Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, there are several things about this bill that I am not sure have been discussed or are as widely known by the Members, but the first thing I would say is that the legislation is supported by all the federal bank regulators. It is also supported by all the industry groups. And it does several things. It addresses inefficiencies in the present system and deficiencies in the present system.

As far as deficiencies in the present system, one of the greatest is the fact that we have two different funds. The Savings Association Insurance Fund and the Bank Insurance Fund. All the Federal regulators have recommended combining those funds from the administrative cost savings and also because we do not want a situation where some of our institutions are paying certain basis points where others are not. We want more equity there so it gives no advantage for our thrifts over our banks or our banks over our thrifts.

Another problem we have had increasingly is the problem of free riders. Since 1996, there have been no assessments of the banks for the Federal insurance, and as a result of that, we have had several large brokerage firms which have never paid into the fund, and what they are doing is setting up affiliate banks, six or eight or nine affiliate banks, and they are advertising $800,000 or $900,000 worth of federally insured deposits. In other words, people can deposit $800,000 or $900,000 into to their fund, and it is federally insured. This really is an inequity because they have never paid into the system and they are offering that something that smaller banks and other banks that do not set up these affiliates or string of affiliates and can only offer $100,000 of coverage; and, in fact, those banks or thrifts that are only offering $100,000 worth of coverage are actually paying and have paid for coverage for some of the large brokerage firms.

And the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the industry have said that this ought to be corrected, and we do that in this bill. We do that in two ways. One is by requiring that everyone pay a minimum amount; number two, we increase the coverage; and number three, we allow more flexibility in when the premiums are charged. Right now when the bank reserves fall below 1.25 percent, the Federal Reserve actually has to start charging a premium, and then if the situation is not rectified within a year, they have to then start charging 23 basis points, and they have little discretion in this matter. The bank regulators and the industry have recommended that what we do as opposed to having a hard number that we give a range, or a discretionary range, and we have done that at 1.15 to 1.4.

What this allows to happen is, if we think about it, there are no premiums being charged, and then all of a sudden we go into a recession and we start charging a premium, or 23 basis points, it actually can worsen the recession, and at the time when banks ought to be lending money, suddenly they are having to pay these premiums. The time to fund the insurance program and the insurance reserve is in good times.

So what we have done in this bill is allow them to build up a reserve in the good times, and then when we come into a recessionary period and bank reserves start dropping, they have some discretion in not instituting a 23-basis-point charge on the banks. And policymakers and all the Federal bank regulators believe that this will not only strengthen the funds, but it will take away a bias against a down cycle that could actually make a down economic cycle worse.

One of the things that is being debated, and the gentleman I am going to yield to next is going to be in opposition to the coverage increase, is the coverage increase. When we consider increasing the coverage, there have been two arguments against that. One was a ``moral hazard'' argument. The FDIC, in response to some people saying that if we raise the coverage, it will be a moral hazard, actually commissioned a study and appointed the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Blinder, as the chairman of that study commission, and they came back and said because these are risk-based premiums, there is absolutely no validity to the moral hazard argument.

If we think about it this way, what this is, is an insurance, and bank depositors pay a premium on their deposits for insurance coverage. And to argue that if that coverage is increased from $100,000 to $130,000 suddenly would cause reckless behavior, it would almost be like arguing that if I had automobile insurance and I had $100,000 worth of automobile insurance on my automobile, and I raised that to $200,000 of insurance coverage that I would suddenly start driving more recklessly or be more prone to have accidents, and we know that when people insure, whether it is a deposit, an automobile, or a home, they are not any more apt to act in a reckless nature. So that argument has been shot down pretty uniformly.

A second argument against it is that we do not need to increase it. But one of our last bank failures was a bank in Chicago, a medium-sized bank. And what we found, because we had not raised the coverage levels above $100,000 since 1980, we found over 700 customers of that bank lost a substantial amount of their deposits, and the reason they did that, if we think about what depositors do, we had several hundred of them that had an IRA account with that bank, and they had an IRA that was over $100,000, and they basically lost everything above $100,000. And one lady that was quoted in the Chicago Tribune said, The loss I sustained is going to be the difference between my having a retirement where I will not have to struggle, and now, basically having a bare bones retirement where I will have to struggle to make ends meet.

We have another situation that we talked about in committee, and that was the fact that today many people are selling and buying houses, and when they do, they put the proceeds of that sale or the purchase price for that sale in a bank account. In 1980 the average price of a home was around $100,000. Today it is several times that amount. So imagine that if one is closing on a house, they sell their house, they get a $400,000 or $300,000 check or even a $200,000 check for that house, and most Americans put their savings in a house, they go down to their bank and they deposit that check and the bank happens to fail.

And every once in a while, a bank does fail like the one in Chicago. In that case, they had 12 people that had deposited the proceeds from the sale of their homes in the weeks before and they lost all of that money above $100,000. Some would say and some have said in opposing coverage increase that what Americans ought to do is when they sell a home, if they sell a home for $300,000, they ought to ask the closing attorney to write three $100,000 checks and they ought to deposit that in three different banks, or, if they are going to purchase a house, they ought to go to three different institutions and deposit that money in three different institutions, and then when they show up at the closing, they ought to write three different checks.

We know as a practical matter, Mr. Chairman, that people are not going to do that, and we should not ask them to do that. What we ought to do is raise coverage levels to reflect realities today.

The last time that coverage was increased in 1980, if we increased it for inflation today, it would be well over $180,000. Instead, we are only increasing it to $100,000 as a compromise. If we went back to not 1980 but we went back to 1974, which was the time before that that it was increased $40,000, and if we had adjusted it in 1980, it would be over $200,000. If we disregarded that increase and went back to 1974, it would be $180,000. So we are actually playing catchup here, and we have used that smaller number in an attempt to compromise with those who objected to increasing it at all.

I will say this: This bill passed with 111 votes the first time it was up, I think, but, anyway, I will get those statistics later, but I think it had 18 ``no'' votes the first time, 11 ``no'' votes the second time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself all remaining time.

There are several things I think we need to say to correct the record. One was it was said by the gentleman in opposition that this was taxpayer guaranteed; and, in fact, these deposits are insured not by the taxpayer, but by the BIF and SAIF funds; and it is the depository that insures his own accounts. And for the taxpayer to pay one red cent, all assets of every federally insured financial institution would have to be exhausted before the taxpayer would have to pay one cent. In other words, all the assets of all of the federally insured banks and savings associations would have to be paid.

And in that regard, I am sure the gentleman from California would agree that if that moment ever came, we would be, we would probably be in dire straights, and I certainly never anticipate that happening. It has never happened in the history of our country. The savings and loans were exhausted, not the banks. The BIF account has never been exhausted; the savings and loan account thing was exhausted because of failures of savings and loans.

And if we say, as the gentleman said, that the reason why all the savings and loans failed is because we increased coverage from $100,000 to $130,000, we did that for the banks and the credit unions at the same time. No credit unions failed; very few banks failed. In some States, no institutions failed, where in States like California, Texas, where you had weak regulation, weak oversight, several failed; or you had the oil patch in Texas where many of them failed.

In fact, the cost to the taxpayer would have been greater had the first $100,000 of accounts not been insured. It would have been a much greater loss. Thank goodness the first $100,000 of accounts were insured. If we had another failure today, $130,000 would be insured, and we would have insurance for it. So to say that insurance coverage is taxpayer funded, the taxpayer is not funding this. If the taxpayer were funding it, his analogy would be right.

And the last thing that he says, and he has said this, is that this was the cause of the savings and loans to fail. This has been looked at by this Congress, it has been looked at by the FDIC, it has been looked at by the Federal Reserve and, actually, I am going to introduce this. This is about 20 different reasons that government reports have causes for the failures of the S&Ls; and on that list of 20, nowhere does it say because of an increase in coverage. In fact, the FBI submitted what they thought were the reasons, the FDIC submitted what they thought were the reasons, all the bank regulators, and nowhere on any of those lists do we find increase in coverage. In fact, what you do find is one study showed that taxpayer exposure was less because the funds were insured up to $100,000.

Mr. Chairman, I will just simply close by saying that all the Federal bank regulators say that this legislation will strengthen and reform our Federal guarantee program for bank deposits and by saying that today, if you sell a house for $120,000 or $140,000 or $160,000 or $200,000 and you deposit the proceeds in your bank account, you are probably not a rich person by definition. If you decide to buy a house and you put $150,000 in the bank or transfer it or get a loan from a bank and you deposit it in your account, you lose that, you certainly would not be defined as rich. And if you have a 401(k) and you happen to have over $100,000 in it, that does not make you a rich person. In fact, that represents, for many people, their entire savings is a 401(k); and, increasingly, those accounts are running over $100,000.

That is why the AARP and the Securities Investment Institute both endorsed this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I had one glaring oversight in this entire debate concerning the bill. And that is the fact that the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) who really played a monumental part in this legislation over the past 2 or 3 years and actually was the original cosponsor of this legislation has not been recognized.

I would like to commend her for her fine work on this bill. And I guess it is

a credit to her and her personality, despite that oversight she did not call attention to my omission. And so I commend the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). She is an outstanding Member of this body. And in this legislation, she deserves a lot of credit for its passage and its support.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, one thing the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) mentioned and I would like

to say in his defense: he has triplets at home, so I think we ought to have a lot of patience for the gentleman. They are very young. One- year-old triplets.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Second, the gentleman did mention the fact that we do have a provision in here covering municipal deposits or government deposits and that is for $2 million. The reason we did that is not to protect the big guy or the rich guy.

The reason we did that is from time to time a school system or a city or a county or a governmental retirement system will put $2 million or $1.5 million in a bank and it is really not practical for them to go around and put $100,000 in each bank. And that is basically as a result of the American Association of School Boards and others saying not only do we want to deposit more than that, but in several States, particularly the Farm Belt, there is only one hometown institution. And the school board or the government or the city or the fire district wants to deposit their money in their own hometown. And that is to allow that.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I have two counties, one is Bibb County, one is Shelby County. The school board in those counties is forced to take about 96 percent of their money and deposit it out of county because there are only two hometown institutions, and they would like to deposit in those, as long as those are rated A institutions, and again I say that they are paying a premium on their deposits for this coverage.

The second thing I would say is if the gentleman will go back to 1980, what you had is we deregulated the savings and loans. We made tremendous changes in their mission. And at that time they had 30-year mortgages. They had loaned out money at 4 percent, 4.5 percent, 5 percent. From 1979 to 1981, the interest rates increased, the Federal Reserve continued to increase the interest rate because of inflation, which the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) mentioned, and they drove the interest rate up above 20 percent. The prime rate was 21 percent.

So the savings and loans were having to borrow money at 21 percent and had loaned it out at 4 and 5 percent; and predictably, particularly in Texas where the price of oil fell, the savings and loans in Texas started failing one right after the other. And as I said earlier, if it were this increase from 40 to 100,000, you would have expected to see it show up in the banks; you would expect it to show up throughout the Nation.

I do not think the people in Texas where most of the first failures occurred, Louisiana, I do not think they were engaged in any more fraudulent conduct or reckless behavior except that what they were doing, that was a boom economy in Texas and property values shot up, and there was a bubble and they came back down.

But during all of that, the bank fund did not fail. And as I have said before, before one dollar of taxpayer money comes out of this account, it requires the funds to be exhausted. It, second, requires the banks, their assets to be liquidated, and only at that point would the taxpayer step in. That would be a heck of a depression. And I think that would be a depression made only worse if school boards, governments lost their deposits, if people lost their 401(k)s, if they lost any of their savings above $100,000, businesses who had accounts. And some of those might be rich people, the guy that owns the small business and has $400,000 or $600,000 deposited or a contracting company that has just been paid on a contract.

I think it would make the recession or depression or economic shock that much worse. I believe that this legislation is sound legislation and should be supported.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have before us a conference report that everybody should understand there has really been no conference in which House and Senate Democrats have had any meaningful role.

Our objection to this bill begins with its title: The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Let us be honest, this bill does not reduce the deficit. When this reconciliation bill with spending cuts is paired with its counterpart, the reconciliation bill with tax cuts, the deficit is actually increased, not decreased; and the increase in the deficit gets worse when you add, as I think you should, the $50 bill in other tax cuts passed by the House over the last few months.

At the outset, the proponents of this bill called it necessary in order to help pay for hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That has proven to be a false claim, too. This bill has nothing to do with paying for Katrina. It has everything to do with facilitating further tax cuts. This bill comes out of a budget resolution that calls for a total of $106 billion in new and additional tax cuts, $70 billion reconciled, $36 billion unreconciled.

So the spending cuts in this bill are really just the first step in a three-step process. Step two will come when the tax cuts reconciliation bill emerges from conference. When these two bills are paired, the result will be a deficit bigger by about $60 billion over 5 years.

Then there is a third step. There is an increase in the national debt pending, an increase in the national debt ceiling of $781 billion necessary to accommodate budgets like the 2006 budget being passed here tonight. This increase was deemed approved when the Republican budget resolution passed the House several months ago.

Over the last 4 fiscal years, to make room for budgets of the Bush administration and budgets that have been passed by the majority in this House, we have had to raise the legal debt ceiling of the United States by $3.15 trillion to accommodate those budgets.

Once upon a time, the purpose of reconciliation was to rein in the deficit; but as you can see from the charts I am about to put up, and I knew this was just what you wanted me to serve you for breakfast this morning, more numbers and more charts, so I did not disappoint.

First of all, when you put this chart up, you can see what the debt increases have been over the last 4 or 5 fiscal years: $3.15 trillion. As Casey Stengel said, ``If you don't believe it, you can look it up.'' $3.15 trillion.

Next, let me show you what reconciliation in past years has accomplished as opposed to what reconciliation this year will accomplish in terms of reducing the deficit. In past years, for example the Bush budget summit in 1990, the deficit reduction due to reconciliation was $482 billion. In the Clinton budget in 1993, the deficit reduction due to reconciliation was $433 billion. In the balanced budget agreement of 1997, reconciliation produced savings of $118 billion over 5 years. This bill saves nothing. It aggravates and worsens the deficit.

Now, it is fair to ask: Why have the Republicans, those who put this budget together, why have they put spending cuts in one bill and tax cuts in another bill? Why did they not just combine the two so we could keep tabs on everything with one reconciliation bill? Which is typically what we have done in the past.

Well, there is a reason for this hiatus between spending cuts and tax cuts. The spending cuts made by this bill will hit the young, the old, the sick, and the poor, and hit them rather hard. The savings realized from these spending cuts will help offset tax cuts for top-bracket taxpayers. Our Republican colleagues want to avoid that connection, so they have produced two separate bills, one for tax cuts, and then a little later on, one for spending cuts.

Who bears the brunt of these bills? Single mothers still do. Despite some moderation in the effect of the cuts that were proposed originally, single mothers still take about a $2 billion hit. Students struggling to pay for their college education. The hit on student loans is $12.7 billion. The sick and the poor, whose only access to medical care is Medicaid. Medicaid still suffers a hit of $7 billion.

So these cuts have been moderated in the conference with the Senate, but

some of the worst of the House bill provisions are still there. A bit less significant, but still hurtful to the people who are the victims of these particular cuts.

And bear this in mind. Bear this in mind. This bill still increases, for all of the cuts it makes, still increases the deficit, still uses spending cuts to offset tax cuts, and still cuts services for the least among us, the most vulnerable and poorest Americans.

In short, there are many reasons this bill does not live up to its title, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. It makes deep and painful cuts still, only to pave the way for new and additional tax cuts and never mind the deficit. The result is a larger deficit. So in this respect, today's legislation is like the budget resolution that set it in motion. This is one of a series of fiscal actions that will cause the debt ceiling of the United States at the end of this year to be move to $3.15 trillion.

Bear in mind that when the Bush administration came to office, it inherited a surplus and predicted that this surplus would endure even if its trillion dollar tax cuts were adopted. Well, the Bush budget was adopted, and in fiscal 2005 the bottom line was not a surplus of $269 billion, as once projected, but a deficit of $319 billion.

Realistic estimates from CBO show that if you take the Bush budget of 2006 as last proposed in July, and they are updated, if you take that budget and run it out 10 years with all the assumptions made in the Bush budget, these are the results. The deficit of last year, which was $320 billion, this is CBO, will go to $640 billion, if you follow the trajectory shown here, the curve shown here. The deficit goes from $320 billion to $640 billion. It doubles.

Debt service on the debt goes from $182 billion last year to $458 billion in 10 years, and the national debt doubles. That is the course we are embarked upon as we do one more part of a long series of fiscal actions that are leading us deeper and deeper into debt, and nobody should be fooled by what is happening here on the House floor tonight. Once the pieces are all put together, and you can see the whole puzzle, this means a deeper deficit and no resolution to the problem before us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it may be 5:15 in the morning, but that is not our fault. We would liked to have done this in the light of day with a little more time to look at this package. Here is what we have got just 1 hour ago.

When we unpacked the package to see what was in it, we had the Speaker's press release, which told us earlier in the evening that, by golly, you would come up with $41.6 billion in total spending reductions. We got this package, and, finally, looking through 700 pages, we finally got a summary of the action taken, and they came to $39.7 billion. It was $1.9 billion less than the Speaker had claimed earlier. Even for government work, that is not very close.

Here is the Speaker's press release. We discern that this difference came from the fact that between the Speaker's press release and the release of this voluminous document here called the budget resolution, or the budget reconciliation bill, there was a deal made with the medical equipment manufacturers and suppliers with respect to Medicare reimbursement, a deal that costs your total package $1.9 billion.

If I am not right, I would like to be corrected, which leads us to ask, if you could adjust for them to the tune of $1.9 billion, couldn't we have gone back and looked at student loans and moderated the cuts being inflicted on them? Couldn't we have gone back and looked at children with delinquent dads and moderated what we were doing with respect to the cuts in child support enforcement, foster care, and the other things that are still in this bill? If you could do that for the medical equipment manufacturers, couldn't you do it for the least of these?

Mr. Speaker, it may be 5:20 in the morning, but Mr. Dingell is still up and ready for a good fight. I yield to the gentleman for 4 minutes.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, lest anyone think that we are about to launch a bill here that

will lead us to a balanced budget, let me disabuse you of that illusion.

First of all, let us look at some of the specific items in this particular package to see whether or not they are real in the way of budget reduction.

For example, this bill calls for the abolition of mandatory spending to administer the student loan program. Now, how do you administer the student loan program if you do not provide the funding for it? If you do not provide the mandatory funding for it, it has to come out of discretionary funding. That means we will be underfunding No Child Left Behind and other discretionary educational programs by $2 billion a year more, because that is where the money for administration of the student loan programs will have to come from if you bar its coming from mandatory spending. It is a phony cut.

Secondly, $3.6 billion is scored as a revenue to offset these spending increases, $3.6 billion in PBGC premiums. Now why is that not allowable? In my good accounting book, if you book all of the liabilities that PBGC is faced with over the foreseeable future, there is no net balance in that account, even after you add this $3.6 billion. That money is entrusted. It is encumbered and it cannot fairly be said to be available in the general fund to offset other spending. In truth, it will be spent much, much too soon anyway, and we will have to replenish it.

Third, child support enforcement. You have moderated that. You have brought it down from $4.9 billion, which was absurd, to $1.5 billion, which still hurts. You either shift that expense to the States that are responsible for child support enforcement, or parents who are looking to delinquent parents to pay their child support will have less assistance, and they will collect less in the way of child support. It is a false economy.

You say there are no tax increases in your bill. But the PBGC premium increase is certainly equivalent to the same thing. It will come out of paychecks. And the Medicare part B under your provisions is certainly going up. It will come out of Social Security checks. It is offset.

And then there is another thing about your bill that is myopic that gives us real problems with it. In looking for places to cut, you wholly ignore any kind of revenue effects connected with your tax cut agenda. And the way you are able to do this, and avoid responsibility for it, is you break the tax cuts into so many small pieces that you clutter the audit trail and make it hard for anybody, Members and otherwise, to follow just how big the tax tab, the tax cut tab is adding up to.

So let me take two charts here and try to reconstruct the path, the audit trail of tax cuts that has been implemented since the budget resolution for 2006 was passed just a few minutes ago, a few months ago, and what it means for the bottom line, that is, the deficit.

Let us start with the highway bill passed earlier this year. This revenue impact is about $500 million over 5 years. Next comes the energy policy act. Revenue loss over 5 years is $7.9 billion. Then there is the Katrina tax relief act of 2005, which we adopted a few weeks ago. It has a revenue head of $6 billion.

The biggest tax cuts come from that bill that is waiting in the wings for this bill to be passed; and it will come along a little bit later, the Tax Extension Reconciliation Act of 2006, 20005. It entails tax cuts for $56 billion over 5 years passed by this House, $80 billion over 10 years. Then there is the so-called Stealth Tax Relief Act, patching the alternative minimum tax for this year so that it affects no more taxpayers than it affected last year. The cost for 1 year: $31.2 billion. Covers only 1 year.

The Tax Revision Act of 2005 is just a sundry assortment of tax measures; but it has a revenue cost too, $153 million over 5 years. And finally there is the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, revenue impact: $7 billion.

Now, add all of these together and you will see that the total revenue impact entailed by these tax policies comes to $110 billion. So this reconciliation bill offsets about $40 billion of that amount, leaving an additional debt of around $80 billion. That is the net effect of this reconciliation bill. That is why we say it does not decrease the deficit when you pair it up with this other reconciliation bill, the tax cuts. It increases the deficit. But that is not all. That is not the worst of it.

As we have shown, in patching up the AMT last year and again this year, it has to be fixed or it is going to raise the taxes of middle- income taxpayers for whom it was never intended. If we do basically in future years what we have done this year, the revenue impact of patching the AMT is shown right here, $167 billion. That makes the revenue impact of all seven tax cuts $307 billion. Offset your 40 billion against that, you have still got $267 billion in tax reduction over the next 5 years. That is why I say it is myopic. You are looking for solutions to this problem and overlooking one of the bases of the problem, ignoring the fact that if we are going to tackle a deficit worth 320 and rising, we have got to have action on the spending side of the ledger and on the tax side of the ledger as well.

That is the problem here, and that is why I say if you leave here thinking, after voting for this bill, that you have begun a series of fiscal actions that will bring the budget to heel, that you will finally reduce the deficit of $320 million, you are badly, badly disillusioned. Once again, let me show you a chart the CBO did for us last September when we asked them to take the budget that they had just portrayed out over a 10-year period of time and apply to it the President's budget policy as enunciated in his July mid-term review.

This is what happened. They said, you are going to follow this path right here that takes you to 640 billion total deficit, a doubling of the deficit over 10 years. You are going to increase the debt service in the United States from $182 billion to $458 billion 10 years from now, and you are going to double the national debt. That is the path we are on, and this bill tonight will not divert us 1 inch. Indeed, it will aggravate that path and that is the plea that I am making to you. That is why you should vote against this bill. Reject it now. Come back next year. Let us do something realistic about deficit reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 653 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today has changed somewhat from its travels in the Senate. The rhetoric on the other side of the aisle has not. It is the same old tired class-warfare rhetoric, more befitting of a response to the State of the Union than anything at all related to a parliamentary inquiry regarding unfunded mandates.

The specific point as it relates to an unfunded mandate claim by the other side regarding the child support changes in the Deficit Reduction Act is simply not correct. According to the GAO, in 2004 the Federal Government paid 88 percent of all child support program costs. Eighty- eight percent. Ten States made money on their program from the taxpayers from the other 40 States. Ten States retained more child support collections than it cost them to operate it. They actually generated substantial profit with the Federal Government picking up 100 percent of their costs, the Federal Government obviously not being a nebulous concept, the Federal government being the other 40 States subsidizing 10 States' child support programs to the tune of a profit.

Over the next 5 years, the Federal Government will spend nearly $20 billion on child support program costs. That is after the changes that are made here in the Deficit Reduction Act, and still far more than the States are expected to spend. States continue to receive $500 million in Federal incentive funds every year, on top of $2 in Federal funds for every $1 of State funds spent for a 66 percent Federal matching rate. Not a bad deal.

Set in this context, this claim of unfunded mandates is simply not correct and not meaningful. The child support savings in the Deficit Reduction Act result from ending the practice of States claiming Federal matching funds for spending Federal child support incentive funds, double dipping, if you will.

This double dipping cannot be justified. Closing this loophole, which is what it amounts to, saves $1.6 billion over 5 years with no impact on services being provided to the clients. The change would not take effect until fiscal year 2008, giving States 2 years to adjust to the change. And States could replace every penny of expected Federal savings by increasing their own

spending modestly with the Federal Government filling in the difference. States could unlock $2 Federal dollars for every $1 spent under the program's 66 percent match rate. So if States want to increase spending by $900 million, they would have to pony up $300 million of their own. Again, not a bad deal for the States. I think it is a return that most investors would accept readily.

CBO's letter that the gentleman refers to shows it is impossible to achieve even modest savings in this open-ended entitlement program without raising an underfunded mandate objection. Unless your goal is to prevent any reduction in Federal spending, which I think it is fair to stipulate is their goal, this is not a meaningful objection.

Even with this change, CBO expects child support collections will grow each and every year and the projections bear that out, rising from $24 billion today to $28 billion in 2010 and $34 billion in 2015, clearly only a Democratic definition of a cut.

Other features of the Deficit Reduction Act would provide States significant Federal welfare funds, including $17 billion in annual TANF block grants through 2010 and $3 billion in mandatory child care through 2010, a $1 billion increase above current law.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I remind the gentleman that today we will spend $24 billion on the child support collection program to which he refers. By 2010, we will spend $28 billion on the same program; by 2015, $34 billion.

The gentleman is worried about June, July, August, September, October, and yes, even November. We are worried about 2010, 2020, and 2030, about getting our arms around an exploding entitlement program that is engorging the entire Federal budget, and your actions to stop any and all responsible budgeting to prevent entitlement spending from taking up two-thirds of the Federal budget within the decade, to prevent any meaningful Social Security reform that would guarantee that GenX-ers out there will have the same opportunities that those in their seventies have, to prevent the types of entitlement reforms that are needed to save the very programs that you are so proud of in Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare, that are worthy pillars of this domestic government, you block each and every time, including this action which is a very modest savings that still generates more money each and every year by substantial sums than the previous and still guarantees a high level of service to the young people.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, nowhere in the CBO score for this report is there any estimates that States will lose TANF funds for failure to operate satisfactory child support programs. They would score as an additional Federal savings if they did, and that is just not there.

I think I have answered the gentleman's question.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This debate has devolved into a 10-minute extension of the overall concept of deficit reduction. The unfunded mandates claim does not ring true. There is more money going into these States. States have been double-dipping, and the action in this bill today will simply close that loophole and end that practice, particularly by the 10 States that have been operating on Federal dollars at a profit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the Deficit Reduction Act yet again to address some technical amendments that were made by the Senate. House Resolution 653 provides that the House agree with the Senate amendments to the House passed version of S. 1932. S. 1932 provides for reconciliation as described in the Congressional budget resolution of 2006.

As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee and a conferee on this legislation, I am pleased to bring this legislation to the floor for what we hope will be its final, final consideration.

For the first time since 1997, the Congressional budget resolution included deficit reduction instructions to authorizing committees to find and achieve mandatory program savings for a more accountable government. It does this by finding smarter ways to spend and by slowing the rate of the growth of government, especially on the mandatory side of the ledger.

The Deficit Reduction Act seeks to curb the unsustainable growth rate of mandatory programs that are set to consume 62 percent of our total budget in the next decade if left unchecked. The agreement will stimulate reform of these entitlement programs, many of which are outdated, inefficient and excessively costly.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this legislation, and I am proud of the work that this House, through its authorizing

committees, through the Budget Committee process, through, in short, regular order has achieved. I am proud of that. I am proud that this legislation begins a long-term effort at slowing the growth of entitlement spending.

Our goal was to control government spending so that Americans can keep more of their own money instead of having the government seize more. The authorizing committees from both Chambers have worked very hard to find savings within their individual jurisdictions that total nearly $40 billion in efficiency. The agreement allows programs and agencies to weed out waste, fraud, abuse, duplication of effort, so that we can channel more Federal dollars to programs that succeed and to the people who are truly in need, to serve the intended populations more efficiently, more effectively, and in smarter ways.

I look forward to passing this reform bill and reaffirming sound oversight and fiscal responsibility here in Washington. This legislation is a step towards smarter, more competent government. I urge Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the senior member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who also serves on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to correct the gentlewoman from Connecticut with regards to the Washington Post article. As is common in this media culture of get-it-fast instead of get-it-right, there was no lobby fix.

The Deficit Reduction Act establishes a timeline for phasing out overpayments to Medicare advantage plans. The Secretary of HHS had already proposed correcting those payment levels but had not set a timeline. Until the Secretary acts, Medicare is currently paying too much to those Medicare advantage plans, and the Deficit Reduction Act sets the timeline for the Secretary to fix it.

The simple explanation for the $22 billion reduction in CBO score is that the Deficit Reduction Act assumes that once the payment system is fixed over the next 5 years the Secretary will have the good sense to keep paying them at the proper level.

So it is incorrect to say that there was a $22 billion giveaway. CBO's estimate assumes that the Secretary will revert to overpaying those same people.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, both of the gentlemen are very eloquent, except they miss the overall point, which is that we are debating the technical amendments to what the House passed long before the President's State of the Union speech.

The three changes that were made by the Senate, that we are dealing with today and that are different than what we have already voted on as a body, deal with a value-based purchasing report, a MedPAC report, MedPAC being the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and medical liability. Three items that, for technical rule reasons in the Senate, were stripped, causing the bill to be sent back over here.

The timing of this, situated as it is the day after the President's State of the Union, is irrelevant to the overall issue. We have already voted on this except for these three changes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Under your definition, sir, people continue to get more money year after year after year and it is a cut. Under your definition.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again the other side is trying to have it both ways. In alternating speaker form, we are in turn told we are awash in a sea of red ink and that this measure is not adequate to deal with the deficit, and then the next speaker says we have consistently underbudgeted for the Nation's priorities and have not spent anywhere nearly enough money for all of the things that they would like to see spent.

Their metaphors are as limitless as their desire to spend the hardworking Americans' money in the sense we have heard that we are going to throw away Tiny Tim's crutches when we did this at the end of last year, we were told that we were the Grinch, and we were quoted to extensively from literary and

historic figures, and the bottom line is this: We have an explosion of baby-boomers in this country that will create a demographic crisis and we have an explosion on the mandatory side of our budget that will consume two-thirds of it within less than a decade. Already half of the Federal budget is on autopilot. This is the first step since 1997 in beginning to get our arms around that problem.

I urge Members to support this first step towards long-term fiscal discipline and fiscal health for this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005. This is a strong bipartisan effort. I commend the leadership of Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank, as well as Subcommittee Chair Bachus and Ranking Member Sanders. This will be, hopefully, the third time that this Congress has passed this legislation. It has enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

Federal deposit insurance, established during the Great Depression to restore confidence in the Nation's troubled banking system, has served our country well; but no system is perfect, and Congress has periodically revised our deposit insurance laws in response to changing economic and industry conditions. There is a growing consensus triggered in part by recommendations by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, that deposit insurance is overdue for needed structural reform.

H.R. 1185 would merge the Bank Insurance Fund, BIF, and the Savings Association Insurance Fund, SAIF, into a single fund covering all banks and thrifts; increase per-account coverage levels from $100,000 to $130,000; and adjust that coverage for inflation every 5 years beginning in 2007; and double the $130,000 coverage amount in the case of certain retirement accounts, including IRAs and 401(k)s. Providing $260,000 in deposit insurance coverage for retirement accounts is critically important in an era when many Americans have accumulated retirement nest eggs that far exceed $100,000, and when, according to FDIC estimates, there is more than $200 billion in IRA accounts alone in this Nation's banking system.

Several high-profile bank failures in recent years have given many Americans a rude awakening as they discover that amounts in their retirement accounts above the $100,000 coverage limit are uninsured.

The bill also raises coverage levels on in-state, municipal or public deposits. This will have the effect of encouraging local government agencies to keep more of their deposits in the local communities where the funds were generated, thus promoting economic growth in those areas.

Finally, the bill fully implements a provision enacted more than a decade ago to give banks a discount on their deposit insurance premiums for deposits attributable to so-called basic banking accounts which provide a financial lifeline for low-income families that are currently without bank coverage.

This has strong bipartisan support. This legislation passed this body last year with a vote of 411 to 11, and this year's effort likewise enjoys very strong bipartisan support.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time and for his leadership as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I am very supportive of this outstanding bipartisan bill. I am supportive of the overwhelming majority of the provisions in it. It is long past due to merge the BIF and SAIF insurance funds, and additionally, eliminating the 23 basis point clip, and providing a new premium system that takes into account the past contributions of institutions are major steps forward.

The bill includes a mechanism for determining credits for past contributions to the insurance funds that is based on an amendment that I cosponsored with former Representative Bereuter. This is a very, very important provision as a matter of fairness to institutions that recapitalized the funds, and I thank very much the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for including this balanced and important amendment in the base legislation.

Despite the many very positive parts of this bill, I believe the immediate 30 percent increase in insurance coverage in the bill is a serious mistake. This coverage increase to $130,000 is opposed by many Federal financial service regulators, including Alan Greenspan. I would like to place in the Record his comments in opposition, and state that I support the bill overwhelming, but this provision I am opposed to.

I thank the leadership and the ranking member for working in a balanced way to move this important legislation forward.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) our ranking member, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), our chairman, for working in a bipartisan way for truly the grand goal of safety and soundness in our financial systems and keeping them competitive in the world financial market.

My amendment is one that I am going to offer and withdraw, because the chairman has generously offered to work with me in committee under a separate introduced bill to pass the intent of this. And what my amendment would do is that it would prevent banks from charging customers bounced check fees when the money is already there in the bank, and when it is simply a matter of which journal entry the bank makes first.

We did have a hearing on this earlier in the Committee on Financial Services. And some of the banks' representatives testified that many banks do this already. So this amendment would simply require all banks to do so consistently and prevent abuses.

In other words, if money is there, but it has been deposited, then you cannot withdraw that money, the deposited money should be credited before the money is withdrawn from the bank.

My amendment would also prevent banks from charging customers for overdraft protection when the customer has not requested this service. Again, this is simple and fair and straightforward. And sometimes, in some cases in some banks, the overdraft protection costs more than the overdraft penalty.

So it would really prevent hidden charges and fees for services customers have not even asked for, in this case, financial institutions. So I have been assured that by the parliamentarian that my amendment would be immune from a point of order. The Committee on Rules accepted it.

But I will be withdrawing it with the consideration of the chairman to fully discuss this in committee, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) our chairman, and I thank you for working in a bipartisan way on this and so many other issues.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I believe the immediate 30 percent increase in insurance coverage in the bill is a serious mistake. The coverage increase to $130,000 is opposed by most of the Federal financial service regulators.

Proponents of the increased coverage argue that it poses no risk to the insurance system, but the regulators who oppose this increase are the very officials whose job it is to protect the safety and soundness of the financial system. The almost unanimous opposition to increased coverage by the regulators is a very powerful message.

I would like to really quote some of these regulators. Alan Greenspan has come out very strongly opposed to it. He said, ``It is unlikely that increased coverage, even by indexing, would add to the stability of the banking system today.''

The Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Monetary Policy, Peter Fisher, said, ``Increasing the overall coverage limit would weaken market discipline and further increase the level of risk to the FDIC and to taxpayers.''

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the Record quotes from the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Congressional Budget Office, all raising questions and in opposition to this raise.

Another argument put forth by proponents of coverage increases is that inflation has eroded deposit insurance. I do not believe that this argument matches the actual situation of the banking industry. The fact is that only 2 percent of insured accounts have more than $100,000 according to the Federal Reserve.

Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time I would like to place this study into the Record.

The same Federal Reserve study put the average account balance at $6,000 across America. Any way you look at it, the increase in coverage will benefit very few depositors.

Proponents of increasing coverage also contend that because insurance premiums are paid by banks, increasing coverage does not cost taxpayers. While I concede the point, I think we also have to remember that behind the Federal deposit insurance funds is the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

Since I joined the Committee on Financial Services in 1993 at the close of the S&L crisis, I have been committed as all of my colleagues are on both sides of the aisle to protecting the safety and soundness of the banking system.

While I concede and agree with my colleagues that the causes of the S&L failures were many, the fact is that standing behind the insurance system are our constituent taxpayers. The bailout we voted for was constituent taxpayer dollars to bail out the S&L.

No matter what the reasons are for a future bank failure or a string of failures, there could be many reasons for them, by raising the insurance coverage, we increase the potential liability of the government and, thereby, the American taxpayer.

I also believe that raising the coverage may encourage the concept of moral hazard. Institutions will be encouraged to engage in riskier behavior to boost earnings if they know that failure is ensured by the Federal Government.

I would also like to place in the Record a letter to Members of Congress from The Financial Services Roundtable, which very strongly supports the underlying bill, which is a

fine piece of work that has passed this body two times previously, but also raises many concerns about raising the limit to $130,000.

The material that I referred to previously I will insert into the Record at this point.

The Financial Services Roundtable,

Washington, DC, April 22, 2005.

Hon. Barney Frank,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Barney: I would like to commend you on your leadership

and continued efforts on deposit insurance reform. An

effective deposit insurance system is critical to the economy

and maintaining public confidence in the U.S. banking system.

The Roundtable is committed to working with the Financial

Services Committee to develop reasonable, responsible deposit

insurance reform legislation that the Roundtable and the

industry can support.

The Roundtable supports the passage of H.R. 1185, the

``Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005.'' We also

support the adoption of the ``Managers Amendment.''

The Financial Services Roundtable, a national association

representing 100 of the largest integrated financial services

companies that together constitute nearly 70 percent of the

deposit insurance assessment base, believe that H.R. 1185

will help assure a sound deposit insurance system. In

particular, we believe a major improvement to the bill was a

provision that stated no insured depository institution shall

be barred from the lowest-risk category solely because of

size.

Further, the Roundtable supports: Merging the Bank

Insurance Fund (``BIF'') and the Savings Association

Insurance Fund (``SAIF''). A combined BIF/SAIF would be

stronger and more resilient. The provision in your bill that

caps the FDIC's assessment authority at 1 basis point for

those institutions in the lowest-risk category. The bill's

study of the effectiveness of the prompt corrective action

program, and a strong system of credits and rebates such as

you have in your legislation.

We remain concerned about provisions in the bill that would

increase deposit insurance coverage limits. Our members

believe that raising coverage limits could weaken market

discipline and increase risk to the FDIC, all insured

institutions, and ultimately American taxpayers. Federal

Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated there is no

evidence that an increase in coverage levels would promote

competition or materially improve the ability of financial

institutions to obtain funds. As Chairman Greenspan noted,

the evidence in recent years shows that financial

institutions of all sizes have not experienced difficulty

in obtaining funding from insured or uninsured deposits.

For those customers with substantial deposits, ample

opportunities exist to obtain FDIC coverage equal to

several multiples of $100,000. Since the FDIC is in good

shape financially, there is no need to grant the FDIC

additional authority to levy deposit insurance premiums.

Thank you again for your leadership on deposit insurance

reform and your consideration of the Roundtable's views on

this important matter. We look forward to working with you as

this legislation moves through the legislative process. If

you or your staff have any questions or would like to discuss

these issues further, please call Irving Daniels or me at

(202) 289-4322.

Best regards,

Steve Bartlett,

President and CEO.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of this rule, H. Res. 653. Section 425 of that same act states that a point of order lies against legislation which imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of specified amounts against State or local governments. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that a rule may not waive the application of section 425.

H. Res. 653 states that the House hereby concurs in the Senate amendment to the bill S. 1932 to provide for reconciliation. This self- executing rule effectively waives the application of section 425 to provisions in the underlying bill on child support enforcement which the Congressional Budget Office informs us impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Therefore, I make a point of order that the rule may not be considered pursuant to section 426.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that a lot of moderate Republicans wish they were somewhere else today, anywhere where they could escape the embarrassment of voting against the American people one more time in a brand-new year just after that State of the Union last night.

Here we go again. The first legislative act of 2006 looks just like the last legislative day of 2005. Republicans call this a reconciliation, but it is really Republican resignation from meeting the needs of American people or addressing the issues that threaten our security.

This vote will occur out in the open on the House floor, but the deals were cut in secret behind closed doors with the American people locked out and the Republican Party locked in.

Until Republican leaders got what they wanted, and it is not in the best interest of the American people, we have before us today an example of the President's ownership society: you own the problem. This bill removes Federal money from child support enforcement and for caring for abused kids, requiring States to pick up the tab.

Republicans will twist arms to pass this unconscionable and unfunded mandate. If you are a middle-class student, Republican reconciliation will have you seeing red because your college education will be awash in high-priced debt. Republican leaders care so much about middle-class America that they are cutting $12 billion in student loans.

Want an education? Financial institutions give Republicans a lot more money than you do. Now you get to give the financial institutions a whole lot more money. That is some rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick. By the magic of Republican reconciliation, students will pay more, your parents will pay more when they try to help you, and America will pay more when we deny the next generation the opportunity to get a higher education.

Republicans increase the interest rate for their core corporate constituency and increase the failure rate of the Nation investing in a more important asset: our next generation. Republican reconciliation offers dollars that make no sense. That is what happens when Republican Members have to answer to their leadership before their constituents.

Republicans talk about security, but there is no security in gutting a student loan program that invests in America's future. There is no common sense either. That is no surprise, of course. Republican reconciliation sacrifices common sense for uncommon greed.

Students from solid middle-class families will suffer. So will seniors who use Medicare, because almost $7 billion in Medicare cuts are buried inside this Republican reconciliation. Seniors will pay more so that America's wealthiest can keep more.

The Republicans have squandered our commitment to America's distinguished citizens in order to trade need for greed. Part B premiums for some Medicare beneficiaries are going up because the Republicans locked themselves into a conference committee without the Democrats and locked the American people out.

On Friday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office informed us that $28 billion in cuts to Medicaid in this bill would impose new costs on 13 million poor and working-poor recipients. These are the people the President said last night we are taking care of your health care. Brother, you don't want a guy like that taking care of you.

By 2015, new fees would end insurance coverage for 65,000 Medicaid enrollees, 60 percent of them children.

Meanwhile, the cost of prescription drugs will rise and the number of people helped will fall.

It all happened when Republicans gathered and locked out America. Why debate in public when you can decide it in secrecy? That is the way the Republicans like to do it. They hope no one will notice. They forgot that when middle America is floundering in a lifeboat with loss of pensions, loss of health care, loss of jobs, the Republicans capsize the boat. It is hard not to notice. Water is pouring in all around us, just like New Orleans. Remember when the President said, ``Brownie, you are doing a heck of a job.'' He sure did. Rarely have we seen so much lost over so little, dinner.

Republicans have raised the bar with reconciliation. As bad as it will be for students and as hard as it will be for seniors, Republicans saved their worst tactics for our most vulnerable and defenseless citizens: Kids in foster care, kids in single parent households, kids in low-income families, and kids in families with a disabled parent.

This reconciliation cuts almost $3 billion from programs for America's most vulnerable children. Deadbeat dads, have a great day, guys. The Republicans have given you a head start out of responsibility. Someone may find you eventually. The program to make sure that child support is paid crumbles under this Republican rule.

Today Republicans have resigned from their responsibility to take care of America's interests. They say all of these problems are up to the States to solve on their own because that is what they mean by an ownership society: States own the problems.

Republicans are now telling States to put more welfare recipients into make-work activities, but they do not provide any resources to achieve that goal. They do not even let child care funding keep pace with inflation. So States may have to cut child care assistance to pay for the new welfare requirements. It is just one more unfunded mandate for the States and one more burden for working families.

Now, cash would be nice, but they have drained the Treasury to pay for the President's economic stimulus. Now it is an addiction. Just keep giving the wealthiest Americans more and more money. There is no end to how much money the President is willing to give them, and there is no end to how much money it will take from a host of foreign governments to finance a deficit rising higher than the sky.

Reconciliation by Republicans is a one-point program: Make the rich richer. It was crafted in secret. At least now finally it is out in the open.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who stopped the attempt to privatize Social Security.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it probably does not surprise most Americans when Republicans and Democrats have different opinions on a bill, so let me highlight the opinion of a third voice, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Here is what they say about the legislation before us.

Our Bishops' Conference is deeply disappointed that the

final budget reconciliation conference agreement coming once

again before the House of Representatives includes provisions

in these areas which we believe could prove harmful to many

low-income children, families, elderly and people with

disabilities who are least able to provide for themselves.

Because of these concerns, we ask you to oppose the budget

reconciliation conference agreement.

Bishops' President Urges House To Reject Budget Agreement

Washington (January 30, 2006).--The recent budget

reconciliation bill fails to ``meet the needs of the most

vulnerable among us,'' said Bishop William S. Skylstad,

president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

in a January 24 letter to the House of Representatives.

Bishop Skylstad said the greatest concerns were over:

increased Medicaid cost-sharing burdens; cuts to child

support enforcement; changes in Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families programs which underfund work programs and

childcare; and cuts to agriculture conservation programs.

``We urge you to reject the conference agreement and work

for policies that put poor children and families first,''

Bishop Skylstad said.

The text of the entire letter follows.

January 24, 2006.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: In December, as President of the

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I wrote to you

expressing serious concerns about provisions in the budget

reconciliation bill. The proposed changes in Medicaid, child

support enforcement funding, Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF), and agriculture conservation programs, in

particular, could have a negative impact upon the most

vulnerable in our nation.

Our Bishops' Conference is deeply disappointed that the

final budget reconciliation conference agreement coming once

again before the House of Representatives includes provisions

in these areas which we believe could prove harmful to many

low-income children, families, elderly and people with

disabilities who are least able to provide for themselves.

Because of these concerns, we ask you to oppose the budget

reconciliation conference agreement.

Among the areas of most concern to us are:

Increased Medicaid cost-sharing burdens and eroding federal

benefit standards which can result in low-income children,

families, pregnant women, elderly and those with disabilities

not getting the care they need.

Cuts to child support enforcement, which will mean

collecting billions less in child support for children and

families than under current law.

TANF-related provisions, including:

Immediate and significant changes in state TANF work rules

(although additional proposals to increase hours worked per

week were wisely abandoned) without providing sufficient

additional funding needed to run work programs and provide

child care. This will mean states may have to choose between

cutting child care for low-income working families, reducing

other services for low-income people, or cutting back on cash

assistance for needy families; policies that could have the

effect of disadvantaging two-parent families and married

couples; and failure to restore TANF benefit eligibility to

recently-arrived legal immigrants. Cuts to

key agriculture conservation programs, which will undermine

efforts to promote soil conservation, improve water quality,

protect wildlife, and maintain biodiversity.

We recognize that the bill also includes positive elements,

such as additional funding for victims of Hurricane Katrina

and a program to promote marriage and healthy families. We

are also grateful that cuts to the Food Stamps program were

dropped from the package. However, we believe that, overall,

the impact of this bill will be to fail to meet the needs of

the most vulnerable among us. Therefore, we urge you to

reject the conference agreement and work for policies that

put poor children and families first.

There are many challenges and much tumult in Washington

that demand the attention of our leaders. However, an

essential priority of government is to provide for the

general welfare of its people, especially ``the least among

us.''

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.