Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks that occurred on November 9, 2005, in Amman, Jordan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of very quick comments on the process. I had the privilege to attend a National Governors Association Conference early

last spring on the issue of Medicaid reform, and Subcommittee Chairman Nathan Deal was with me at that conference, and Ranking Member Dingell and, I believe, even subcommittee Ranking Member Brown was at that conference. And the Governors, on a bipartisan basis, said they wanted to work with the House Energy and Commerce Committee to help reform Medicaid this year.

They supported legislative action. Mr. Deal and I said we would be happy to work with the Governors to try to come up with a bipartisan package. Ranking Member Dingell, at that conference, I cannot remember his exact quote, but it was something to the effect that it would be over his and the other Democrats on the committee's dead political bodies that they tried to do anything to reform Medicaid.

And they have been true to their word. I do not believe any Democrat on my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, voted at any level to help reform and improve and maintain the integrity of our Medicaid program, which is one of the most important health care programs in this country for low-income and senior citizens, low-income Americans and senior citizens.

Today, the House will make important reforms in telecommunications and Medicaid in the title provided by the committee I chair, the Energy and Commerce Committee. By going to conference with the Senate, we also keep hope alive for a critical energy policy--safe and limited crude oil production from the Alaskan north slope.

The legislation before us effectively sets Thursday, January 1, 2009, as the day America goes all digital. The analog television signals that have come into our homes over the air since the birth of TV will end the night before, and a great technical revolution that has been in the making for years will finally be complete.

In June 2004, at my first DTV hearing since becoming chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I announced that expediting the DTV transition would be a top priority. I also noted that the 85-percent loophole in current law is delaying the consumer benefits of digital television and preventing the clearing of broadcast spectrum for critical public safety and wireless broadband uses.

The DTV legislation brings needed certainty to allow consumers, broadcasters, cable and satellite operators, manufacturers, retailers, and government to prepare for the end of the transition. It includes a strong consumer education measure. And it helps ensure that all consumers have continued access to broadcast programming, regardless of whether they use analog or digital televisions, or whether they watch television signals broadcast by a local station or subscribe to pay-TV.

We're also here today to consider Medicaid reforms. Medicaid is a victim of its own success. The program has grown so expansive that it is unsustainable in its current form. The Nation's governors understand the grim future of Medicaid without reform. They tell us that Medicaid will begin to bankrupt the States unless some reasonable reforms are enacted. They were Democrats and they were Republicans. They came to us and told us what they needed done, and we did it.

Our proposal contains common-sense reforms and will help fix some of the flaws in the current Medicaid program to ensure that it can continue to be the safety net that protects our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.

The reforms in this legislation include allowing States to charge basic co-pays to higher income beneficiaries, reducing Medicaid overpayment for drugs, and providing States with the flexibility to tailor their benefit package to meet the specific health care needs of beneficiaries. We'll also make it difficult for lawyers to hide assets so wealthy clients can pretend to be poor enough to qualify for Medicaid coverage of nursing home services.

We were tasked in the budget resolution to reduce the growth of Federal spending. However, these changes are the right thing to do, regardless of the budget implications.

I recognize that some critics will argue that even the most modest reforms will hurt the poor. I would submit to you that Medicaid in its current form is already hurting the poor.

Between 2002 and 2005, 38 States reduced eligibility; and 34 States reduced benefits. This year, hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries are losing Medicaid eligibility or facing reduced benefits because of State action. This committee will not stand by and do nothing while Medicaid slowly collapses.

The reforms we are offering today will help to save the program while at the same time protecting the poorest of our society. In fact, most provisions in the legislation include additional protections for the most vulnerable recipients, such as children, pregnant women, the disabled, the mentally ill and those in hospice care.

It is perplexing to me that so many who say they care the most, want to do the least. If you want Medicaid patients to lose health care, the best thing to do is nothing.

I want fairness and efficiency from Medicaid, and a vote for reform is a vote to save it. A vote to keep what we have is a vote for waste and for bankruptcy. It is a vote to cut health care for those who can't afford it, and certainly can't afford to lose it.

We also can't afford to keep locking up our critical energy resources. A small, small part of ANWR was set aside by Congress twenty-five years ago for consideration as an energy resource. We have learned since then just how great those resources are. Today's gasoline prices would go down if we produced in ANWR. Dropping ANWR is ignoring what Katrina taught us--we need diversity of energy supply.

I will vote for this bill today because it includes the right set of reforms and saves the taxpayers money. Let's get to conference with the Senate and come back with ANWR.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Michigan. But at that first conference with the Governors there was not any package on the table. We were talking concepts. There was no package on the table. It was just the concept.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), Telecommunications Subcommittee chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce reconciliation package consists of two components. There is a Medicaid reform package and there is a digital television transition package. Both of those packages have widespread support outside of the halls of this body. Cumulatively, together, they are going to change the baseline for Medicaid from a rate of growth of a little over 7.3 percent to 7 percent per year for the next 5 years, and in terms of the digital television transition package, expected to raise in the neighborhood of $10 billion and put America on a digital broadcasting and receiving footing beginning January 1, 2009. Both components of the package are worthy of support. I would hope we could support those components in this package.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York, who is also the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Chairman King, I agree the Department of Homeland Security should have a strong consultative role in administering this new program. The Department of Homeland Security standards and grant guidance for interoperable communications must be used to ensure consistency in the administration of this new $500 million program.

It is too late at this point to amend the language establishing the program, but I pledge to work with you and your committee to resolve this issue during conference.

Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of the so-called savings from Medicaid come from higher cost sharing, reduced services, or barriers to sick people getting care and old people and people just scraping by having their needs met. But mostly they come from kids.

Fully half of the people affected by the reduced benefits will be children, and many of them will be children with special needs and disabilities. These are the kids with spina bifida, cerebral palsy. These are the kids with developmental disabilities and autism. These are the kids with mental illness. These are the children that need a full array of medical support and rehabilitative services. These are the kids where the care demands are endless, where families need help to support them and care for them. Parents of special needs children know that. They know that the idea of cost sharing for these kids so that they do not overutilize services is ridiculous.

One of Medicaid strength for all children, but particularly special needs children, has been the benefit known as EPSDT, or early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment. That is a lot of words for one simple concept. Screen kids early. Find and diagnose their health problems. Give them the care they need. Give them eyeglasses. Give them mental health services, give them physical therapy. Make them into the healthiest individuals possible. Let them realize their full potential.

But this bill changes that. It takes away these services for millions of kids with family incomes just above the poverty line. It takes away benefits. It imposes premiums and cost sharing that we know will be barriers to care. In fact, CBO estimates the savings because people will not get the care they need. What kind of sense does this make?

I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act, is not about reducing the deficit. If that were the concern of the majority, they wouldn't be cutting taxes for the wealthy and adding to the deficit for all Americans.

This bill is not about taking on the special interests who can afford to give up some of their corporate welfare. You don't see provisions in this bill that take away overpayments for HMOs. You don't see any provisions asking the big drug companies to give a fairer price to Medicaid.

This bill isn't about helping Children's Hospitals or providers that serve the uninsured get better support. Instead, this bill requires them to take inadequate payments when managed

care enrollees end up in their emergency rooms. This bill asks them to absorb lost dollars because they either have to eat the cost of copayments that poor kids and persons with disabilities can't afford to pay--or else turn them away without giving them the medical care they need.

What this bill is about is putting the burden of reducing Medicaid expenditures on those least able to bear it. Fully three of every four dollars this bill ``saves' in Medicaid come from higher cost-sharing or reduced services ir barriers to care for the people who need help the most.

Who are we talking about here? This is going to have the greatest effect on low-income children. Fully half of the people affected by the reduced benefits will be kids. And many of those children are children with special needs and disabilities.

These are kids with spina bifida and cerebral palsy. These are kids with developmental disabilities and autism. These are kids with mental illness.

These are children that need a full array of medical, support and rehabilitative services. These are kids where the care demands are endless, where families need help to support them and care for them. Parents of children with special needs know that.

They know that private health insurance, even if they could get it, doesn't have the services these kids need. They know that the idea of cost-sharing so that services aren't overutilized for these kids makes no sense.

One of Medicaid's strengths has been the benefit known as EPSDT, or early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment. That's a lot of words for one simple concept. Screen kids early and find and diagnose their health problems, and then give them the care they need to treat them. Give them eye glasses. Give them mental health services. Give them physical therapy. Make them into the healthiest individuals possible. Let them realize their full potential.

This bill changes that. It takes away these services for millions of kids, with family incomes just above the poverty line. It takes away benefits. It imposes cost sharing so that there will be barriers to getting service.

So what if their family is struggling to exist on a little over $1000 month. Let's ask them to pay 5 percent of that in cost-sharing. If they can't afford it, and it keeps their kids from getting services, well it's just too bad.

What kind of sense does this make. Noone benefits if kids don't get the health services they need to grow up as healthy and productive individuals.

The Republican majority tries to justify this by saying copayments haven't been increased for years. That is a bogus argument. The fact is low-income people spend an increasing portion of their income on out- of-pocket medical expenses. A recent study showed that between 1997 and 2002, their out-ofpocket obligations increased twice as fast as their incomes. That's the relevant point.

This bill also puts some heartless barriers in the way of moderate income seniors who need nursing home care. People who innocently help their children or their grandchildren by giving them some small amount of their savings, or people who unselfishly give money to their church or to charities, find themselves unable to get Medicaid help when they need it.

They are accused of transferring their assets to get Medicaid to pay their nursing home bills. At the very point when they are desperately in need of Medicaid help, they get penalized for a transfer that might have occurred 5 years ago. They haven't got the money to pay for their own care. They can't get Medicaid. What will happen to them? And if they do get into a nursing home, what will happen to the quality of care that nursing home can provide if they aren't being paid? Is this the way we want to treat our seniors?

This bill deliberately tries to evoke the fear of illegal immigrants to take benefits away from needy people. With food stamps, the rhetoric is about illegal immigrants, but the reality is that immigrants who are here legally, and have been in the country legally for 5 years, get food stamps taken away. Why? Because the Republican majority evidently feels they can take help away from them with impunity because they are powerless.

It is similar in Medicaid. This bill imposes a requirement of documentation of citizenship that is going to block many needy citizens from getting necessary care. In order to be covered, people will have to document their citizenship with passports or birth certificates. Many poor and elderly people don't have those papers available. So they simply won't be helped.

There is a pattern here. Whether we are talking about arbitrarily taking food stamps from legal immigrants or putting barriers to care in front of sick children, this bill takes its savings from people who are the most vulnerable and in need of help.

They haven't got high priced lobbyists to argue for them. They're not getting special treatment and big tax breaks. They are just at the end of the line, relying on our health care programs.

If you've got a conscience, if you've got compassion, you cannot support this budget reconciliation bill. Stand up and insist on finding a fairer way. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, as one who has long urged my colleagues to cut spending, and who has consistently voted against excessive and unconstitutional expenditures, I am sure many in this body expect me to be an enthusiastic supporter of H.R. 4241, the Deficit Reduction Act. After all, supporters of this bill are claiming it dramatically reforms federal programs and puts Congress back on the road to fiscal responsibility.

For all the passionate debate this bill has generated, its effects on the federal government and taxpayers are relatively minor. H.R. 4241 does not even reduce federal expenditures. That's right--if H.R. 4241 passes, the federal budget, including entitlement programs, will continue to grow. H.R. 4241 simply slows down the rate of growth of federal spending. The federal government may spend less in the future if this bill passes then it otherwise would, but it will still spend more than it does today. To put H.R. 4241 in perspective, consider that this bill reduces spending by less than $50 billion over 10 years, while the most recent ``emergency'' supplemental passed by this Congress appropriated $82 billion to be spent this year.

H.R. 4241 reduces total federal entitlement expenditures by one half of one percent over the next five years. For all the trumpeting about how this bill gets ``runaway entitlement spending'' under control, H.R. 4241 fails to deal with the biggest entitlement problem facing our nation--the multi-billion dollar Medicare prescription drug plan, which will actually harm many seniors by causing them to lose their private coverage, forcing them into an inferior government run program. In fact, the Medicare prescription drug plan will cost $55 billion in fiscal year 2006 alone, while H.R. 4241 will reduce spending by only $5 billion next year. Yet, some House members who have voted for every expansion of the federal government considered by this Congress will vote for these small reductions in spending and then brag about their fiscal conservatism to their constituents.

As is common with bills claiming to reduce spending, the majority of spending reductions occur in the later years of the plan. Since it is impossible to bind future Congresses, this represents little more than a suggestion that spending in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 reflect the levels stated in this bill. My fiscally responsible colleagues should keep in mind that rarely, if ever, does a Congress actually follow through on spending reductions set by a previous Congress. Thus, relying on future Congresses to cut spending in the ``out years'' is a recipe for failure.

One provision of the bill that would have undeniably benefited the American people, the language opening up the ANWR region of Alaska and expanding offshore drilling, has been removed from the bill. As my colleagues know, increased gas prices are a, if not the, top concern of the American people. Expanding the supply of domestically produced oil is an obvious way to address these concerns; yet, Congress refuses to take this reasonable step.

Mr. Speaker, some of the entitlement reforms in H.R. 4241 are worthwhile. For example, I am hopeful the provision allowing states to require a copayment for Medicaid will help relieve physicians of the burden of providing uncompensated care, which is an issue of great concern to physicians in my district. Still, I am concerned that the changes in pharmaceutical reimbursement proposed by the bill may unfairly impact independent pharmacies, and I am disappointed we will not get to vote on an alternative that would have the same budgetary impact without harming independent pharmacies.

I also question the priorities of singling out programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps, that benefit the neediest Americans, while continuing to increase spending on corporate welfare and foreign aid. Just two weeks ago, Congress passed a bill sending $21 billion overseas. That is $21 billion that will be spent this fiscal year, not spread out over five years. Then, last week, Congress passed, on suspension of the rules, a bill proposing to spend $130 million on water projects--not in Texas, but in foreign nations. Meanwhile, the Financial Services Committee, on which I sit, has begun the process of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, which uses taxpayers' money to support business projects that cannot attract capital in the market. Mr. Speaker, the Export-Import Bank's biggest beneficiaries are Boeing and communist China. I find it hard to believe that federal funding that benefits Fortune 500 companies and China is a higher priority for most Americans than Medicaid and food stamps.

H.R. 4241 fails to address the root of the spending problem--the belief that Congress can solve any problem simply by creating a new federal program or agency. However, with the federal government's unfounded liabilities projected to reach as much as $50 trillion by the end of this year, Congress can no longer avoid serious efforts to rein in spending. Instead of the smoke-and-mirrors approach of H.R. 4241, Congress should begin the journey

toward fiscal responsibility by declaring a 10 percent reduction in real spending, followed by a renewed commitment to reduce spending in a manner consistent with our obligation to uphold the Constitution and the priorities of the American people. This is the only way to make real progress on reducing spending without cutting programs for the poor while increasing funding for programs that benefit foreign governments and corporate interests.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address comments made by distinguished Chairman regarding a provision of the bill that addresses the FCC's proceeding on unlicensed operation of wireless broadband devices in the vacant broadcast bands, commonly known as ``white spaces.'' I thank the Chairman Barton for recognizing the importance of additional unlicensed spectrum.

Unlicensed, wireless broadband devices have spurred entrepreneurship, technological innovation and phenomenal new capabilities for the country. Hot spots in coffee shops and airports, and wireless access in homes and offices, have made it easier and easier for people to access the Internet. These unlicensed uses have generated billions in new business for U.S.-based manufacturers, retailers and providers. However, these devices could do more to bridge the digital divide and bring more broadband choices to consumers if they could operate in spectrum below 1 GHz, (spectrum below 1 GHz propagates over greater distances and through tougher obstacles than does the spectrum being used by today's unlicensed wireless broadband devices).

Mr. Chairman, I know you are aware that in some smaller markets, only a handful television stations are actually operating. In some rural or suburban markets, there may be dozens of TV channels available for other uses. Nationwide, the white spaces offer hundreds of megahertz of spectrum for unlicensed wireless broadband devices to operate in. In its white spaces proceeding, the Commission proposes to allow unlicensed devices to operate in those spaces where the spectrum allocated to broadcast television stations is not being used, subject to the additional condition that the devices do not cause harm to licensed television broadcasters and certain other users of the spectrum. The Commission's proposal outlines possible noninterference requirements.

In response to the Chairman's point on preventing harm to broadcast signals, I would note that interference should be easily avoided, because ``smart'' unlicensed devices identify frequencies in use with ``listen-before-talk'' technology and similar capabilities. Developers and producers of equipment for wireless broadband operation in the white spaces have every incentive to demonstrate that their equipment is designed so as to prevent interference to television signals, where such signals are actually being transmitted. The reward of preventing interference is tremendous; the risk of being forced to exit a market because of an engineering mistake is equally weighty. The Commission has had this proceeding open for over a year, and meanwhile, innovation that could occur to deploy broadband to a greater number of Americans has been delayed.

In ordering the Commission to complete the white spaces proceeding within one year, my colleagues and I expect the Commission to promote robust and efficient use of vacant spectrum by unlicensed wireless broadband devices and networks. I thank the Chairman for his efforts on this issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman to promote the use of additional unlicensed spectrum in the vacant broadcast bands.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that dogs collect fleas, and so do large fiscal year bills. This bill is no exception. I want to talk about one of those fleas infesting this bill. One of the worst infestations in this bill is a provision slipped in in the dead of night, like many of these things happen, that will essentially give away America's most pristine areas in our national forests to the special interest friends of the majority party.

There is a provision in this bill that will allow places that have been ``patented for mining,'' to be essentially given away to these special interest companies that can take our most pristine national forests, somewhere between 300,000 and 20 million acres, and

give it away to special interests, give it away to special interests and increase the deficit at the same time.

What will happen with that property? Anything the special interests of the majority party wants. It is not about mining. There is a provision in this bill that will allow your special interest friends to come into the Mount Baker National Forest in Washington, the national forest in Colorado, the national forests of California, take that property, pay the taxpayers nickels, literally nickels, and take that property away from the people that want to enjoy those national forests right now.

It is bad enough that that bill will leave future generations $1 billion of debt. You would think you would give them the Cerces to take their kids out to be able to have a picnic in the national forest, portions of which will be gone because you want to feed the rapacious appetites of your special interest friends.

This is a rip-off of American taxpayers. It is unfair to the kids that want to go up to the national forests and enjoy this property. There is no excuse for it. You are doing it in the dead of the night. You ought to be ashamed.

There is nothing sacred to the Republican Party except tax cuts. You would sell anything in America to finance your tax cuts. The Washington monument could be next. This is a shame.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody in America knows, I say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), your party has been in charge for all 5 of the years that spending has gone out of control, and your conservatives are telling you just that, including Mr. Dick Armey, your former majority leader. It is you who have allowed spending to go out of control.

Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, this bill is no picnic.

Mr. Speaker, for 5 years, the Republican Party in Washington has pursued the most irresponsible and dangerous fiscal policies in the history of this country. Today, they claim they are getting tough on spending, that they are restoring fiscal discipline. I suppose that is the fiscal discipline that they threw away over the last 5 years.

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I have been a Member of this House for 25 years. For 17 of those years, there has been a Republican President in the United States of America. The one person that can stop spending in its tracks, none of the rest of us can, we can vote but only one of us in the government can stop spending in its tracks and that is the President of the United States. And during those 17 years that we have had Republican Presidents, every year without exception we have had large deficits. For 8 years, we had a Democratic President, and for 4 years we had surpluses, 4 straight years.

In every single one of those years that the Republican Presidents presided we had large and growing deficits. This bill today will perpetuate that Republican performance.

Five years ago, the Bush administration and this Republican Congress inherited a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion according to President Bush. President Bush promised the American people when he offered his economic program, ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits even if the economy softens.'' But almost immediately, the Washington Republicans enacted policies that instigated deficit and debt that will immorally force our children to pay our bills and then threaten our Nation's future.

Under President Clinton, we had $559 billion of surplus in his last 4 years. Under your 5 years, I tell the amused chairman of the Budget Committee, you have planned and achieved $1.57 trillion of debt. At the very same time, Republicans have raised the debt limit four times. $4.15 trillion of additional debt during your last 5 years.

Do you know how much during the last 4 years of the Clinton years we raised it? Zero. Zero. You talk about fiscal responsibility and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says you had a Republican majority. Is that not wonderful? My, my, my, you could do it when you had President Clinton as President but you cannot do it when you have President Bush. Is that not a strange thing to happen? In 5 short years they have driven us $3 trillion deeper in debt.

Today Republicans say they want to restore fiscal discipline. All of America must ask, Why do you insult our intelligence?

President Bush has not vetoed one spending bill that you have offered. If spending is out of control, it is out of control because you let it get out of control, you planned to get it out of control, and you passed bills that put it out of control.

Republicans rammed a prescription drug bill through. They told us, which was not true and they knew it not to be true, it was going to cost $395 billion. Why? Because your budget said you were going to spend $400 billion. That was a lie. You knew it was not true. In fact, 2 months later, you came by and said, no, it is 524. Now, it is over a trillion dollars.

You claim that you are cutting spending by $50 billion, but you are coming with a tax bill that is going to cut $57 billion in revenue, a net increase of the deficit. That is why you have had 17 straight years under your Presidents of deficits.

Look at the facts. I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, face fiscal reality. Stop posturing, vote no on this irresponsible bill. Join Democrats in adopting a budget plan as we offered that balanced the budget in ten years. You did not even plan to balance it.

Let me read now a quote. ``We do not touch Social Security. It does not touch Medicare. This budget accomplishes the largest reduction of the debt held by the public in our history. By the end of 10 years of this budget, we will have eliminated the debt held by the public.'' Chairman Jim Nussle, May 25, 2001.

$1.57 trillion in budget deficits and $3 trillion later additional debt on the national debt. The gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. Nussle) representation was totally, absolutely, unconscionably wrong in 2001, and your predictions today are equally in error.

Vote against this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

1984, it was Good Morning in America, the economy was growing, President Reagan was President, Bob Dole the Republican the majority leader of the United States Senate, and big deficits, big deficits, big deficits, big deficits, big deficits, big deficits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose strongly the budget reconciliation bill under consideration. Those who support this bill claim it imposes spending discipline to pay for the costs of hurricane relief; in truth, it only continues the majority's pattern of taking from the middle class and the needy to give it to the wealthiest percent.

The American people came together to respond to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Families donated record amounts to charities and opened their doors to those displaced by the storm. But now the Republicans are using Katrina to divide our Nation again. They claim that deep cuts of $54 billion are needed in programs like Medicaid, food stamps and child support enforcement to pay for hurricane relief. These cuts will neither pay for Katrina relief nor reduce the deficit. These are being used to pay for a portion of the $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that we will be considering shortly.

Mr. Speaker, these cuts are being made on the backs of the working class, seniors and middle class families. In many cases, those who have the least are being made to sacrifice the most. For example, there are about one million Medicaid recipients in New Jersey. Almost half of them are children. This budget reconciliation bill would slash funding for Medicaid by $11.4 billion, putting our nation's most vulnerable citizens, including those affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, at risk of losing the only health insurance they have.

Another provision in the bill cuts $796 million from food stamps. Again, how can the majority even consider these cuts when the hurricanes cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their homes and livelihoods? Cutting food stamps for the impoverished while giving tax breaks to wealthiest America is not just bad policy, it is immoral.

New Jersey is hit particularly hard by many of the cuts in this bill. We all know that the price of heating a home, either with natural gas or heating oil will be extremely high this year because of rising energy prices. Families are bracing for higher bills. And yet, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps people pay their energy bills when it is needed most is being cut by more than $10 million in New Jersey alone. As a result, about 20,000 New Jerseyans are expected to lose much needed assistance. I assume those well-to-do families receiving tax breaks instead will sleep in warm homes this winter. Why the majority is choosing this path baffles and sorely disappoints me.

The list of cuts goes on. In New Jersey alone 3,000 mothers will be dropped from the Women Infant Children (WIC) program which helps mothers care for their babies before and after birth by ensuring they get proper healthcare, food and training for being a parent. Five hundred children in New Jersey currently attending Head Start will be cut out of this important childhood education and development program. Two thousand, nine hundred low-income and disabled people will be cut from Section 8 housing vouchers, all in New

Jersey alone. New Jersey will lose $11 million for cleaning water for drinking and recreation. Child support enforcement is also slashed. Mr. Speaker, I thought the majority believed in accountability and in fathers paying a fair share for the upbringing of their children. If they do, why are they cutting funding for enforcing child support collections by nearly $5 billion?

A college education will soon get even more expensive if this bill passes. 125,000 college students in New Jersey will be affected. That's because the plan makes $14.3 billion in cuts to federal student financial aid, the largest cut in history. The result will be nearly $8 billion in new charges that will raise the cost of college loans-- through new fees and higher interest--for millions of American students and families who borrow to pay for college. For the typical student borrower, already saddled with $17,500 in debt, these new fees and higher interest charges could cost up to $5,800.

It is wrong to cut financial aid for students and families struggling to pay for college in order to pay for more tax breaks for the richest Americans. Financial barriers should never prevent a qualified student from going to college, and that is why America has long since made the commitment to help all Americans pay for it. Federal support for student loans is good for our economy and world leadership. Using these funds to pay for tax breaks for people who need them least robs us of an important investment in our future.

Mr. Speaker, this budget reconciliation bill is terribly misguided. Why should we have yet another tax cut for the top one percent, paid for with cuts to investments in critical areas like health, environment and education? And why, further, should we go even deeper into debt-- borrowing even more money from China--for plans that we should be ashamed to force upon our children and grandchildren? Together we can do better, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4241, legislation that will require approximately $57 billion in federal spending reductions. Deceptively titled the Deficit Reduction Act, the bill resorts to trickery--a sleight of hand in which fiscal responsibility is promised, but never delivered. H.R. 4241 could actually increase the budget deficit by $35 billion, while instituting draconian cuts to essential federal programs, such as Medicaid and student loan.

Proponents of the bill suggest that such cuts are necessary to offset the recovery and reconstruction costs of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This assertion is curious at best. Since 2003, Congress has approved three colossal supplemental spending bills for the war and reconstruction effort in Iraq without providing any offsets as proposed by Democrats. Why are Republicans suddenly so interested in offsetting the reconstruction of Biloxi, but not the reconstruction of Baghdad?

The American people should not be misled. These long-planned spending cuts have little to do with Biloxi or Baghdad. They, instead, are a necessary prelude to another Republican effort to shepherd through Congress tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans. In fact, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act is a part of a much broader budget resolution that calls for a total of $106 billion in additional tax cuts.

With tax cuts for the rich in the offing, Republicans propose to restore fiscal restraint by imposing cuts to federal programs that benefit the most vulnerable Americans. The bill, for example, cuts Medicaid spending by $11.4 billion. Medicaid currently provides critical health care to 50 million low-income children, families, seniors, and people with disabilities. Cutting the program will force thousands into the ranks of the uninsured.

The bill would allow states to increase cost-sharing and impose new premiums on many categories of Medicaid beneficiaries. Research shows that when cost-sharing is increased significantly for low-income people, their use of health care services declines and their health status worsens. To make matters worse, H.R. 4241 allows states, for the first time, to let health care providers refuse care if a beneficiary cannot afford the co-payment. In doing so, a state can bypass an entitlement in current law that provides children with coverage of medical care and health services. This change could negatively affect more than 1/5 of children covered by Medicaid--more than 5 million children overall.

This Republican budget reconciliation bill also calls for $14.3 billion in cuts to student loan programs. The State of California has the highest number of student borrowers at 496,822. Tuition at public universities has skyrocketed by 57 percent over the last five years, and yet the GOP proposes the largest cut in the history of student aid--resulting in the typical student borrower having to pay as much as $5,800 more for his or her college

loans. Ultimately, cutting the student loan program compromises America's global competitiveness and the economic vitality of Silicon Valley.

H.R. 4241 also requires $4.9 billion in cuts to child support enforcement, dramatically impairing states' ability to enforce child support orders. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill will lead to $24.1 billion in reduced child support collections over the next ten years, including a $4.9 billion loss to California's single parents that rely on child support to survive.

The Republican leadership's reprehensible cuts sadly extend to other equally important federal priorities, including $577 million in cuts to foster care programs, $796 million to food stamps, and $732 million from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Millions of Americans rely on these critical federal programs as a safety net and a platform for upward mobility.

As an advocate for fiscal responsibility, I cannot support a proposal that will worsen the federal budget's bottom line, while giving short shrift to the needs of working Americans. I am proud to belong to the party of fiscal responsibility. In the 1990s, President Clinton and Congressional Democrats erased record deficits and ushered in an era of record surpluses. Our Nation now needs to return to the very practices that offered prosperity in the 1990s, which is what my Democratic colleagues and I sought to do earlier this year during debate on the FY2006 Budget Resolution. The Democratic plan would have instituted pay-as-you-go rules and balanced the budget by 2012.

The federal budget should embody our nation's values, not undermine them as this budget amendment does. President Bush and his allies in Congress have been poor stewards of our national finances by placing special interests above the people's interests, and now they expect working Americans to shoulder the costs of their reckless policies.

I oppose the appalling cuts required by H.R. 4241, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this harmful measure.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is facing a serious deficit due to recession, attacks on our Nation and the ongoing war on terrorism. The good news is that the deficit is going down and, although it doesn't go as far as I would like, this legislation reduces the deficit further.

Much-needed tax relief helped boost the economy and create more than 4 million jobs since May of 2003. Following three straight years of tax relief, tax revenues are up and the deficit is down by nearly $200 billion.

The growing economy makes a difference, but Congress must also take action on the spending side of the equation. For the first time in more than 20 years, we are on track to reduce discretionary spending by almost one percent. However, more than half of federal spending takes place through programs with budgets that essentially run on auto-pilot. Until we address the runaway spending growth in these programs, which is outpacing growth of the economy, Congress will never be able to balance the budget.

Republicans in Congress have developed a plan that will reform these auto-pilot programs and save taxpayer dollars in order to reduce the deficit. The Deficit Reduction Act includes program reforms totaling nearly $50 billion in net savings over the next five years. To put this in perspective, this slows the rate of growth in the automatic portion of the budget by one-tenth of a percent. No, this is not nearly enough to close the deficit gap, but it is an important start that will have positive effects.

Although I support the savings in this bill, I am extremely disappointed that the portion of our plan that would reduce dependency on foreign oil by allowing exploration in a small portion of the Arctic Refuge was struck from the bill. Raising $3.678 billion over five years through oil and gas leases would not only help reduce the deficit but would also increase our energy security. The House has overwhelmingly voted to open ANWR in the past, and there is no good reason why this bill should not include it.

All areas of government must contribute to the savings in this bill, and agriculture is no exception. However, with high fuel costs, the last thing our producers need is to bear a disproportionate burden of the deficit-reducing effort. I worked to ensure that agriculture's contribution treats farmers fairly, protects the core policies of the 2002 Farm Bill, and looks at all areas of spending within USDA. Our plan reduces farm program direct payments by just one percent for the next four years and delays elimination of the Step 2 cotton competitiveness program until August, 2006.

I support the reforms we are making in the food stamp program to help ensure that benefits are going to those who are truly eligible and in need. Despite the claims to the contrary, we are not reducing nutrition assistance for a single U.S. citizen who meets the eligibility requirements. Rather, our reforms will direct benefits to U.S. citizens and discontinue

the practice of automatically granting enrollment to certain groups of recipients without first determining their eligibility. This irresponsible practice has resulted in millions of dollars of benefits going to those who are not eligible.

Our plan strengthens Medicaid, which has helped many low-income Americans gain access to healthcare. Federal Medicaid spending has increased 97 percent since 1995 and will continue to grow by an unsustainable seven percent each year if no reforms are made.

Because Medicaid also represents a large share of state budgets, provisions offered by a bipartisan coalition of governors are included in our plan. These provisions include requiring more accurate prescription drug pricing and closing loopholes that have allowed wealthy Americans to deplete their assets and collect benefits intended for those who truly need them. We also require states to better enforce current laws and prevent illegal immigrants from getting Medicaid. These reforms will save $12 billion through the end of this decade.

Some in Congress, and their allies outside these halls, attack this plan and willfully misrepresent the effects it will have on Americans. Let's be clear: Congress is not cutting programs. What we are doing is taking a step to slow the unsustainable growth rate of these programs and reform them to prevent waste and abuse.

Those who criticize this effort have offered no alternative of their own. Because they are bereft of new ideas, they are content to carp from the sidelines. But left to their own devices, they would increase taxes on hard-working American families to grow the size of an already massive and wasteful government. The bottom line is that real solutions and responsible leadership are needed to balance the federal government's checkbook. By reforming government and renewing our commitment to hardworking American taxpayers, our plan will continue to reduce the deficit and expand the economy.