Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4241) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
November 17, 2005 • 10:25 PM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
November 16, 2005
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-303, by Mr. Putnam.
November 17, 2005
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4241 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. Sec. 3. After passage of H.R. 4241, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table S. 1932 and to consider the Senate bill in the House. All points of order against the Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 4241 as passed by the House. All points of order against that motion are waived.
November 17, 2005 • 8:21 AM
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 122.
November 17, 2005
Mr. Putnam moved to consider H. Res. 560. (consideration: CR H10533-10534, H10537)
November 17, 2005 • 8:18 PM
POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION - Mr. McDermott made a point of order that the provisions of H. Res. 560 violated section 426 (a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In accordance with section 426 (a) of the Act, the Chair announced that the threshold burden to identify the specific language in the resolution on which the point of order was predicated had been met.
November 17, 2005 • 8:19 PM
DEBATE - The Chair announced that, under section 426 (b) (4) of the Budget Act, the proponent and an opponent of the point of order will each be recognized for 10 minutes on the question of consideration.
November 17, 2005 • 8:20 PM
At the conclusion of debate on the point of order the Chair put the question on consideration of H.Res. 560 and announced by voice vote the ayes had prevailed. Mr. McDermott objected to the voice vote and demanded the Yeas and Nays.
November 17, 2005 • 8:50 PM
On motion to consider Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 198 (Roll No. 600).
November 17, 2005 • 8:51 PM
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H10531-10534, H10537-10545)
November 17, 2005 • 9:12 PM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 560.
November 17, 2005 • 9:12 PM
The previous question was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H10544)
November 17, 2005 • 10:21 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10531)
November 17, 2005 • 10:25 PM
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H10531)
November 17, 2005 • 10:25 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
November 17, 2005 • 10:25 PM
Voting History
1 vote recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 560 on the floor
JN
JDD
JMSAHP
NP+17
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 560 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 560, I ask call up the bill (H.R. 4241) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 560, I ask call up the bill (H.R. 4241) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, several months ago, we approved the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution. In that budget, the Republicans and Congress laid out our plan, which is based on our fundamental principles to promote economic growth, create jobs, and control government spending. It is part of an overall plan.
Today we stand at what is a critical juncture in implementing that plan and making it a reality. The Deficit Reduction Act starts the process of adopting the real policies and the real reforms that make these massive entitlement programs more effective, more efficient, and less costly.
I expect, as we have already seen, that this is going to be a very vigorous and even sometimes contentious debate. I welcome that. I think we should all welcome that. I think that is what this Chamber is really for. It is what our constituents sent us here to do, to set the priorities, to come up with a solid plan, to do the real work, even if it is difficult, even if it is a challenge, even if you have to fight for it, even if you have to make a debate and a speech and everything else in order to get it done. The point is, we have got to work on this plan and see it through.
This is far from the first day that we have been on the floor or worked in committees in order to get this done. Mr. Speaker, for the past three budget years, we have been working on this plan to get the economy going, to create jobs, to control spending, and to actually reduce the deficit. I would like to review our plan.
First, Republicans committed to reduce the total discretionary spending, making the first actual reduction in the annual spending that happens because we vote on it here in Congress. That is the discretionary spending. It is the first time we have made an actual reduction in this nondiscretionary spending, this discretionary spending part of the budget. The first time we have done that since the 1980s.
Second, the Republicans committed to no tax increases. More importantly, we did not want an automatic tax increase happening. In fact, if Congress does not act this year, if we fail to pass the tax reconciliation, taxes automatically go up, no vote. They just go up.
Third, we decided that we wanted to tackle these important mandatory programs. For the past 3 years, we have stuck to our plan, and we have produced results. Let me just show you this chart. Mr. Speaker, when we started this process, we had a $521 billion deficit that was staring us in the face, caused by what happened on September 11, 2001, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the stock market dot-com bubble bursting, the emergency spending we had to deal with in order to deal with so many broken lives, so many challenges across the country in the wake of the terrorist attack.
Homeland Security spending skyrocketed; and interestingly enough, the same opposition party who comes to the floor tonight decrying spending, decrying deficits voted for most of that spending that got us to the $521 billion worth of deficit. As part of implementing this plan, we reduced that deficit from $521 billion to $427 billion in the first year; $90-some billion in 1 year alone the deficit came down implementing that plan.
Second year, that we just closed the books on, actual reduction from $521 billion to $427 billion to $319 billion. I will suggest to you that $319 billion is not where we want to be. We are heading in the right direction. We are heading in the right direction because we have a plan to grow the economy, to control spending, to create jobs, and create taxpayers. As a result of that, revenues have come in. The strong sustained growth in our economy has driven Federal tax receipts up over 15 percent over last year, even with tax reduction.
Let me repeat that. I understand all the rhetoric on the floor here tonight, but we reduced taxes. The economy expanded. More money came into Washington. That is a fact, incontrovertible fact. No one can come to the floor tonight and tell you any differently. Revenues have increased as a result of strong economic growth.
The Democrats act like this is the government's money that we are talking about here tonight, that all of these, whether it is tax reductions or spending or whatever it is, that this is the government's money. This is not the government's money.
Mr. Speaker, this is the hard-working taxpayers' money. They do the working, they do the sweating, they do the toiling, they are the ones that open small businesses and farms. They are the ones that employ Americans. They are the ones that do not wait for the government to come to bail them out. If they have a tough year, they are the folks who do all the hard work and pay the taxes. It is their money that we are talking about here tonight. That surge of revenue, that surge of money coming from those taxpayers was the largest factor in this dramatic reduction of the deficit, nearly $100 billion this year, $200 billion over the last 2 years.
Even combined, growing the economy and limiting just that 30 percent of our spending is not going to be enough. It is not going to be enough to get where we need to be. The set of challenges still faces us.
We added a third prong to this important deficit reduction. We committed for the first time in nearly a decade to reform and find savings in the largest portion of our Federal spending. That is what we are here to do tonight. It is part of that overall plan.
This spending is what we call mandatory, our automatic pilot-kind of spending. It is over now 50 percent of the entire amount of money that is spent by the Federal Government; and it is without boundaries, it is without reform, and it is pretty much without any kind of review whatsoever. In fact, Congress does not even have to vote on these increases. Let me say that again so you understand. If we do nothing tonight, spending automatically increases, and we have got to go to the taxpayers to get more money. We have got to go to those hard-working Americans to get more money from them in order to run the government.
Automatically, if we do nothing tonight, just like if we do nothing on taxes, they will automatically increase. That is the fantasy that we are dealing with tonight. That is the fantasy of our congressional budget process unfortunately, is things automatically occur if you do not do the hard work of reforming and reducing our spending and our taxes. Compounding the problem is that unchecked spending is growing faster than our economy, faster than inflation, and far beyond our means to sustain it whatsoever. The money is usually just feeding a gigantic bureaucracy. Really, this is a bureaucracy that is failing most of the people it is intended to help.
I asked eight of our very able chairmen and their committees to go to work. I asked them to make some reforms. Over the last 6 months, hundreds of ideas were discussed. Hearings were held. We listened to our constituents, to scholars, to experts, to people who understand the intricacies of these programs. We partnered with the States. We talked to our Governors. All of the committees have met or exceeded the original savings targets with reforms, bringing the total of savings that we will consider here tonight to $50 billion over 5 years.
Really, this is not about saving money. This is an effort to start reforming our largest Federal programs and ensure that they can continue to serve their missions, to serve the people and help the ones who are most in need. Most of these programs desperately need reform. In many cases, they are operating on decades-old models.
Take Medicaid as an example. We are talking about Medicaid tonight as just one of the myriad programs, invented in 1965 before the personal computer, before we walked on the Moon. Yes, it is a program we all support; but, yes, it is a program in need of dramatic reform in order to meet the needs of our changing society and Nation.
Most of these programs desperately need this reform. They are operating
on these models, and we need to make this change. This process that we call reconciliation is just one of the few tools that we have at our disposal in order to make sure that we can go through this process.
I want to give you a sampling of the reforms that are in this package. We expand and build upon the welfare reform that was so successful from 1996. We reformed Medicaid, just as the Governors have asked us to give the States the flexibility in those 50 laboratories to deliver a better-quality service to the people who need them.
We reformed food stamps, a program that helped so many in need, but is in so much need of reform. We enhanced pension security, just at a time when the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has come out telling us we need these reforms, otherwise people's pensions are a desperate concern.
Boosting the low-income heating assistance, at a time we know the winter is going to be challenging and eliminating the excessive student loan overhead costs.
People are going to come here tonight to protect the bureaucracy of these programs. We want to make sure that these programs are helping those in need. These are just a good start. But these reforms and savings are not going to solve the long-term spending problem in a single stroke. But if you listen to the debate, it will sound tonight like we are eliminating half the Federal Government. You will hear debate tonight that will make it sound like we have eliminated these programs.
In fact, what we are talking about here is the total amount of this bill. If you take all of it together, the total savings amounts to less than one-half of 1 percent over the next 5 years. These programs will grow. What we are saying is we just need to slow them down a little bit and instill some reforms so that they can work better. Even though our opponents will claim that these are cuts, spending will continue to grow under each of these programs faster, even, than inflation.
Under our plan, Medicaid is an example. We will continue to grow at 7.5 percent instead of what it is currently growing at, which all of our Governors came to Washington to say was an unsustainable rate at 7.7 percent. That is not a cut. Only in Washington would that be called a cut.
I know my friends on the other side will disagree with our plan to reform our government programs and achieve these savings for American taxpayers. That is fair. We can have that debate tonight. But I ask you, through the Speaker, where is your plan?
You were given an opportunity to present a plan tonight. You will come to the floor tonight and tell us how important these programs are and how they are already failing Americans, but you have not one scintilla of an idea of how to make sure that these programs can continue.
What is your plan to reform these important programs? What are your innovative ideas, or is it simply increase taxes on hard-working Americans? Is it simply more politics as usual? Is it more press releases and attack ads? I have no doubt that is what it is going to be.
I hope Democrats do not plan to come and waste our time tonight, telling us yet again that you do not agree with us. I mean, gee, that is really news. Mr. Speaker, in fact, boy, look at the balcony where all the reporters usually sit. It is really news that you do not support our plan. It is really news that you disagree with the Republicans. It is really news that Republicans and Democrats are fighting. That is not news at all.
What would be news is if you came forward with an alternative. That would be news. If you came with a plan, that would actually be a surprise. It is not going to happen tonight.
You were allowed to present a plan. I am proud to present our plan to reform these very important government programs that achieve savings for hard-working American people who pay the taxes around here. It is part of our successful ongoing effort during one of the most challenging times in our history to promote personal responsibility, to reform government bureaucracy, the same bureaucracy that they will defend tonight is the same bureaucracy that did not get the job done down in the gulf. They decry the bureaucracy on the one hand, and yet they try and protect it on the other.
This eliminates some of the waste, fraud and abuse within our system. And it grows our economy to create jobs and opportunities for the American people. We have a plan to reduce the deficit and to govern America.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you, where is their plan? Where is your agenda for America, to govern and to reduce your deficit and get us back on path?
I ask that we support the only plan and the best plan and that is the plan we propose tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). Mr. Speaker,…
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my Republican colleagues do not want to get close to the facts. What are the facts? First of all, when this administration came into office, there was a $2 trillion surplus. Now we have increased the national debt by $3 trillion, and they have spent the $2 trillion besides. No wonder they do not want to talk about the facts.
They are cutting $11.4 billion out of Medicaid. Why are they doing so? To fund additional tax cuts. The richest 0.2 percent of the country has already gained an average of $103,000 from the Republican tax cuts, but the Republicans have a fine program: they are going to cut funds for women, poor children, individuals with cystic fibrosis and other chronic diseases, elderly widows in nursing homes, and others who rely on Medicaid.
If this bill passes, the following will happen: in 1 year alone, 110,000 Medicaid beneficiaries will lose coverage
due to the new burdensome health care premiums imposed by this bill; destitute elderly will be denied needed nursing home care right when they need it the most. These provisions will force many seniors out of homes that they may have lived in for decades, and those elderly persons who try to help their families to pay medical bills or go to school are going to be penalized.
Children will be hurt. According to CBO, half of those affected by higher cost-sharing and half of those affected by reduced benefits will be children. Those with disabilities will be particularly hurt by the newly allowed State benefit cuts and increased cost-sharing. They already pay a greater portion of their income for out-of-pocket medical expenses than privately insured individuals with higher income.
The simple fact of the matter is this bill is going to take from those who have the least and give to those who have the most and the smallest needs. This is an outrageous piece of legislation.
The simple fact of the matter is my Republican colleagues are entitled to their own opinion, but they cannot have their own facts; and the facts say this is a bad proposal. It is going to hurt the poor. It is going to benefit those who have no need.
This is an outrageous piece of legislation, and it should be rejected by this body. And I would point out that one of the reasons for these cuts in benefits is so that there can be a tax cut. I would remind my good friends on the Republican side that one of the interesting things about this piece of legislation is that when all is said and done, it is actually going to increase the deficit.
There is no question that the cuts proposed by the Republicans will harm beneficiaries. First, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)'s November 9th study on the bill as it left the Budget Committee, of the $11.9 billion in cuts to Medicaid, 75 percent--nearly $9 billion--is due to provisions that hurt beneficiaries. These cuts will have harsh effects, reducing needed care and causing millions to lose coverage and benefits. For example:
The vast majority (80 percent) of the savings from cost-sharing increases come from forcing beneficiaries to cut back on their use of healthcare services. Some six million children from families with incomes just above the poverty line would lose all current Federal cost-sharing protections if this bill is adopted. This bill would offer children who live just above the poverty line significantly less protection than in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The remaining savings from cost-sharing come from $300 million in payment cuts to providers over five years.
Half of those affected by the reductions in benefits--so called ``benefit flexibility''--will be children. By 2015, five million individuals, including 2.5 million kids, will face benefit cuts. Most of the services that beneficiaries will lose in the reduced benefit packages would be for mental health, certain therapies, dental, and vision. There will also be new restrictions on the amount, duration, and scope of services covered.
Benefit reductions result in $18 billion in Federal savings over 10 years. The actual magnitude of lost coverage, however, will be much higher over those 10 years, closer to $32 billion, when you count the State share, because CBO only considers Federal savings. Therefore, the total benefit-related reductions would be nearly twice as high.
New premium charges will force hundreds of thousands more who are covered today to drop their coverage. A full quarter of the savings associated with new higher premium charges come from individuals no longer being able to afford Medicaid. In 2015, for example, 110,000 enrollees will lose coverage because of premium increases. And, for those elderly citizens lucky enough to own the home they live in, the Republicans want to force them to sell it in order to get care.
Second, the numbers tell only part of the story. Examine, for example, the hurtful effect these changes will have on individuals with disabilities. Over the past number of years, individuals with disabilities have made significant gains in improving options for community living. Would we really want to enact legislation that would force people, who were previously able to live in their community, to live in institutions? Because that is exactly what this Reconciliation package will do.
The healthy among us do not need extensive health services, but those with disabilities and chronic illnesses such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis, spina bifida, schizophrenia, and AIDs, do. The Reconciliation package allows States to cut critical benefits that these individuals need, with the burden placed on those who need the most care.
Together, these changes will only result in more individuals with disabilities being forced back into institutions, rather than enabling them to live in the community. Increased costs and decreased benefits for individuals with disabilities will leave them with no other option but to return to an institution where they can get needed medical care.
Those with disabilities who are under Medicaid already have higher out-of-pocket medical expenses than higher-income, privately insured people, even with the current protections the program offers. Out-of- pocket costs consumed an average of 5.6 percent of the incomes of these beneficiaries in 2002. On the other hand, privately-insured adults with incomes over $19,140 spent 0.7 percent of their incomes on out-of- pocket medical costs. Individuals with disabilities already have their incomes stretched to the limit. In 2004, a national average rent for a modest one-bedroom unit consumed more than the entire monthly payment (109.6 percent) for a person receiving SSI.
In addition to these increased out-of-pocket expenses, the working disabled may find they must sell their homes if they wish to continue receiving the needed long-term care services provided under Medicaid that enables them to work. And it is difficult to keep people in the community if they are forced to sell or mortgage the home they reside in.
According to CBO, Congress could achieve $20 billion in savings by simply not overpaying Medicare HMOs. Yet these provisions are nowhere to be found in the Republican legislation. Clearly the profits of health insurers are protected while the poor and working families are squeezed to fund Republican tax priorities.
The Republican solution to the hard economic times facing many families is to charge them more for their health care, take away needed benefits, and make it easier for States not to cover those in need. Rather than provide States with the tools to slash coverage and impoverish more families through higher medical expenses in order that their tax cuts for the wealthy may stay intact, Congress should seek ways to join with the States to shore up healthcare coverage for our most vulnerable citizens.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Let me observe that, first of all, the gentleman is dead wrong. I said that that particular package of reforms was not something which was acceptable. I encouraged the Governors to reject it and I urge you to reject it. I have never supported it. But I have never said that reform of Medicaid would pass over my dead body.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle call budget reconciliation. Ironically, the hurricanes are being used to rationalize cutting the very programs the hurricane survivors rely on. In fact, this budget will do more harm to the poor and unfortunate than the storms.
Let us be clear about the purpose of the legislation before us today: all of these spending cuts are going towards financing tax cuts. In recent years, deficits have been the largest in history--indicate that we are spending far beyond our means. I find it ironic that Republicans are calling this bill the ``Deficit Reduction Act,'' because it will actually increase the deficit.
Republicans are asking working families to foot the bill for a massive tax giveback for the wealthy. Due to the President's previous tax policies, millionaires get an average tax cut of $103,000 a year and the new bill will continue this trend. Americans, the young, aged, sick, poor and the unfortunate will get a reduction in benefits.
I have been before this body on numerous occasions to discuss priorities, so it is not necessary to go into detail about how misguided this legislation is. I hear time and time again how the Republican fiscal policy has been working to stimulate the economy and create jobs. No one has yet seen the evidence of this so-called success. My people back in Michigan certainly are not celebrating any successes of the GOP Congress. And not just in Michigan--poll after poll shows two-thirds of the American people disapprove of the way the President is handling the economy.
I frequently hear from constituents who are struggling just to make ends meet. From veterans who are not getting medical treatment, students trying to pay for college, farmers and laborers alike--all of these people are working hard to scrape by and make a decent living in this country. At minimum wage, they would earn $10,700 per year, barely one-tenth of the average tax giveback for millionaires.
Meanwhile, my colleagues will ask these hard-working Americans to foot the bill for another massive tax giveback. Those with particularly low incomes will be hurt the most. The reconciliation package will cut food stamps, student aid and Medicaid--all are programs which largely benefit the most vulnerable members of our society.
The current conflict in Iraq has been entirely funded by the deficit. During times of war, past presidents have found ways to curb the deficit through increased revenue, closing tax loopholes and budgetary enforcement rules such as PAYGO. President Reagan realized that his tax act was causing large deficits and so in 1982 he supported a repeal of the parts of his tax bill that had not been enacted. President George H.W. Bush also realized that the deficit was getting too large and increased taxes in 1990. It may not have been politically popular, but it was the right thing to do. Shocking as it may seem to Republicans, President Bush's tax increase, along with President Clinton's balanced budget, led us into an unprecedented period of surplus and economic well-being.
This Administration and this Congress have chosen to ignore the obvious, opting instead to keep the blinders on and march forward with their reckless tax policies. Republicans complain incessantly about ``tax and spend'' liberals, but all I see in Congress and the White House are ``spend and spend'' Republicans who cut programs which benefit ordinary Americans.
I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have doubts about this legislation and I urge them to oppose it. This is not sound policy. We can do far better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this bill is a sham. This bill does not reduce the deficit. It increases the deficit by at least $7 billion,…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this bill is a sham. This bill does not reduce the deficit. It increases the deficit by at least $7 billion, and it results from a budget resolution passed a few months ago that does not lower the deficit. It raises the deficit by over $100 million over the next 5 years.
Now, I know the supporters of this bill claim it is going to help for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, well, that is a phony 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 larger budget resolution for 2006 that calls for a total of $106 billion in new and additional tax cuts, $70 billion in reconciled tax cuts, $36 billion in unreconciled tax cuts. So the spending cuts in this bill are really just the first step in a three-step process.
Step number two will come tomorrow or soon thereafter when tax cuts are introduced in the form of another reconciliation bill. And when these two are put together, the result will be a bigger deficit. So this is not a deficit reduction bill. It does not lead to deficit reduction. And after the tax cuts are passed, there will not be a dime left to pay for Katrina and Rita, but there will be a bigger deficit. And that brings on the third step in this process and that is a $781 billion increase in the national debt of the United States of America. That is, this bill is part of the process that will require an increase in the national debt ceiling of $781 billion. As you can see, over the last 4 fiscal years, to accommodate the budgets of this administration and the leadership of this Congress, the Congress has raised the legal debt ceiling of the United States by $3 trillion 15 billion, of which $781 billion is included in this budget resolution, deemed approved when we pass the budget resolution.
Once upon a time, the purpose for reconciliation was to reduce the deficit, rein in the deficit. But the reconciliation bills for this year, this one and the tax bill to come, stand that purpose on its head. They actually raise the deficit for the reasons I have just mentioned. And this is our first reason for opposing the bill. In the end, it will not reduce or rein in the deficit. It will only make it worse.
Let me answer the gentleman's charge of where is our plan? We do not need a plan. We produced a plan as an alternate budget which they chose not to vote for just a few months ago. The budget resolution for 2006 which we brought to this House floor would have balanced the budget in the year 2012, and accumulated far less debt than their budget resolution in the process.
Where is the plan tonight? We do not need a plan because this plan tonight on the House floor is a plan to permit further tax cuts. It was our feeling that when you have a $412 billion deficit, and that is what it was in 2004, the first rule of holes is to quit digging. Do not make the deficit worse. So we did not propose further tax cuts that would have made the deficit worse, which we would have done and we are trying to mitigate with this particular bill. That is why we did not have a plan here. Our budget did not call for it. But our budget resolution would put the budget in the surplus again by the year 2012.
This bill calls itself ``The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,'' but it does not live up to its name. This bill results from a budget resolution that does not lower the deficit. The bill raises the deficit by $100 billion over the next 5 years.
Supporters claim that this bill will help pay for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This too is a phoney claim. 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 larger budget resolution that calls for a total of $106 billion in new and additional tax cuts: $70 billion in reconciled tax cuts, along with $36 billion in unreconciled tax cuts.
The spending cuts in this bill are the first step in a three-step process. The second step will come tomorrow or soon thereafter in the form of tax cuts, and when these two steps are completed, the net result will be an increase in the deficit of around $7 billion. After the tax cuts are passed, there will not be a dime left to pay for Katrina and Rita. But there will be a bigger deficit, and so that brings in the third step in this process, a $781 billion increase in the government's debt ceiling. The budget resolution of 2006 already deems its approval by the House.
Once upon a time, the purpose of reconciliation was to rein in the deficit. The reconciliation bills for this year stand that purpose on its head. They will actually raise the deficit, for reasons I have just mentioned. This year's budget resolution called for $106 billion in new tax cuts over five years. $70 billion of that is assured a fast track through the Senate because these tax cuts are ``reconciled.'' The mandatory spending cuts, contained in this bill, will go to offset in part the revenues lost to tax cuts. Nothing goes toward deficit reduction or toward paying for Katrina, due to new and additional tax cuts.
This is our first reason for opposing this bill. In the end, it will not reduce or rein in the deficit; it will only make it worse.
Now, that outcome may not be immediately clear. That's because this reconciliation bill with spending cuts is being considered separately from a second reconciliation bill with tax cuts.
There is another reason for the 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 hard. The savings realized from these spending cuts will go to offset, partially at least, tax cuts for taxpayers whose incomes are in the upper brackets. Our colleagues from across the aisle want to avoid that connection, so they have separated the two bills.
He may not buy the claim that this bill is ot pay for or partially offset the cost of Katrina. But we do believe that disaster relief is a form of shared sacrifice. So in paying for Katrina, we believe that the cost should be spread equitably over the entire country, and not just loaded on those least able to bear it. Yet that's exactly what this bill does. Who bears the brunt of the cuts made by this bill? Single mothers seeking child support from delinquent missing dads. Students struggling to pay loans for their college education. Foster children. The sick and poor whose only access to health care coverage is Medicaid, and families who depend on food stamps. Is this any way to pay for Hurricane Katrina? Or to pave the way for tax cuts?
There are $11.4 bilion in cuts to Medicaid, including cuts over $8 billion that fall upon beneficiaries through co-pays, premiums, and benefit reduction; -$14.3 billion in spending cuts to college student loan programs over 5-years, of which $7.8 billion is realized through increases in the interest rates and fees that students pay; -$4.9 billion in cuts to child support enforcement, which will cut back the state's capacity to enforce child support orders, -$577 million in foster care cuts; $732 million in SSI cuts.
Other provisions in this bill cut conservation by $504 million; cut deeply into rural development; and eliminate altogether the Byrd Amendment. The Byrd Amendment requires that duties paid by foreign firms, as a penalty for dumping their goods here at prices below cost, should be shared with U.S. firms damaged by import dumping.
This reconciliation package claims to offset the cost of Hurricane Katrina. That, like the title, is a false claim for two reasons. Rather than helping pay for Katrina, many of the services cut, such as Food Stamps and Medicaid, benefit the victims of these disasters, the people who have been uprooted and displaced.
I must say, we are mystified over this newfound interest in offsets. Since 2003, we have passed three huge supplementals to cover the cost of war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. We supported all of them, because when we put troops in the field, we stand behind them. But any notion of offsetting those costs was dismissed out of hand.
As we have asked before, why is it that you insist on offsetting the cost of rebuilding Biloxi, but not the cost of rebuilding Baghdad or Basra? Will the next supplemental for Iraq be offset? There is $50 billion in ``bridge funding'' in the defense bill not offset.
If this bill reduced the deficit or helped pay for Katrina, as you claim, we would still have trouble with the cuts you have chosen. Many hurt those who need help most. Moreover, the savings are overstated, and some won't stand scrutiny. For example:
This bill includes $6.2 billion in increased PBGC premiums, but these premiums are entrusted to pay pension benefit guaranties, and in the near future, these additional premiums will be spent for that very purpose. You can claim these additional receipts as offsets to your tax cuts only because the federal government runs a cash-basis budget. If we accrue the liability for benefit guaranties, there would be no balance in this trust fund to use as an offset to tax cuts.
This bill makes crippling cuts to child support enforcement: $4.9 billion over five years. This will only shift the cost to the states, and if the states don't make up the difference, this reduction will result in a loss of more than $24 billion in child support over the next ten years. This is a flagrant case of false economy.
And as if the reduction in child support were not tough enough, this bill allows Medicaid to charge children co-pays, and to deny care if the cost-sharing is not paid. At $3 and up, the co-pays may not seem much to us, but they can be a birch well for someone living at or below the poverty line. The co-pays as such do not save much in total Medicaid spending. The way they save money is by discouraging low- income children and others from seeking medical care.
This bill also claims one-time receipts from spectrum auctions to offset the recurring loss of revenues to permanent tax cuts, and it overestimates the net receipts by assuming the cost of converter boxes at $1 billion, though the cost is likely to be about three times that amount.
This bill cuts $2.2 billion in mandatory spending to administer the student loan program. But these costs have to be paid. Guess where? Out of discretinary funds for education.
In short, there are many reasons that this bill does not live up to its title. It makes deep and painful cuts all right, but it paves the way for new and additional tax cuts, despite an enormous deficit, and the end result is a larger deficit. In this respect, today's legislation is like the budget resolution that set it in motion. This is one in a series of fiscal actions that will cause the debt ceiling of the United States to be raised by $3 trillion between 2002 and 2006.
So, not only is this bill a shame, it is also a sham.
When the Bush Administration took office in 2001, it inherited a surplus and blithely predicted that the surplus would endure, even if its trillion dollar tax cuts were adopted. The Bush budget was adopted, and in fiscal 2005, the bottom line was not a surplus of $269 billion as it once projected, but a deficit of $319 billion. Realistic estimates show that these deficits are structural and will get worse, not better, over the next ten years, and that when the Bush Administration's full agenda is factored in, deficits will climb to $640 billion by 2015; the national debt will double; and debt service will more than double. This legislation will make deep and painful cuts, but it will not avoid that budget outcome or lead to balance in any time frame.
So, we oppose this bill because it's not only a shame, but also a sham.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 12 minutes of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the purposes of control.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.…
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, this is an historic evening, an evening when we have come together to truly chart the course for the Federal Government's spending over the next number of years.
House Resolution 560 provides for consideration of H.R. 4241, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is the first time since 1997 that such a measure has come this far. The rule provides 2 hours of debate and a motion to recommit with or without instructions.
As a member of both the Rules and the Budget Committee, I am pleased to bring this historic resolution to the floor for our consideration.
Mr. Speaker, most all Americans rely on the government to provide security for themselves and their families, for their Nation. After defense, though, expectations vary widely about what Americans expect out of their government. But those expectations, whatever they may be, they all are rooted in the common need, the common expectation that whatever government does, that it be done wisely, prudently, efficiently, without waste or abuse of their hard-earned tax dollars.
The congressional budget process is a chance to ensure that our government behaves in a fiscally responsible and responsive manner to provide opportunity and security for today and for future generations.
In my first term in Congress I was appointed to the Budget Committee. I was pleased that this assignment would afford me the opportunity to receive the full scope of all the programs that exist, all the agencies, all the departments that fall under the umbrella of the Federal Government. But I was shocked when I got on that committee to learn how little control Congress actually exerts over spending in many of these agencies and programs.
Discretionary spending, that portion of the budget that consumes all the sound and fury that a Congress can manufacture, makes up less than half of total spending, half of the total budget.
Mandatory spending, entitlement spending, that spending that is on autopilot, accounts for 54 percent of the total budget and, if left unchecked, in a decade will consume nearly two-thirds, or 62 percent, of total Federal spending.
I have been dismayed at how Congress has allowed its voice to become fainter and fainter when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars on entitlement programs. It is time that this Congress take responsibility for the entire spending picture. We cannot avoid the tough decisions. It is our job to set the priorities of government and then fund them appropriately. It is our job to practice thorough oversight of the programs and agencies that consume our tax dollars. We must find the waste, the fraud, the abuse in the programs and blaze a trail to smarter, more responsive government.
Anyone watching the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina would agree that government was neither smart nor responsive. The time has come for this House to reassert its role and take back control of both discretionary and mandatory spending.
This legislation is another step towards smarter and more confident government. The congressional budget resolution called for a reduction in discretionary spending; and for the first time since 1997, it included deficit reduction instructions to authorizing committees to find and achieve mandatory savings for a more accountable government. It does this by finding smarter ways to spend and by slowing the rate of growth in the Federal Government.
Eight different authorizing committees have worked hard to find these savings within their individual jurisdictions through regular order, through individual members practicing their individual expertise, through their individual interests on their authorizing committees. Regular order was used to develop this plan for a smarter government, and I want to commend those chairmen and all those committee members, not just the Budget Committee members, not just the Appropriations Committee members, but the entire House who participated in this process and, through their aggressive oversight, identified nearly $50 billion in inefficiencies.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), our budget chairman, and his ranking member and
all the members of the Committee on the Budget of the House for their hard work, for preparing the deficit reduction package.
I look forward to passing this reform bill and reaffirming sound oversight and fiscal accountability here in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before we get too deep into this debate, let us go ahead and straighten out three myths.
Myth number one is the myth of the cuts, because only in Washington and only in the other side's rhetoric is a reduction in the rate of increase considered a cut. When growth rates are going from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent or from 6.3 to 6 percent and programs are getting more dollars the next year than they got the year before, that is not a cut.
Myth number two, that it is mean. What could be mean about demanding that services to people who need them the most are administered effectively, wisely, and efficiently? Is it waste in programs that administer to our most needy and our most vulnerable, the worst kind of waste?
Do we not have a special obligation to root out those dollars that have been directed to the people who need them the most but are not finding their way there because of inefficiencies in our government?
And, thirdly, that this is somehow part of an overall scheme that is tied in with preventing tax increases. There are two separate packages moving. You have an opportunity, you have an opportunity to vote against keeping the tax rates where they are and allowing them to rise. You have an opportunity to do that. But you have a separate opportunity, through regular order, through the ordinary process, through all the individual committees, to also take a stand to correct and rein in mandatory spending that is out of control and is gobbling up the Federal budget. You have that opportunity.
Two separate votes. You can be for savings and still vote to let taxes go up on another day, but do not try to have it both ways.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) to elaborate on these points.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just point out that the gentleman has two votes coming up, one where he can do something about the spending and one where he can make clear the position on either raising taxes or not raising taxes. There are two separate and distinct votes. He cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Blue Dogs are stuck in the dog box of their leadership. They need to get off of the porch and bring a plan to the table. The chairman of the Budget Committee testified before the Rules Committee, asking that a substitute be made in order. The 12-step plan was still stuck someplace else. The Blue Dogs were still on the porch. The Blue Dogs were still locked in the box. They did not come forward with an opportunity to present their own plan.
They are free to criticize ours. We are big boys and girls. We are going to stand by this plan, and we are going to move it forward because it is important that we back up what their rhetoric is, which is that mandatory and entitlement spending is eating up this budget and somebody has got to do something about it besides just bark.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my apologies for besmirching the reputation of the Blue Dogs. It is clear that their bark is still in place, though their bite is lacking.
Mr. Speaker, that was quite a performance, and I respect the gentleman's passion; but I do not respect the fact that he chose to personalize the debate, an important debate about the future of our Nation. I do not like the way that he characterized me; I do not like the way that he characterized the gentleman from Texas. It seems to me that the sensitivities about the reputation of the Blue Dogs is where the thin skin really lies.
Mr. Speaker, this budget is about the future and this organization has created the impression over a number of years of fiscal responsibility; and yet time after time after time when given the opportunity to truly do something about it, they just fade away. They just go back to the porch. Instead of taking the tough votes, instead of bringing real reform and making government work better so future generations of men and women and businesses and children and all aspects, instead of guaranteeing a bright future for all Americans, they just choose to talk about it.
The gentleman is right when he said that our younger generation is going to be most impacted by these fiscal decisions. They are. That is why we are here today to try to do something about it. They are here today to just talk about it. Where is their plan to rein in the overarching growth of Federal spending? What are they going to do about the fact that entitlement spending takes up over half of the budget and will soon take up two-thirds? Where was their plan about what they were going to do for these same women and children, as if the country was only made up of women and children, that benefit from these programs, what about all Americans? What were you going to do about this generation and future generations' retirement security? The same thing you were going to do about this, just talk about it, but not actually take the tough votes to do anything about securing their future.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. Speaker, up until now I think we have had a very civil debate here this evening on a very important matter to the American people, a matter that consumes a great deal of the time of the Congress,…
Mr. Speaker, up until now I think we have had a very civil debate here this evening on a very important matter to the American people, a matter that consumes a great deal of the time of the Congress, the blueprint for what we do in the year, the budget.
Tonight, the Republicans are launching an attack on America's children and America's families; and they are also launching an attack on America's middle class, all of this to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country.
This budget is a sham, and it is a shame. Democrats believe that together America can do better.
I am so proud of my Democratic colleagues tonight because they have stood proudly for fiscal responsibility.
I am so proud of the Blue Dogs and how they led this debate tonight for pay-as-you-go, for no deficit spending, for fiscal soundness so that future generations will not have to bear the brunt of the fiscal irresponsibility that the Republicans are continuing to present to the Congress.
I am proud of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his tremendous leadership as our ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. He, indeed, has put forth an alternative budget, a Democratic budget, that would eliminate the deficit in 2012, was balanced in terms of its values, its priorities and in addition to its funding.
Mr. Rangel led the way from the Ways and Means Committee in terms of tax fairness in our country. Mr. Dingell spoke in and his members spoke so eloquently about what would happen to Medicaid in this Republican proposal, and Mr. Miller, of course, was relentless in his advocacy for America's students.
I have heard my Republican colleagues talk about those who disagree with their budget priorities as hypocrites and demagogues. Well, let me introduce some others to this debate who might fall into that category by our Republican colleagues' characterization.
Let me start with the National Council of Churches USA. They have written to every Member of Congress and very carefully dissected this budget, and this is what they say: ``The role of government is to protect the people and work for the common good. This is not the time for the budget reconciliation process to create greater hardships for those who are already experiencing great suffering. To do so is not only unjust; it is a sin. It violates all the fundamental Christian principles of loving thy neighbor, caring for the poor, and showing mercy. As religious leaders, this is a violation that is unacceptable to us.
``How is it that we show mercy for oil millionaires and not hurricane survivors? We urge you to change this destructive course of action for the sake of our Nation and for generations to come.''
I submit this for the Record. But first I want to read a list of those who signed the letter so that they perhaps will be labeled by our colleagues on the Republican side as hypocrites and demagogues.
The National Council of Churches USA, the Alliance of Baptists; the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America; the Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America; Friends United; Philadelphia Religious Society of Friends; Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America; International Council of Community Churches; Moravian Church in America; National Baptist Convention USA; National Missionary Baptist Convention of America; Polish National Catholic Church of America; Presbyterian Church USA; Progressive National Baptist Convention; Swedenborgian Church; United Church of Christ; General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church.
I am very proud, also, that we have a letter from Catholic Charities. And Catholic Charities says that it is our ``tradition that teaches us that society, acting through government, has a special obligation to consider first the needs of the poor. Yet the proposed budget cuts put a disproportionate burden on the poor, those that can least afford it.''
``We urge you to oppose these proposed cuts.''
And that letter I wish to submit for the Record because it carefully goes into every detail of this budget and urges opposition. And, in fact, leaders of the faith community, indeed, came to the Capitol Rotunda to pray that Congress would make the right decision. On November 3, they said that the House Republicans seem to be saying that they literally want to take food out of the mouths of children to make rich people richer. They said budgets are moral documents and they reflect our national priorities and values. In the name of social conscience, fiscal responsibility, equality of opportunity, protecting our communities, and the very idea of the common good, they said that the faith community is drawing a moral line in the sand against these provisions in this budget.
Democrats will join the faith community in drawing a moral line in the sand, because we know that together America can do better.
My Democratic colleagues have eloquently made an indictment against this budget, which is immoral because, with more than $70 billion tax cuts which mainly benefit the wealthiest people in America, this Republican budget decimates the very programs that millions of middle class Americans rely upon to get ahead. As the number of people without health insurance has increased for 4 years in a row under the Bush administration, Republicans are charging ahead with billions of dollars in cuts in Medicaid, the health insurance program that provides medical care to America's poorest children, many of them Katrina survivors. Republicans give new meaning to the words ``suffer little children.''
The number of people in America go to sleep hungry because they cannot afford to buy food has risen by 7 million people in the 5 years of the Bush administration. Seven million more people go to sleep hungry because they cannot afford to buy food. That is a 12 percent increase. Republicans are slashing food assistance for America's poor children; slashing funds for preventative services and foster care for abused and neglected children when more help, not less, is needed; drastically reducing funding for child support enforcement programs, which could result in billions in reduced child support from delinquent dads for their children.
And how about this one: For our troops serving in combat zones in Iraq, they are prevented from fully accessing the low-income tax credit. How is that for honoring our men and women in uniform?
The Republicans, as the people of faith said in their document, are literally taking food out of the mouths of children to give tax cuts to America's wealthy. This is not a statement of American values. In their years in the majority, Republicans have turned budget surpluses into seas of red ink. These budget deficits are the result of misplaced Republican priorities, a refusal to join Democrats in putting forth fiscally responsible budgets, Pay-As-You-Go, no deficit spending, and shared sacrifice in spending cuts. Democrats believe that together America can do better.
And we did. I want to join my distinguished colleague from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip, in singing the praises of the Democrats. In August of 1993, Democrats passed an economic package that led to historic growth in our economy, and we did so without one Republican vote. As Mr. Hoyer said, in the Clinton administration, we had zero deficits. In fact, we had surplus for the last several years of the Clinton administration. We were on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And then the Bush administration began and that all reversed. They have taken us on a trajectory of over $4 trillion, a swing of about $10 trillion, the largest swing from surplus to deficit in our history by far, and a disgraceful one at that. The surpluses were based on Pay-As-You-Go, no deficit spending, and they were implemented with not one Republican vote for fiscal soundness.
The Republican Congress wants to give tax cuts to the rich, to subsidize oil companies which are enjoying obscene profits while American consumers are paying an increased price at the pump and an increased price for their home heating gas and oil. As the religious community said, why are we giving relief to the oil companies and not the people? They are increasing taxes on the middle class. Nineteen million middle-income Americans will have their taxes increased under this bill.
This is not a values-based budget. It is not worthy of our support. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution that will increase our swollen budget deficits by another $20 billion, hurt our most vulnerable citizens and the middle class. Again, together, America can do better with a budget that would help Katrina and Rita survivors, veterans, students, working families struggling to fill their gas tanks, heat their homes, and afford medical care.
Democrats are proud to join the faith community in rejecting this immoral budget. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his good work on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from this side of the aisle about what this is about today. Let me tell…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his good work on this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from this side of the aisle about what this is about today. Let me tell Members what this is about. This is about reforming programs that are important to the American people, but they do not always work properly. They do not always reach the people that the programs are intended to reach; and these positive reforms which are a modest, a tiny percentage of the $2.5 trillion that this government will spend next year, more than $12.5 trillion over the next 5 years, to save $50 billion is not a very big percentage.
I would say to my colleagues, Where is your plan to reform programs? Where is your plan to achieve savings? What are you doing for the American people, the American taxpayers? And, yes, even the people who depend upon the programs that you claim to so strongly support. And yet you will do nothing to protect the programs by
putting in the reforms that are necessary.
I will tell you where their plan is, it is locked up. And I will tell you why it is locked up, because what that plan primarily consists of is raising taxes on the American people. The reason they want to raise taxes is because they are opposed to the effort to do what has done wonders for our economy in the last few years, and that is to extend the tax relief that we have provided to stimulate the economy, create jobs, bring the unemployment rate below 5 percent; and they have done nothing except wait in the wings to raise taxes on the people of this country. That is what this is all about.
That is the party of spending. They will not come forward with any savings. That is the party of taxes, the tax and spend Democrats, the same way they have always been. That is why we are here today with a responsible plan in response to this abuse that they would sit here and attack modest reforms of important programs and suggest that, as a result of that, they can sit back with nothing and wait for the opportunity to raise taxes yet again on the American people.
The last time they were in power, the last thing they did was to impose the largest tax increase in history on the American people, and we should not ever allow them that opportunity again. That is what they are trying to achieve here by bringing down this plan, and they should not be allowed to succeed.
Let me talk briefly in the time remaining about the reforms we have made in important programs under the jurisdiction of my committee.
First of all, we have approached this across the board. We have achieved fair savings in farm programs which keep the programs intact. We have achieved savings in conservation programs that make those programs work better. We have achieved savings in research for agriculture. We have achieved savings in other areas that are important. And, yes, we have also achieved savings from the food stamp program: one-half of 1 percent of the $180 billion that will be spent on food stamps in the next 5 years is what we are hoping to achieve. It is less than one-half of 1 percent. It will affect less than 1 percent of the 24 million Americans that receive food stamps. And it is targeted at whom? People who are not citizens of the United States who signed a document that said they would not become wards of the State and who by virtue of having been in this country for more than 5 years are eligible to apply for United States citizenship and avoiding the savings we are attempting to achieve by not giving food stamps to people who are not citizens of this country.
Secondly, we say that under the food stamp program if you are attempting to achieve food stamp benefits through a particular State's programs, you ought to qualify for real welfare programs like the TANF program. The bridge from welfare to work ought to be sustained, but it ought not be abused by those who would do so. Those are the savings we want. They are good reforms, and we ought to pass them.
We are here today in a good faith effort to continue putting the Nation's fiscal house in order. Some have questioned the need or the degree to which mandatory spending should be reduced. I would remind my colleagues that mandatory spending today takes up almost 55 percent of the total federal budget and, if left on its current path it will, within a decade, consume 60 percent of the federal budget. Clearly, it is unrealistic to think we can meet the pressing challenges facing our Nation without reducing Federal spending and redirecting priorities.
The House and Senate agreed to reduce mandatory spending by $34.7 billion earlier this year to start reining in mandatory spending. Paying for hurricanes and other disaster assistance--in addition to addressing the threat of international terrorism here and abroad--has necessitated targeted reductions in spending by all authorizing committees, including agriculture.
Eight House Committees were instructed to put together a reform savings plan to reduce the growth in mandatory spending over the next five years to reduce spending and address some of the Nation's most pressing financial needs. The committees were asked to do more and I am pleased to report that the committee on agriculture headed this call and reported out savings above the $3 billion we were originally asked to find.
From the beginning of this process it was the goal of the House Agriculture Committee that no single program should bear a disproportionate share of the spending reductions. The committee's final recommendations are balanced terms of the impact they will have on the many diverse interests that will be affected by this reform savings plan.
The Agriculture Committee's savings plan includes an overall reduction in mandatory spending of $3.48 billion over five years (FY06- 10). The savings package includes reductions in a variety of programs under the committee's jurisdiction including commodity, conservation, energy, rural development, research, and food stamp programs.
There are some who have suggested that food stamps take a disproportionate share of the spending reductions. This is simply not the case. While food stamps comprise nearly 60 percent of the agriculture committee's mandatory spending, they account for only 19 percent of the total savings under the package. The proposed reductions account for less than a half a penny for every dollar spent on the food stamp program.
Under the agriculture's reform savings plan, eligibility requirements are harmonized between Federal assistance programs so that food stamp benefits go to those truly in need.
By tightening the categorical eligibility for some temporary assistance to needy families (TANF) recipients as well as the eligibility requirements for non-citizens, this legislation ensures that the Nations most needy will continue to receive this Federal assistance.
When an individual enters the country to become a legal permanent non-citizen, an affidavit is signed indicating that they will not participate in programs such as food stamps; however, this is not the reality. Under current law, non-citizens are eligible for food stamps after five years of resident status. The house agriculture committees savings reform plan extends this time requirement to seven years.
This provision will not affect children non-citizens. Non-citizens who are 60 years old and above and are currently receiving food stamp benefits on the date of enactment will not be affected. Additionally, non-citizens who have submitted their citizenship application by date of enactment and currently receive food stamps would still be eligible to receive food stamps.
After five years, non-citizen residents can apply for U.S. citizenship. If approved, they can apply for food stamps immediately. If someone chooses to remain a non-citizen, that choice will result in a longer waiting period to qualify for food stamps.
It is essential that the House approves a reform savings plan. While all government safety net programs--including agriculture--need to be sustainable, the burden of addressing the nation's budget pressures needs to be broadly shared in order to be effective. Let me also say that in an ideal situation we would have had the support of the minority in moving this reform savings plan forward, However, in the absence of bipartisan cooperation, it is incumbent on those of us who are privileged to serve in the people's house that we address the budgetary problems facing the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support the deficit reduction act.
Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to respond to just say I have had a chance to…
Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to respond to just say I have had a chance to check out Matthew in the Bible, and I want to let you know that Matthew was referring to Jesus's speech to people.
Jesus did not say raise a bunch of taxes, create 1,000-page tax code, hire millions of government workers, build hundreds of big white fancy buildings, stick them in there, create a system, pass a bunch of mandates, a bunch of regulations, all sorts of paperwork, measure your compassion by increases only in order to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. He said you do it as an individual.
So do not measure compassion by government. Measure it by what you are willing to do for the least of your brothers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is all politics.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), member of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. Speaker, these are the same arguments we heard before we reformed welfare and unlocked 30 million Americans from the dependency of government.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), one of the eight very distinguished committee Chairs who worked on the bill.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, the Education and the Workforce Committee has contributed to this effort, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) from the Resources Committee.
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the very distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and ask unanimous consent to allow him to control the time for the purposes of yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to find where we are taking away picnics now. I am looking for picnics in here. I may not vote for this now. I did not realize we were taking away picnics, of all things. My goodness. How could we do that, my friend.
I would now like to yield to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee has contributed reform to this package.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
Mr. Speaker, except the gentleman forgot Osama bin Laden, and I thank the gentleman for that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee, so maybe he can answer some of the diatribe that we heard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a very distinguished gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Democrats come to the floor and they want us to only remember two parts of a very large story. They want us to remember back in May now of 2001. It is kind of an interesting date they picked out of the air, May of 2001. What a wonderful time. Can we all remember back to that time of innocence? Can we all remember back to that time? They want us to remember a time of surpluses. Everything was perfect. They make it sound like such a blissful time.
What they do not want to remind you is that we were suffering at that very moment from a Clinton recession, a Clinton recession where the stock market bubble burst, the dot-coms were failing. We had corporate scandal, and the stock market was plummeting.
We saw some real challenges. We stepped into that breach. We made a very important economic decision that people spending their own money, investing their own money, making decisions in the towns and cities and suburbs and counties of our great land is the best way to grow our economy. It worked and we did create jobs, and we did provide prosperity, and we do know how to do it again.
But then they jump ahead. They do not want you to remember any more of 2001, not 2002, not 2003, 2004. All the way to 2005 is where their story goes next, and it is deficits as far as the eye can see. They do not want you to remember about what happened on September 11. They do not want you to remember the fact that we are now in the middle of prosecuting a global war on terror with our men and women in the field that now they want to recklessly call home and not even want to fund.
What they do not want to recall is the fact that we had reforms that we needed to put into our homeland security to protect our country. They do not want us to recall any of the emergency spending for New York or for the Pentagon. They do not want you to remember the needs that we had when natural disaster struck our country and where, in minutes, the Congress was willing to come back and spend whatever it took to make sure our people were taken care of.
They do not want you to remember any of that. They voted for it. They voted for a lot of that spending, but they do not want you to remember that. They just want you to think that Clinton caused surpluses and now we are in deficits; do not think of anything else in between.
Well, you know, there is a lot in between. It may be a good political plan what they are putting on the floor today. It may be great in a press release. It may be good in a 12-step press release by a Blue Dog budget. It may be great if you are going to go home and run attack ads. It may be great if you are just getting ready for the next election.
But if you want to govern, you need a plan. If you want to govern, you have got to put it on the table. If you want to govern, you have to be serious about the activities and not just come to the floor and be negative. If you want to govern, you need to put it out so that we can decide whether it is the right way to go or not.
Well, we have a plan. It reforms government. It grows the economy, it protects America, and it gets us moving again in a positive way that trusts Americans to make the correct decisions about their future and not trust government to do it for them.
People, individuals and families, make much better decisions about their daily lives than the government can for you. When Democrats come to the floor, their plan will be tax increases and trusting bigger government, bigger bureaucracy, more big, fancy, white buildings filled with bureaucrats to provide the compassion that they do not believe the American people will have for themselves. They have got to manufacture it through government and government bureaucracy; and that is the reason that we are here tonight, because that has not worked. Our government bureaucracy has let down the American people.
We have got to reform those programs so they deliver a quality product, and we have to do it tonight, and we are the only ones to do it. There is no point in talking to the Democrats. They are all in lock-step going to vote ``no.'' They have decided tonight they are going to wait for the election for the American people. They are not going to do anything in the meantime except be negative.
So we have got to do it. We have got to put the plan out. We have got to support it. We have got to provide the reforms, and we have to provide the savings so that we can reduce the deficit and get back to fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, but still no plan.
But to close on our plan, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. It is interesting that the good friend on the other side wants to quote the Bible. Let me simply remind him that the Good…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time.
It is interesting that the good friend on the other side wants to quote the Bible. Let me simply remind him that the Good Samaritan says that we are, in fact, our brothers' and sisters' keepers.
This budget, which causes an offset not on taxes and the rich but the offset on the backs of those in Hurricane Wilma, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, what would you give to the answer of those who are going to be evicted in 2 weeks from hotels because this government says it has no money? And then we add insult to injury by cutting Medicaid $11 billion, student loans $14 billion, food stamps another $796 million, and we throw the crying mothers and the hungry babies to the streets.
This is a budget that cries for shameless disgraceful attention to the other side of the aisle.
Why are we mad, Mr. Speaker? We are mad because the American people are suffering the brunt of the inconsistencies of the other side of the aisle who want to give taxes to the rich and do not want to give equipment to the soldiers, but they want to break the backs of Americans.
Vote ``no'' on this budget reconciliation and send us to victory in 2006 so we can take back America from these people who do not understand.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us perhaps the most important piece of legislation that we will vote on all year, H.R. 4241, the Budget Reconciliation Spending Cuts Act. This $50 billion of spending cuts have turned everything we believe in as a country on its head. The Republicans are actually asking the poor, the downtrodden, the disabled and the young to sacrifice on behalf of the rich. I want to emphasize that these cuts are not meant to free up money to rebuild the gulf coast. In fact, many of these proposed cuts will actually hurt those affected by Katrina. Overall, the plan before the House will increase the deficit and the national debt.
From a Homeland Security standpoint, H.R. 4241 proposes to cut funding for the COPS program by $480 million and to remove important funding for local firefighters by $215 million--cuts of 80 percent and 30 percent, respectively. As ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, I am outraged at the fact that its provisions seek to break the promise of putting an additional 2,000 border patrol agents on the job in 2006, as promised in landmark intelligence reforms passed late last year and endorsed by the 9/11 Commission. The budget provides funding for only 210 agents. Overall, the plan before the House will increase the deficit and the national debt.
In the Homeland Security Committee, we completed a markup of a border security measure, H.R. 4312, that proposes to enhance the way our Department of Homeland Security protects our international borders and ports of entry. The cuts contained in the legislation on the Floor will render this measure a nullity if there are no resources available to execute its provisions.
From a healthcare perspective, there are 45 million Americans living today without any health insurance at all, but this budget cuts $11.4 billion over 5 years from Medicaid, and $46 billion over 10 years. The budget includes a proposal to expand enrollment in high-deductible health savings accounts would actually increase the number of Americans without insurance by 350,000. It also includes language which allows States to increase premiums and decrease coverage to children. This bill decimates health care funding for children, the elderly, and people with disabilities and making it even harder for families to afford nursing home care.
As founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, as a person who understands the value of our Nation's youth, and as a mother of two children, I really want to bring focus on the effect this bill will have on our nation's children. If you have children who are in, or who are considering going to college, I want you to listen to this: this republican spending cut will place an added burden of $7.8 billion dollars directly on our students over the next five years. This is accomplished. through added fees of $4.8 billion, and increases of interest rates. A typical student borrowing money for college could pay up to $5,800 more. This is in the face of college costs up over 7 percent this past year alone.
Allow me to cite some of the specific cuts I, and our constituents across the country, find so objectionable:
Medicaid--The bill cuts Medicaid spending by$11.4 billion nationwide.
Student Loans--The bill cuts spending on student loan programs by $14.3 billion over 5 years.
Food Stamps--The bill imposes cuts to food stamps of $796 million over 5 years, affecting nearly 300,000 people.
Child Support--The bill cuts $4.9 billion from child support programs over 5 years. Custodial parents will receive $7.1 billion less child support over 5 years and $21.3 billion less over 10 years.
Foster Care--The bill cuts $397 million from foster care over 5 years.
These are some big numbers, and we politicians love to throw around big numbers, but often times it is difficult to understand the true impact of what these numbers mean. Let me break some of these numbers down to what they will mean to my State of Texas, because the devil really is in the details for this legislation.
One program the Republicans are trying to cut is Child support enforcement. It is said that for everyone $1 the government puts in to collecting money from de ad- beat dads, the family receives $4 back In Texas, this bill will cut $411 million from child support enforcement in the next 5 years.
In Texas, this bill will cut $110.2 million from Elementary and Secondary Education. This breaks down to $52.8 million for education for the disadvantaged, $18.9 million for special education, and $34.7 million for school improvements.
In Texas, this bill will cut $6.8 million in vocational and adult education--in other words, job training.
In Texas, this bill will cut $5.9 million from Low Income Home Energy Assistance. This program helps poor families heat their homes, not forcing a family to choose between paying heat and groceries. This bill is projected to cut 3,600 recipients from this program next year. Nearly 600,000 people will lose the program nationwide.
In Texas, this bill will cut nearly $1 billion from WIC, the Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. Eighteen thousand recipients will be cut from this program in Texas.
In Texas, this bill will cut $45.5 million in Children and Families Services, including Head Start and Services for Abused and Neglected Children; 2,000 children will be cut from this program next year.
In Texas, 4,700 people will lose their housing vouchers as a result of cuts offered in this bill.
In Texas, this program will cut $2.8 million from the Maternal and Child Health block grants, which provide money to support the efforts of our public health departments to reduce infant mortality, improve prenatal care for pregnant women, provide child health prevention services, and more.
In Texas, we have 400,000 students borrowing money for school. For the typical student borrower, new fees and higher interest charges in this bill could cost each student as much as $5,800.
This is not how we take care of our own in Texas, and this is not how we do things in the United States. The Republicans are launching an unabashed attack on the American way by slashing funding towards those that are most vulnerable. And don't you be fooled. These spending cuts aren't meant to offset the costs of rebuilding the gulf coast, these spending cuts are meant to offset tax cuts that will benefit the rich.
Mr. Speaker, we can not allow the burden of the $70 billion in tax cuts to be placed on the backs of our Nation's neediest families. The decision to vote up or down on this legislation isn't a blurry line involving political ideology; it isn't a debate of republican vs. democratic philosophy. This is black and white. This cut hurts the children, it hurts the poor, it hurts the old and it hurts the young. I am strongly opposed to this legislation, and I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against these unreasonable cuts.
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…
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…
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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mr. Speaker, I once said that budgets are moral documents.…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I once said that budgets are moral documents. They reflect our choices, our priorities and they most clearly define our values, as a government and as a Nation.
Today's 5-year budget reconciliation is no different, and that is exactly why the Republicans in the House are worried. They are worried that the American people will see that they have sold out our American values.
So it should come as no surprise that it has taken a week of intraparty fighting in the Republican Conference and one false start to get the bill to the floor. Why? Because they cannot muster the votes in their own party to get this budget passed.
One of my Republican colleagues captured it best in yesterday's CQ Daily when he said, ``If the Republican Party cannot stand for responsible spending, then we stand for nothing at all.''
I agree with him on that point; and as this Republican leadership continues to flail and flounder, there can be only one conclusion drawn from this budget reconciliation, that this majority has come to stand for nothing at all, except for making the rich richer while the rest of America pays the bill.
Because at its core, that is what this budget does, and it is what the budget was intentionally designed to do, cut vital programs and increase the national debt in order to create tax cuts for the rich and the superrich.
I and many of my colleagues in this body, both Republican and Democrat, see nothing at all responsible about this agenda, and neither will the majority of the American people.
This budget reconciliation is not worthy of the ideals of this Nation. If it gets out of the House tonight, this Congress should be ashamed.
Republicans call this the Deficit Reduction Act, when very shortly they will actually increase our already-obscene deficit by another $5 billion by passing the tax cut bill. Republicans will claim on the floor tonight that they are reducing the deficit, but it is a deception.
Do not be fooled by their Enron-style accounting. The majority deliberately chose to separate this bill from its planned package of $56 billion in tax cuts for the rich, more than half of which goes to the superrich, those with incomes over $1 million a year.
Without missing a beat, they are trying to finance the tax cut, as well as the skyrocketing debt, on the backs of the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and the middle class. As a result, working Americans will pay more and get less.
For instance, the budget will cut student aid programs by $14.3 billion, which will make college more expensive, or totally unaffordable, for you and your children and will ensure that literally millions of students will not have the means to achieve a higher education.
Until earlier this evening, they were even planning to cut the school lunch programs for poor children and food stamps for needy families. I would ask, whose values are these? They certainly are not mine, and they are not the values of the hard-working families that I represent, which leads me to a very important point that I need to make here today.
Three months ago, a stunned Nation watched as the national horror that was Hurricane Katrina unfolded on our television screens. No one could believe that this kind of widespread suffering could happen here in America. It was a sobering moment for this Nation. It was the moment that we understood that America had forgotten our moral responsibility to provide for the security and welfare of all our fellow Americans.
I would ask my friends in the majority, in the wake of that realization, how can we cut the very programs that the victims of Hurricane Katrina will depend on to rebuild their lives? So that the richest among us can be even richer?
Unfortunately, this majority sees fit to pull what little these victims have left right out from under their feet.
The result of this budget will be the denial of affordable medical service to those who have nowhere else to turn and the creation of unprecedented health care premiums for those who can least afford them.
Child support services are cut as well, making it harder for working parents to raise their children.
I would ask my fellow citizens, have we learned nothing? Is this the America that you believe in?
Last year alone, the salary of the major corporate CEOs increased by just an average of 30 percent. This year, the oil companies are making the highest profits in history. In fact, over the last 4 months alone, Exxon Mobil has earned just shy of $10 billion in profits, and middle- class Americans at this time can no longer afford to fill their cars with gas.
As the winter approaches, middle-class families in the Northeast are having to choose between paying their skyrocketing heating bills and buying food for their families, and it is only November. All the while, the majority is making it harder for your children to go to college and more expensive to get decent health care for your family. I cannot think of anything less American than this. I cannot think of anything more out of touch with the values of our families.
After all, no responsible parent in America would fail to provide their children food and clothes or an education just so they could afford to buy a boat or take a trip, but that is the moral equivalent of what this majority seeks to do here today; and it is a subversion of every value we hold dear, because as Americans we meet our responsibilities. We take care of our families. We pay our bills, and we should demand the same thing from this Republican government.
That is why I am asking my colleagues to oppose this rule and strongly oppose this bill, because the budget sells out America. I would ask, if we accept this, what will be next? If we say that it is acceptable to slash education, health care, trade protection, senior medical coverage, affordable housing, student loans, foster care and family planning, if we agree to abandon all fiscal responsibility and further increase the already record national debt, just so that we can orchestrate one of the biggest giveaways to the rich, then what will be next?
I know if we band together America can do better than this. We can do better than turning the American Dream into a privilege for the few, instead of a right for all. We must do better, and we need to start today by rejecting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
(Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against the consideration of this rule, H. Res. 560. Section 425 of that same act states that the…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against the consideration of this rule, H. Res. 560.
Section 425 of that same act states that the point of order lies against legislation which imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of specified amounts against State or local governments.
Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive this point of order.
The first section of H. Res. 560 proposes to waive all points of order against consideration of the bill and against provisions in the bill, as amended.
The legislation, H.R. 4241, brought up by the rule, includes provisions on child support enforcement, which the Congressional Budget Office informs us impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Therefore, I make a point of order that this rule may not be considered pursuant to section 426.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, Americans on the front line in protecting and defending our most vulnerable children have been sending out an SOS. They do not merely solve problems every day. They save lives.
Their message is loud and clear. The child support provisions included in reconciliation undermine the Federal commitment to child support enforcement. Republican reconciliation is reckless disregard for safeguarding children.
It is a license for people to break their promise of child support because enforcement will be lax. Eighty percent of the children receiving support live in low- and moderate-income families. The bill would reduce the share of child support enforcement costs that are paid by the Federal Government from 66 percent to 50 percent by 2010. Federal funding to the program would be cut by $5 billion over the next 5 years, a nearly 40 percent cut in funding for the program by 2010. We make the money go away, but not the problems or the needs.
The CBO estimated that child support provisions in the reconciliation bill would reduce collections sent to families by $21 billion over the next 10 years.
As a result, more deadbeat dads will be left off the hook, while more low-income families will look to State and Federal programs to make up the difference in lost income. But we will not be there, just like the deadbeat dads.
In 2004, more than $4 was collected for every dollar spent in the program. Even President Bush's 2006 budget cites the program as ``effective'' and ``one of the highest rated block formula grants of all reviewed programs government-wide.''
A hard-working program will fall on hard times if we leave the reconciliation bill as it is. People will be hurt. Children will be hurt. Republicans will be responsible. And for what?
Mr. Speaker, this is the season of giving, and Republicans are going to be very generous with those very few Americans rolling in dough.
Republican leaders have scheduled their midnight express to roll through town again tonight. Republicans will climb aboard to run over the American people in the dead of the night.
Child Support Enforcement, that is not even in the baggage car. Republicans like doing things in the dark, behind closed doors, in the dead of night, hoping the American people will not notice.
Well, not today. Today's light shines on their darkness. If one candle can curse the darkness, we are going to use a search light. It is the Republican season of giving, and here is what it means: we take from the sack of the poor children in this country 330,000 child-care dollars and put it in the rich sock. It is Christmas time. Take $700 million from Social Security and put it in the rich stocking. Take child support, $21 billion from Child Support Enforcement and put it in the rich stocking.
Take Medicaid from the poor, $10 billion, and put it in the rich stocking. Student loans, $14 million. I take $14 billion from student loans and give that to the rich stocking. And food stamps from 300,000 tables we take and put it in the rich stocking. Finally, foster children, $600 million from foster children in this country goes into the sock, later tomorrow, of the rich because we have taken it from the poor and we have given it to the rich.
That is what this bill before us is all about. Tonight in the dead of night you are going to give to the rich who do not need it and take from the needy who cannot afford to lose it. You will disguise this as a Christmas stocking with presents, just in time for the holidays. But it is a heavy-handed club used on the American people. The heartland is not heartless. Not even the dead of the night will hide what you intend to do to the American people tonight. Even the rich will be ashamed. I wonder if the Republicans will. They should be.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility of closure, right?
Does he have any other speakers?
He says a whole lot, but he has no one else to speak, Mr. Speaker, because they want the people to believe that this is a fight between Democrats and Republicans. But it is not true. In reality, Republican Governors oppose these child support cuts, including Governor Schwarzenegger of California. Republicans in the Senate oppose these cuts including Senator Cornyn of Texas. Religious organizations oppose these cuts, including the Conference of Catholic Bishops. All program administrators and poverty experts oppose these cuts. Cutting child support payments to needy families is a policy supported only by the extreme right wing which currently is running the House of Representatives. I urge the Members to vote ``no'' on this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, the…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's clever props, notwithstanding the holiday stockings, I would point out to the gentleman who repeatedly referred to this being done in the dead of night that in his home district it is 5:30 in the afternoon and people are driving home from work. So for the dead of night on the west coast, the people on the east coast will know that we are not working a nine to five job and that we are pushing ahead with the agenda of reforming the inefficiencies that lay in government.
I would also point out to the gentleman that between 1999 and 2003, total child support enforcement administrative expenditures went up almost 30 percent; 29 percent between 1999 and 2003, as the case load declined 8 percent. Again, their rhetoric does not match well with the facts.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is utilizing the rules that are at his disposal, and I think that it is appropriate that he do that. It is a positive reflection on this House that these types of tools are available to the minority to stymie the progress, and we appreciate the gentleman's ability to use those. But it would be important to have the facts be accurate, and the facts are that these administrative costs that are being discussed in this bill are a shift in what has been a double-dipping practice that has been used by States to draw down Federal dollars and then collect administrative costs as if the original Federal dollar had been generated in that State in the first place. This is not, as the gentleman has characterized, the Grinch or any other mean-spirited person taking treats from children or from their holiday stockings that have arrived a month and a half early.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's reference to the CBO numbers. We also have the CBO numbers. They are available on a bipartisan basis. The CBO numbers clearly show that total collections will continue to go up. $24.8 billion in 2006, $26 billion in 2010, $31.7 billion by 2015. The gentleman has referred to this provision as the most callous part of the deficit reduction package. I hope that everyone else on his team remembers that because you can only have one number one. You can only have one most egregious part.
So as we get into the discussions about Medicaid and food stamps and student loans and all the things that we heard about this morning when we were talking about the continuing resolution, let us remember that this one is the most egregious, that this one is the most callous because you can only have one number one. I know that this is nothing but the first salvo in a historic debate about the direction that this country is heading.
I agree with the gentleman that it is important that we go back to our districts and we talk about these plans, because the fact of the matter is we have a plan. And the fact of the matter is that you don't. The fact of the matter is that you can criticize all you want about where we have chosen to reform government, to find efficiencies, to better deliver services to the people who need them the most while you can go home and criticize the changes that we offer without having to defend your own plan.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
We do not have any additional speakers, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important opening to the grand debate that we are unveiling here this evening about the direction of entitlement spending and the direction of Federal spending in this Congress and for our Nation. We have heard an awful lot about the term ``cuts'' and we have seen the cute props and we have heard the first of what will be many metaphors of snatching food from the mouths of children and all kinds of heated rhetoric. But at the end of the day, the numbers don't lie. The numbers are that child support collections under this proposal continue to go up.
Do they go up as fast as the Democrats would like? Apparently not, judging by the rhetoric. But only in Washington and only in their rhetoric is that a cut. The bottom line is that this next fiscal year, 2006, it is $23.8 billion. By 2010, it is $26 billion. And by 2015, it is almost $32 billion. Under every arithmetic, old math, new math, poor school districts, wealthy school districts, all across America, those numbers are going up. Those numbers mean more money to those States for the important task of enforcing child support responsibilities by all noncustodial parents.
So despite the references to the smugness, despite the fact that we have been accused of being in the pockets of deadbeat dads, the numbers continue to climb for administrative costs. None of these even affect the actual program. They are defending the administration of the program instead of the outcome of that program, which is more money getting to those families, more fathers, more mothers who are noncustodial living up to their obligations. That is really what it ought to be about, is it not, the outcome? Not the administrative fees, that are going up anyway?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the rule has given the gentleman this opportunity for us to open the debate in this way. Unfortunately his rhetoric outpaces the facts. I would urge the Members to reject this proposal and allow us to move forward with reforming government.
With that, I would ask the Members to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Show 11 more
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…
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…
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…
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, someone on the other side has said we have hit a new low tonight. I certainly agree with that. I have never heard so much hypocrisy and hyperbole, and I doubt that the American public…
Mr. Speaker, someone on the other side has said we have hit a new low tonight. I certainly agree with that. I have never heard so much hypocrisy and hyperbole, and I doubt that the American public has either.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues today because Federal spending has been out of control. Just because former Congresses and Presidents have foolishly increased spending does not mean we must continue along this destructive path in the future.
This Congress must become a better steward of taxpayers' dollars, and we must do it now. Contrary to what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying, we are not finding these savings on the backs of college students. These reforms will actually strengthen student aid programs and expand student benefits.
Republicans are proposing rational solutions that will increase student benefits and expand college access without expanding the deficit.
The Deficit Reduction Act provides key benefits to students including lower loan fees, higher loan limits for borrowers, low market-based interest rates, new loan flexibility, and a simplified financial aid process. Our constituents deserve to send less of their hard-earned dollars to Washington and spend more on their families, businesses, and dreams. It is the taxpayers' money we spend and we must be accountable, meticulous, frugal, and effective in the ways the Federal Government spends money. This budget reconciliation bill does just that. And on behalf of all of my hard-working constituents, I hope that all of my colleagues join me in supporting this great bill.
Mr. Speaker, as a lawmaker, we constantly must make important decisions while various forces pressure us one way or the other. Frequently ``doing the right thing'' is not the most popular choice. Often, ``doing the right thing'' for the majority of Americans could negatively impact small factions in the process. Rarely is ``doing the right thing'' an easy thing to do.
But ``doing the right thing'' is what my constituents elected me to do. ``Doing the right thing'' is why I first sought public office, and why I will continue to do so as long as my body allows. ``Doing the right thing'' is why I have consistently called for budget reconciliation and restrained spending. My constituents work hard for their money, and that money is not meant for the federal government to take and waste.
I cast a difficult vote against the massive Hurricane spending bill because it was the right thing to do. It was not easy and it was not initially popular, but it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately I lost that vote, and as a result our government slipped even deeper into a budget deficit. Just as my constituents spend less on other things when they encounter emergency costs, the federal government must do the same.
Although it wasn't the easy thing to do, we are now doing the right thing by slowing the growth of government spending to accommodate for the hurricane funding. Our Committee chairmen have been meticulous in cutting wasteful and duplicative spending so that the slowed growth that federal programs face will be minor. I am proud to have played a role in that process in the Education and Workforce and Agriculture Committees.
Over the past few weeks I have met with community pharmacists from North Carolina and my staff has spoken with dozens on the phone. The pharmacists believe that slowing the growth of the Medicaid bureaucracy will negatively impact them to the point that their pharmacies can no longer operate. As their Representative and as a customer of community pharmacies, those concerns are extremely important to me.
I approached Chairman Barton and his staff on the issue, and if the changes made in this bill indeed adversely affect community pharmacists in the long term to the point that they can no longer operate, we must promptly revisit the topic with stand alone legislation or some other technical fix. However, I can not in good conscience vote against a bill so important to our nation's prosperity because of its effect on one important interest. That is not to say that their concerns did not weigh heavily on my mind; the good simply could not be thrown away for the perfect.
Voting for this bill is the right thing to do, and I hope we will continue to slow the growth of our federal government. My constituents know how best to spend their money--not politicians.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we know that the reconciliation package the Republicans have put together before us tonight is…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the reconciliation package the Republicans have put together before us tonight is unfair and will increase the deficit. We have an analysis documenting that unfairness by the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee which I will be placing in the Record.
The spending cuts hit programs that benefit middle and lower income families while the tax cuts go overwhelmingly to very high income people. For example, families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution receive only 3 percent of family income, but they are being asked to absorb 22 percent of the cuts in spending for individuals. When you put together the tax cuts and the spending cuts, you see that the richest 20 percent of the income distribution receives benefits from tax cuts that far outweigh their losses from the spending cuts.
In contrast, middle and lower income families, the remaining 80 percent of all families in our country, lose more from program cuts than they gain from tax cuts. This is terribly unfair. This plan does not reflect American values. We can do better.
The Impact on Families of the House Budget Reconciliation Package
Joint Economic Committee Democrats
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)--Ranking Democrat
Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)--Senior House Democrat
November 17, 2005
Summary
The FY 2006 House budget reconciliation plan will increase
the federal budget deficit and is unfair in its impact on
families.
The deficit will increase because reconciled spending cuts
of $50 billion are not sufficient to offset reconciled tax
cuts of nearly $60 billion, which could rise to $70 billion
in a future conference agreement.
The plan is unfair because the spending cuts affect
programs that benefit middle and lower-income families, while
the tax cuts go mainly to very high-income people.
Spending Cuts
Of the $50 billion in reconciled spending cuts, about $22
billion are in payments for individuals that can be allocated
by family income group (Table 1).
That $22 billion is spread relatively evenly across
families in all income groups. But because income is so
unevenly distributed, the share of spending cuts borne by
low-income families is substantially larger than their share
of total income (Table 2). For example, families in the
bottom fifth of the income distribution receive only about 3
percent of total income, but they bear 22 percent of the
total cuts in spending on payments for individuals.
The remaining reconciled cuts and offsetting receipts do
not directly reduce payments for individuals, such as the
proceeds from auctioning electromagnetic spectrum licenses.
Nevertheless, some of the additional cuts will hurt
vulnerable families. For example, the roughly $5 billion in
cuts to child support enforcement efforts will reduce
payments to single parents and their children by over $7
billion.
Tax Cuts
Of the $57 billion in tax cuts, $28 billion are in taxes on
individuals that are allocable by income group (Table 3).
By far the largest amount ($23 billion) of the tax cuts for
individuals that can be allocated by family income group
accrue to the richest 20 percent of families (Chart 1).
Most of the taxes that are not directly allocated in this
analysis are business tax cuts that would also end up
benefiting high-income taxpayers.
Net Impact
The top 20 percent of the income distribution receives
benefits from the tax cuts that far offset losses from the
spending cuts (Chart 1).
Middle and lower income families (the bottom 80 percent of
all families) lose more from program cuts than they gain from
tax cuts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to remember this date, November 17, because in the final analysis the debate that is taking place obviously…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to remember this date, November 17, because in the final analysis the debate that is taking place obviously between Democrats and Republicans will be decided not due to the eloquence of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) who obviously is leaving the House, but will be decided by the American people.
There is an old western song, ``You Picked a Fine Time to Leave Me Lucille.'' To be the chairman of the Budget Committee and to try to find just what tax breaks can we give to the richest people that we have, and then to try to find out how you can really help the deficit by taking the two or $300 billion that we are paying for the war in Iraq and not even include that, and then to really try to look for the programs that deal with the most vulnerable people that we have, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) is leaving the floor.
I can understand that. But he does not have to leave the Congress. When the people start looking and seeing what happens, they will be looking for the chairman that drafted this, and you will not be in Washington.
And the reason I want people to remember November 17 is because November 17 is going to be an historic day. Oh, true, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) did not see reporters up there, but it is going to be reported tomorrow who voted on which side. So we ought to say it with a great bit of pride that old civil rights song, Which Side Are You on? And I tell you, we are so proud on this side that when the final vote is counted, those kids that are in foster homes that just have a little hope that maybe their lives could be better, the people on SSI that are disabled and everyone has left them, the kids who are trying to get a decent education and we are hitting them too, have we no shame on the other side as to what do we have to do in order to maintain the tax cuts?
I would like to believe that this was something that could have been worked out. I would like to believe that Democrats and Republicans should not have to vote party line. But it is shameful when you look at the deficit, you look at the war, you look at the tax cuts and then you decide that you are going to reform this system.
You try to reform Social Security and we looked at your cards and we found out that you are really trying to privatize it. Now every program that deals with the poor, every program that deals with those people that the Congress should be helping you want to reform.
Well, let me say to the other side, I think when the votes are taken tonight people would know who have the compassion, who has the plan, and who has hopes for the future. And you are making it abundantly clear as you leave this body to do whatever you want to do, that you have given us a chance, I say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), to present to the American people which side are they on? I personally would like to thank you for it, because it could not be made more clear as to the difference between our parties.
No matter what religion you are, each one of them has some kind of verse that says as human beings, we have an obligation to help those people who are the lesser of our brothers and sisters. There is not a church and not a synagogue that has not looked on your reforms and they believe that you have forgotten the lesser of our brothers and sisters.
I am not a very religious man, but I do believe that we will have a religious moments when it comes to the next election, and wherever you go, my prayers will be with you, I say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, last week the Republicans were unable to pass this bill because of the severity of the cuts. They have since then done a lot of horse trading about…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Republicans were unable to pass this bill because of the severity of the cuts. They have since then done a lot of horse trading about those cuts and apparently, now tonight, they have the votes. But the one thing that remained consistent throughout all of that horse trading was they never lost their appetite to raise the cost of student loans. According to the CBO, this budget will add almost $8 billion in new cost onto the backs of students and onto their parents as they borrow money to pay for higher education, a higher education that is absolutely essential today to fully participate in the American economy.
They will add almost $5 billion in new consolidation loan fees and higher interest rates that go directly to those students borrowing money. They mandated a 1 percent insurance fee, $1.47 billion, on the backs of these students. Repealing the lower interest rate caps, $505 million to these students. A 1.5 percent origination fee, $350 million to these students. So that the average student today who borrows $17,500, you will increase their cost of that loan, and that education $5,800. Not according to me, but according to the Congressional Budget Office.
You can say all you want, but none of you apparently raised your hand and said, How about helping the students? How about reducing the taxes on the students? How about reducing the $8 billion in new taxes on these students? Students who are going to Kansas, they are going to UT, 30 students here are going to Georgetown. Nobody raised their hand on behalf of these students or their families who are going deeper and deeper in debt.
Just 2 weeks ago, we got a report that the cost of a college education is outstripping the ability of middle-class families to pay for it, and certainly lower income families to pay for it.
Earlier this day, you took away the promise of this President to increase
the Pell grant by $50. He originally promised to raise it to $5,100. But, no, you couldn't keep that promise, the President couldn't keep his, you didn't keep his promise, nobody kept the promise to the students. Somehow you are just not able to keep your promises. What happens is that these students here are punished because of your inability to keep your promises.
No, the House is not out of order, you are out of order because you are hurting the students of this Nation, you are hurting their families, you are piling on the debt, you are piling on the interest rates, you are increasing the cost to the students and to their families. You ought to be ashamed of it. Because the taxes that these kids are going to have to pay and their families pay are way beyond what is fair to do to them. It is a tragedy, an absolute tragedy that you would do this to young people.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support America's college students. Our competitiveness in the global economy is built on a foundation of a highly educated workforce. My Republican colleagues feel…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support America's college students. Our competitiveness in the global economy is built on a foundation of a highly educated workforce. My Republican colleagues feel higher education is a privilege and not a necessity for American students. The Republican strategy to cut and gut Federal financial aid by over $14 billion for its students hurts families and threatens America's competitiveness. The Republican raid on student aid makes the largest cut in the history of financial aid while also increasing the deficit by $20 billion, adding more debt on the backs of hardworking Americans and students.
Tim McDonald who attends Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, told me and other students last week: ``The generation that benefited from highly subsidized affordable higher education is now pulling the ladder up with them and forcing us to finance debt not only of our own education but of their tax cuts.''
Congress should promote hope and opportunity and provide America's scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, police, nurses and teachers, our future leaders, with the skills and knowledge and opportunity to keep America strong and prosperous. These budget cuts cut and gut the resources that students depend upon to achieve their career goals and to contribute to America. Instead of investing in students, instead of investing in America's future, this reconciliation forces students to pay the price for the mismanaged Republican budget.
I rise today to support America's college students and our nation's higher education institutions.
Our competitiveness in the global economy is built on the foundation of a highly educated workforce.
My Republican colleagues feel financial aid for higher education is a privilege, not a necessity for American students.
The Republican strategy to cut and gut federal financial aid by over $14 billion hurts students, hurts families and threatens America's competitiveness. Harming higher education harms America.
The Republican raid on student aid makes the largest cut in the history of financial aid, while also increasing the deficit by $20 billion--adding more debt on the backs of hard working Americans . . . and students.
Tim McDonald attends Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota. Last week speaking against these cuts Tim said:
``The generation that benefited from highly-subsidized, affordable higher education is now pulling the ladder up with them and forcing us to debt finance not only our own education, but their tax cuts . . .''
Congress should promote hope and opportunity. Vocational and technical schools and our colleges and universities provide America's scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, police, nurses, and teachers--our future leaders with the skills, knowledge and opportunity to keep America strong and prosperous.
This budget cuts and guts the resources students depend upon to achieve their career goals and contribute to America.
Instead of investing in students, instead of investing in America's future, this reconciliation forces students to pay the price for a mismanaged Republican budget.
I ask my Republican colleagues to protect America's economic future, to not abandon the next generation and to DEFEAT the cutting and gutting of hope and opportunity for American students.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I guess we have heard it all. We have heard an argument wrapped in religious morality. We have heard revisionist history. We have actually…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
I guess we have heard it all. We have heard an argument wrapped in religious morality. We have heard revisionist history. We have actually heard a lot of words tonight. We have had epithets thrown back and forth across this hall, which does not make me proud and probably does not make the American people. But what we have to do is do the people's work. We were elected by the American people to make a difference.
Now, I remember 1993. I remember the largest tax increase in American history. That is what they call ``fiscal integrity.'' The American people rejected that. I also remember 1997. Maybe I have been around too long, but in 1997, we did deficit reduction. We also did welfare reform. If I remember right, we passed it once; it got vetoed. We passed it twice; it got vetoed. We passed it three times, and the President decided if he was going to get re-elected, he had better sign it, and then he took credit for it.
In this body it has been the people on this side of the aisle that have done the tough work, that have done their homework, and have made a difference.
I also remember in 1999, 2000, and 2001, we paid down $500 billion of public debt. We wiped that debt off. I will tell my colleagues in 2001 we had 9/11. Three thousand people got killed in 45 minutes in this country. And we probably had to respond to that. And we have. Then we had a deficit. The great bubble of that economy burst. It did not burst on their watch, but it burst because people were overleveraged and it was overheated. But we have responded. And we have had 10 consecutive quarters of 3 percent-plus economic growth because this party has worked hard to do what the American people sent us here to do.
You can talk about meanness and mean spiritedness, but I will tell you the most mean spirited thing we can do is to leave our children with a debt that they cannot pay. We can leave our children with a deficit. And you are right. You are right. Stand up and clap because we will leave our children with a deficit that they cannot spend down or save.
I will tell my colleagues when we look at this bill, we talk about the growth in Medicaid. Governors are calling us from both parties and saying, Help us do something, help us to have a plan to reform Medicaid so that we can save some money, so that we can offer more services to more people in a better way.
And you know what? We worked at it. We did have reform. And Medicaid is growing at a 7.3 percent growth rate per year. A 7.3 percent growth rate. It has been growing for years.
Is there a better way to do it? Is there a more efficient way to do it? Should we find some reforms to make it better? Yes, we should. And we are bending that growth rate from 7.3 to 7 percent. Think about it.
The American people expect us to do what is right. The American people do not want all of these platitudes of moral indignity. They want us to go to work. They want us to do our job. They want us to provide a better life for themselves and their children, and this majority will do it. It is our responsibility. We can start right now by voting for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this Republican-controlled Congress has run higher annual deficits and accrued more debt than ever before in the history of our Nation. This budgetary irresponsibility is leading us down…
Mr. Speaker, this Republican-controlled Congress has run higher annual deficits and accrued more debt than ever before in the history of our Nation. This budgetary irresponsibility is leading us down a dangerous path and must be stopped.
After the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and with the continuing costs of our ill-advised war in Iraq, restoring fiscal discipline has taken on added urgency.
Our responsibility today is to decide how to begin to allocate the burden of restoring financial order. Our choice is straightforward: we can place the burden on those least able to bear it by cutting financial assistance to the poor and social services programs to the needy, or we can place it on those far more able to bear it by deferring the billions in tax cuts which were enacted just two years ago, some provisions of which have yet to take effect.
How we exercise this responsibility will reflect our philosophy on government, our faithfulness to the concept of a caring community, and the values of compassion and fairness we hold most important.
The Federal Government should not retreat from its role of caring for those Americans who are most in need and of enabling every individual to participate in the remarkable opportunities that America has to offer. I believe that all Americans have a responsibility, and most have a desire, to share in our national burdens and to participate in our national response to crisis. And I believe that every action this Congress takes must reflect the values and principles that make this country so unique in its greatness.
This bill is contrary to each of these beliefs, for it imposes practically the entire burden of putting our fiscal house in order on the members of our national community who are least able to bear it.
This bill cuts more than $50 billion in mandatory spending on vital programs, such as food stamps, Medicaid, child support, student loans, SSI, and child care--$15 billion more than the $35 billion in mandatory cuts in the original budget resolution.
The bill will lead to 250,000 people losing food stamps, will result in children missing mental health treatment or simple aids like eye glasses because of the $12 billion in cuts from Medicaid, and will make it more difficult for students to pay back student loans.
The bill will cut child support programs and SSI benefits, and will force a decline in the number of children who receive child care while their single mothers work.
Soon after considering this bill, we will consider another bill that proposes to reduce federal taxes by $70 billion. These tax cuts, and the corresponding benefits, will affect a much different segment of Americans than the bill now under consideration. Indeed, the majority of these tax benefits will go to the 0.2 percent of Americans with annual incomes over $1
million. They don't need this largesse, and we cannot afford to give it to them.
Taking from the poor to give to the rich is wrong, and I believe that our constituents recognize that it's also un-American.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so called ``Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.'' The purpose of this bill was to rein in the deficit in order to offset the costs of rebuilding areas…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so called ``Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.'' The purpose of this bill was to rein in the deficit in order to offset the costs of rebuilding areas devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to aid displaced hurricane victims. Unfortunately, the Deficit Reduction Act does exactly the opposite. It raises the deficit, while cutting crucial funding for critical federal programs such as Medicaid ($11.4 billion in proposed cuts), food stamps ($796 million), student loans ($14.3 billion), and child support enforcement ($4.9 billion); programs hurricane victims need now more than ever.
The Deficit Reduction Act also hurts residents in my district by significantly cutting funding for rural development.
This legislation disguises the fact that the $50 billion it proposes in mandatory cuts will go to offset revenue lost due to the President's tax cuts passed in the budget resolution earlier this year. Additionally, this bill facilitates further tax cuts for the wealthy, leaving nothing for deficit reduction or for hurricane victims.
The Deficit Reduction Act is part of a larger budget resolution that calls for $57 billion in additional tax cuts, increasing the deficit by at least $35 billion. After the tax cuts are in place, there will not be a dime left to pay for Katrina or Rita. Why must those who suffered at the hands of the hurricanes be asked to sacrifice more?
Since 2003, Congress has passed three huge supplemental appropriations bills for the cost of the war and reconstruction in Iraq. I supported these bills because when we put troops in the field, we stand behind them. As a former Marine, I am committed to that. I ask my colleagues who support this bill this: We don't offset the costs of rebuilding Baghdad and Basra; Why do you request we offset the costs for New Orleans and Biloxi? The bottom line of this bill is that average Americans are being asked to sacrifice so wealthy Americans can receive tax cuts.
When the Bush Administration took office in 2001, it inherited a surplus and predicted that surplus would continue even if tax cuts were
adopted. The Bush budget was passed by Congress and became law. In fiscal 2005 there was no surplus, but instead a deficit of $319 billion. Estimates indicate that these deficits will only get worse over the next ten years, and it will be hurricane victims and the poor who will pay for it.
Because I serve in Congress for those who need the helping hand of the government during national emergencies, or who struggle to pay for college, or who are sick and poor and rely on Medicaid, or who live in the rural communities of my district, I cannot support the Deficit Reduction Act and I will vote against its enactment in its present form.
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 560 Engrossed in House (EH)]
H. Res. 560
In the House of Representatives, U.S.,
November 17, 2005.
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill
(H.R. 4241) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a) of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. The bill shall be
considered as read. The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. All points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4241 pursuant to this resolution,
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone
further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
Sec. 3. After passage of H.R. 4241, it shall be in order to take from the
Speaker's table S. 1932 and to consider the Senate bill in the House. All points
of order against the Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. It
shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate
bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 4241 as passed by the
House. All points of order against that motion are waived.
Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the
amendment considered as adopted under the first section of this resolution shall
be modified as specified in section 5.
Sec. 5. The modification referred to in section 4 is as follows:
Page 13, strike lines 5 through 11, and insert the following:
``(a) Eligible Households.--The Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2011 et seq.) is amended--
``(1) in section 5--
``(A) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a); and
``(B) in subsection (j);
by striking `receives benefits' each place it appears and
inserting `in fiscal years 2006 through 2010 receives cash
assistance, and in any other fiscal year receives benefits,';
``(2) in section 5(a) by adding at the end the following:
`Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act except sections 6(b),
6(d)(2), and 6(g) and section 3(i)(4), households in which each member
receives substantial and ongoing noncash benefits under a State program
funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) provided for purposes of shelter, utilities, child care,
health care, transportation, or job training, and that have a monthly
income that does not exceed (before the exclusions and deductions
provided for in subsections (d) and (e)) 150 percent of the poverty
line, as defined in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block
Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), for the forty-eight contiguous States
and the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands of the
United States, and Guam, respectively, shall be eligible to participate
in the food stamp program.'; and
``(3) in section 5(j) by adding at the end the following:
`Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (i), a State agency shall
consider a member of a household in which each household member
receives substantial and ongoing noncash benefits under a State program
funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) provided for purposes of shelter, utilities, child care,
health care, transportation, or job training, and which has a monthly
income that does not exceed (before the exclusions and deductions
provided for in subsections (d) and (e)) 150 percent of the poverty
line, as defined in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block
Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), for the forty-eight contiguous States
and the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands of the
United States, and Guam, respectively, to have satisfied the resource
limitations prescribed under subsection (g).'.''.
Page 331, at the end of line 13, add the following:
``Such method shall provide that not less than 25 percent of such funds
shall be allocated among States the population of which (as determined
according to data collected by the United States Census Bureau) as of
July 1, 2004, was more than 105 percent of the population of the
respective State (as so determined) as of April 1, 2000.''.
Attest:
Clerk.