
inaccurate. We need to reform that system. You would not get on an 
airplane today if you had a 3 out of 4 chance of getting to your 
destination. You would not start a trip today if you had only a 3 out 
of 4 chance of getting to your destination. When we make a Medicaid 
payment in the State of Kansas, it is wrong 24 percent of the time. 
This legislation includes reform to help improve our Medicaid system, 
so those who are truly in need get the services they require.
  But the other side doesn't want to do that. We need to pass this 
legislation, reform the welfare system, and do the right thing about 
the Federal budget.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, earlier I spoke about how this legislation 
is out of step with mainstream American values. I would like to submit 
for the Record the text of a letter sent to every Member of the House 
from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reflecting the 
misguided values that this bill embodies.
                                              Department of Social


                                  Development and World Peace,

                                 Washington, DC, November 8, 2005.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: When Congress began the process of 
     developing the 2006 budget for the United States government 
     last February, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 
     president Bishop William Skylstad urged Members of Congress 
     to remember that budget ``decisions will reflect not only 
     economic policies but moral choices as well,'' and urged 
     Congress ``to give priority attention in the budget to the 
     needs of poor and vulnerable people both here and abroad.''
       As the House now takes up its budget reconciliation bill, 
     we write to reiterate the Conference's priorities and to 
     share our views on how that bill may impact several key 
     programs and the people they serve. We are guided by Catholic 
     moral principles: respect for human life and dignity; the 
     importance of family and the value of work; an option for the 
     poor and the call to participation; and the principles of 
     subsidiarity and solidarity. We also draw upon the Church's 
     experience living with, and serving the poor among us. As 
     perhaps the largest non-governmental provider of health care 
     and human services to vulnerable people, the Catholic 
     community meets the poor in our soup kitchens, Catholic 
     Charities agencies and health care facilities.
       We are deeply disappointed by the budget reconciliation 
     proposal before the House of Representatives, in particular, 
     its lack of concern for children. Below are specific examples 
     of programs that serve vulnerable people--often children--
     that will lose funds if this legislation passes in its 
     current form.
       Food Stamp Program: The House reconciliation bill includes 
     harmful cuts to the Food Stamp program that will result in 
     taking food away from people, including children, who are 
     being helped now. This would be objectionable anytime, but it 
     is particularly unfair at this time. Recently, USDA reported 
     an increase to 38 million in the number of Americans 
     suffering from hunger or living in homes that are on the edge 
     of hunger. This includes nearly 14 million children. Nearly 
     300,000 people in low-income working families will lose Food 
     Stamp assistance if this bill becomes law and some 40,000 
     children in those families will no longer be eligible for 
     free school meals. Many of those denied Food Stamps will be 
     legal immigrants. We were strong supporters of President 
     Bush's successful effort to expand access to Food Stamps for 
     legal immigrants in the last farm bill. We strongly oppose 
     the effort to roll back this expansion, by making legal 
     immigrants wait an additional 2 years for eligibility.
       Health Care for the Poor: We recognize and affirm the 
     sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and 
     consider access to adequate health care to be a basic human 
     right. No person should be denied access to needed health 
     care because of inability to pay. We oppose the provisions in 
     the bill that would allow states to increase the burden of 
     co-payments, deductibles and premiums on Medicaid 
     beneficiaries--including some children and pregnant women. 
     Health care providers would be allowed to deny services to 
     those who cannot pay these amounts. Another proposal would 
     allow states wide latitude to choose which medical services 
     it will offer to different groups of low- income people. It 
     is important to maintain a federal standard of core benefits, 
     necessary for the maintenance of good health, to which all 
     Medicaid beneficiaries are entitled.
       The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that these 
     provisions will save $6.2 billion over five years (and $28.2 
     billion over ten years), precisely because they will cause 
     people eligible for Medicaid to get less of the health care 
     they need. This attempt to save money by making it harder for 
     low- income and vulnerable people to get the health care they 
     need is simply unacceptable.
       Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: The House 
     reconciliation bill includes the

[[Page 26593]]

     House bill to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
     Families (TANF) welfare program. We reiterate our concern 
     that the House approach to TANF reauthorization increases the 
     work requirements on all TANF recipients, generally single 
     mothers, and repeals the rule allowing a lower work 
     requirement for mothers of children under 6 years old. While 
     the House reconciliation bill does include small increases in 
     child care funding, the amount is insufficient to pay for 
     current child care services given inflation, let alone cover 
     the need for additional child care created by increasing the 
     TANF work requirements. We are also disappointed that the 
     bill does not restore TANF benefit eligibility to recently-
     arrived legal immigrants. However, we note our support for 
     funding programs--separate from the basic block grant--to 
     promote marriage and healthy families (although we believe it 
     would be better to target this spending on marriage and 
     family services for low-income families).
       Child Support Funds: The House reconciliation bill cuts 
     Federal funding for state child support services which will 
     make it harder for states to collect child support for low 
     and moderate-income families. According to CBO extimates, 
     over the course of ten years families could receive $21 
     billion less in child support payments. Child support 
     payments can be crucial to the economic viability of some 
     families, keeping them out of poverty and off public 
     programs. They also encourage parental responsibility and can 
     help to maintain the connection between children and their 
     non-custodial parent. Undermining the collection of child 
     support is not good for children or families.
       Agricultural Programs: We are disappoin-
     ted that the reconciliation bill reduces spending on key 
     conservation programs. The bishops have stated that 
     protecting God's creation must be a central goal of 
     agricultural policies, and our conference supports policies 
     that promote soil conservation, Improve water quality, 
     protect wildlife, and maintain biodiversity.
       The bishops' conference also endorses targeting limited 
     government resources for direct federal payments and other 
     forms of domestic agricultural support to small and moderate-
     sized farms, to help them through difficult times caused by 
     periodic price shocks or unpredictable natural disasters, 
     such as the recent hurricanes. Limiting U.S. farm supports 
     and targeting them to those who need them the most would also 
     increase the possibility that poor farmers around the world 
     would be able to sell their products and support their 
     families. We would welcome efforts to begin the process of 
     redirecting agricultural subsidies to those most in need.
       We urge you to remember that the federal budget is more 
     than a fiscal plan; it reflects our values as a people. 
     Budget choices have clear moral and human dimensions. A just 
     society is one that protects and promotes the fundamental 
     rights of its members--with special attention to meeting the 
     basic needs, including the need for safe and affordable 
     health care, of the poor and underserved. In these difficult 
     times, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops urges 
     you to work for a budget that does not neglect the needs of 
     the ``least of these'' in our nation and the world.
           Sincerely in Christ,
     Most Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio,
       Bishop of Brooklyn, Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee.
     Most Rev. John Ricard, SSJ,
       Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee, Chairman, International 
     Policy Committee.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the value of finding 
additional spectrum below 1 GHz for unlicensed devices to meet the 
growing consumer demand for robust wireless broadband connections. As 
outlined in the committee report, the Federal Communications Commission 
should evaluate whether the presence of unlicensed devices operating in 
the broadcast television bands will produce harmful interference to 
television stations broadcasting in that band.
  Unlicensed devices that utilize spectrum below 1 GHz could be used by 
neighbors who want to communicate with each other, by wireless Internet 
providers who want to improve their coverage, or by other service 
providers who want to expand their capabilities. Unlicensed use of 
these bands has the potential to foster additional broadband 
competition, technological innovation, and economic development. In 
addition, wireless broadband devices can be deployed rapidly in areas 
where wireline communications infrastructure has been wiped away, such 
as has occurred during recent disasters. I agree that the FCC should 
act expeditiously on this proceeding, and we were therefore pleased to 
provide the FCC with a deadline to complete its work.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Republican plan to cut billions of dollars in services for the 
most vulnerable people in our country while giving away billions of 
dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans--the so-called 
``budget reconciliation package.''
  This plan will harm low-income children and seniors, students, 
working parents and local government. It is an appalling plan that I 
oppose on both policy grounds as well as moral grounds. Denying access 
to food stamps to our poorest families is cruel and immoral when we 
live in a generous country of abundance.
  The Republican budget reconciliation bill also makes significant cuts 
to Medicaid, a critical program serving children, the elderly and 
persons with disabilities. The Republicans propose to cut $11.4 billion 
from Medicaid, primarily through imposing increased costs on families 
which will result in decreased access to care. At a time when health 
care costs and the number of uninsured families in our country are 
increasing, this proposal is both unwise and unfair.
  The Republican plan also cuts $14.3 billion from student loan 
programs, which will make higher education more expensive and less 
accessible at a time when our nation should be focused on educating and 
training a highly skilled workforce to compete globally. An investment 
in higher education is an investment in our future. The Republicans 
have chosen instead to ignore this reality and balance their mismanaged 
budget on the backs of students and families. .
  It is also extremely disappointing that the Republicans chose to 
include their punitive reauthorization of Temporary Assistance to Needy 
Families in this bill. This plan increases work requirements and 
sanctions while severely underfunding child care. In order to work, 
families need access to safe, affordable child care. We know that 
Congress needs to fund child care at $7 billion in order match the new 
rigid work requirements, yet this bill provides an inadequate $1.3 
billion. Families want to work but that is not possible if there is not 
safe, affordable child care available. In addition, the leadership has 
included a cut to child support enforcement funding in this package, 
which will make it more difficult for families to access the resources 
they need to care for their children.
  My opposition also extends to the Republican desire to cut $70 
billion in taxes, primarily for investors and the wealthy, while adding 
over $20 billion to the federal budget deficit. Rewarding the rich, 
punishing the poor and passing the cost on to the next generation is a 
disgraceful way to lead this nation. I will vote against this 
Republican reconciliation package and I urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________