[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 147 (Tuesday, November 8, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9997-H10004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the upcoming special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, as we speak, there is a bill in the wings 
called the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, its fate yet to be determined 
because it is not at all clear that there are enough votes in this body 
to pass it.
  Basically, this bill is part of the budget resolution for 2006, and 
what it anticipates is a three-step process except that those steps are 
treated very separately and in isolation. The first step is what the 
bill I am talking about proposes, that is, reductions in mandatory 
spending, so-called ``entitlement spending,'' of about $54 billion.
  The second step to follow is a reduction in taxes in the amount of 
$106 billion. That is what the budget resolution calls for. As a 
consequence, this bill does not achieve its stated name, which is the 
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Instead, by cutting taxes by more than 
they cut spending, it leads to a deficit that is $52 billion bigger 
than would otherwise be the case. That is the second step.
  And then there is a third step in this bill that is not much talked 
about, but it is written into the bill, written into the budget 
resolution for 2006, and that is an increase in the debt ceiling of the 
United States by $781 billion. That is what happens when you have tax 
cuts that are not adequately matched by spending cuts. The deficit gets 
worse, and the bottom line is, $781 billion will have to be added to 
the debt ceiling of the United States, the legal limit to which we bill 
because of the fiscal policies we have followed for the last 5 years.
  Now, some supporters claim that this bill, the so-called Deficit 
Reduction

[[Page H9998]]

Act of 2005, will go to help pay for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In 
truth, this bill has nothing to do with paying for Katrina. It has 
everything to do, as I said, with facilitating further tax cuts.
  This bill is part of a larger budget resolution that calls, as I have 
said, for a total of $106 billion in additional tax cuts yet to come, 
but nevertheless called for in the budget resolution. $70 billion will 
come in reconciled tax cuts, which means they will be on a fast track. 
They will go through the Senate without threat of filibuster. $36 
billion are in unreconciled tax cuts. The total is $106 billion.
  As I have said, this is a three-step process. The original purpose of 
reconciliation was to rein in the deficit. But the reconciliation bill 
this year, the one that is waiting in the wings, the one we are 
addressing today, only raises the deficits for the reasons I have just 
mentioned.
  Now, if we do not acknowledge this, but if you take the position that 
these cuts are somehow going to facilitate the appropriations we have 
passed and will pass to pay for Hurricane Katrina and Rita, one would 
have to say that if we are going to do that--and I think we should 
somehow, over time, have a plan for paying the enormous sums we are 
borrowing to reconstruct the gulf coast--if we are going to do that, we 
should spread the cost equitably over our whole population. And that is 
what we want to address today, more than anything, and that is how the 
costs are being spread, how the costs are being allocated. Whether you 
take the attitude that this goes to pay for Katrina or goes to offset 
tax cuts, who bears the brunt? Will it be those who are able to bear 
the brunt or those who are vulnerable and least able to bear the brunt?
  Unfortunately, and this is a point we will make again and again and 
demonstrate the facts to prove our case, unfortunately, the brunt of 
this bill will come to rest on the shoulders of those who are least 
able to bear it.
  In that respect, I now recognize the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) 
to discuss the implications of this bill.
  Mr. CASE. I thank my colleague.
  Watch out, watch out, America, because the majority's and the 
President's spin machine is in overdrive on this bill. Yes, the 
majority's budget reconciliation bill brazenly and erroneously entitled 
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, what a laugh, is hitting the floor, 
or we think it is going to hit the floor.
  We will hear in coming days what a brave and revolutionary bill this 
is. Wrong. This is a cowardly bill, a hurtful bill, and it continues 
the majority's policies which, in the course of 4 short years have 
wrecked a once strong budget.
  We will hear that this bill is the only way to go. Wrong. This is the 
way to go if your goal is to help the few at the expense of the rest of 
us and without regard to basic fiscal responsibility.
  We have heard that this bill will decrease the budget. Watch the 
numbers on this bill. This bill does not decrease the budget deficit. 
This bill worsens the deficit, worsens it substantially.
  This bill is really about credibility. It is a matter of credibility, 
of who has the best overall plan to balance our Nation's books and 
restore fiscal stability. Is it the same people who over the last 
couple of years told us that ``deficits do not matter''? I do not think 
so. Is it the same people who are presiding over the most rapid 
increase in Federal spending in 40 years? I do not think so. Is it the 
same people who keep raiding the Social Security trust fund for non-
Social Security purposes, and then turning around and saying it is 
okay, saying do not worry about it, but also introducing a bill to 
radically reduce benefits in order to make up for the stolen amounts? I 
do not think so.
  Is it the same people who pretend that a 1-year deficit of over $300 
billion, almost $500 billion if you are counting the Social Security 
trust fund monies that were raided to boost up the revenues, is it 
those people? I do not think so. Is it the same people that increased 
your debt, your total debt, from $6 trillion when I joined Congress 
just 3 years ago to $8 trillion today and now another almost $1 
trillion in this bill itself? I do not think so.
  We want to balance the budget. We know that this will take careful 
and painful balancing of revenues and expenses. But we do not trust the 
majority and the administration with this bill because we do not 
believe that you have shown you can be trusted with America's books, 
that you will not put all of your sacred cows on the table just as we 
are willing to put our sacred cows on the table.
  When you are truly ready to put everything on the table with us, then 
I believe that we can have a constructive discussion. Until then, your 
bill is junk in, junk out. When you are ready to get real about what it 
is going to take to truly balance our books, let us know.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, more than slogans, sound bites and 
speeches, far more important for Members of Congress is what we do when 
it comes to expressing our values. What we do in this budget will say 
more about the values of Members of Congress than any speech given on 
the floor of the House this year.
  It is interesting and it is sad that while last week we honored Rosa 
Parks as the first woman in American history to lie in state in the 
Rotunda of our Nation's Capitol, just a few days later, this House 
leadership will dishonor all that she stood for. How? By cutting child 
support, by cutting foster family programs, by cutting 40,000 students 
off of school lunch programs, by robbing $14.3 billion from student 
financial aid to give our hard-working, high-achieving youth a chance 
for better life through a college education, and by cutting health care 
programs for low-income families.
  Rosa Parks did not just fight for a seat on the bus. She fought for 
fairness for every American, and to see that every child has a chance, 
a fair chance, to reach his or her highest God-given potential.
  This legislation is an attack upon those high principles. The mean-
spirited cuts in this bill will hurt decent, hard-working American 
families who are doing their best to help their children have a better 
life.

                              {time}  1415

  Why? Not to pay for Hurricane Katrina costs. The House leadership is 
doing this so that people making $1 million a year this year in 
dividend income can continue to receive every dime of their $220,000-a-
year tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, if this is compassionate conservatism, where is the 
compassion? If this is a faith-based program, I would ask what major 
religion in the world preaches the values of taking the most from those 
who have the least and taking nothing from those who have the most?
  This budget makes a mockery of the American values of fairness and 
shared sacrifice during time of war. Rosa Parks understood that actions 
speak far louder than words. The American people understand this. And I 
believe when the American people find that Republican leadership of 
this House wants to make college education less affordable for hard-
working middle-income and lower-income children in this country; when 
Americans find out that they want to cut Medicaid health care services 
for pregnant women and take away school lunches from children who need 
a decent nutritional lunch in order to reach their highest God-given 
potential in school, I think they are going to be outraged.
  This budget bill aptly, or should I say amazingly, named the Deficit 
Reduction Act, is actually going to raise the deficit as the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said by $52 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, if there were a law against dishonesty in naming 
legislation before this House, anyone who votes for this bill would 
deserve a felony conviction. This bill is wrong for America. It does 
not reflect the values of the vast majority of good, decent, hard-
working American citizens, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents 
alike. More than anything I have seen in my 14 years in Congress, I 
believe this budget bill shows that the House Republican leadership is 
truly out of touch with the American people.
  Let us say ``yes'' to the future of this country. Let us say ``yes'' 
to lower deficit. Let us say ``yes'' to hard-working college students 
and to families who want to have a dream for a better life for their 
children by saying ``no'' to this unfair, unwise, ill-thought-out 
budget bill.

[[Page H9999]]

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. 
Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for his leadership on this very important matter. When we 
talk about the cuts contained in this reconciliation bill, they sound 
like such large numbers. It is very hard to relate to. When we talk 
about cutting student loans $14 billion and Medicaid $11 billion, child 
support enforcement $4.9 billion, food stamps $844 million, it is very 
difficult to get your arms wrapped around those numbers because they 
seem so extraordinary that they become almost distant and nonnumbers.
  But I can tell you for the people that I represent, and the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has been to Nevada, he has been to my 
congressional district, he knows what I am dealing with there. In real 
human terms, when you cut that much out of Medicaid over 200,000 
Nevadans, poor Nevadans that depend on Medicaid so that they can have 
their basic health care needs met, they are going to be plum out of 
luck. And there are 18,000 students that are going to be affected by 
cuts in the student loan program. What does that mean?
  I went through school on student loans. I am the first person in my 
family to go to college. My dad was a waiter when I was growing up and 
money was pretty scarce in our home. There is no way my parents could 
have afforded to put me through college and law school. So what did I 
do? I depended on those student loans. So as a Member of Congress I am 
going to cut the opportunity for middle-class Americans to send their 
kids to school? That would be the worst possible thing to do. And over 
the next 5 years funding in Nevada that we receive for child support 
collection is going to be cut by $60 million. What does that mean? That 
means that we will have a whole lot of deadbeat dads in Nevada that are 
not going to have to live up to their responsibilities to pay child 
support because there will be no way to force them to do that. And that 
would be horrible for the families that these people, that these men 
are leaving.
  When we talk about the school lunch program, there are going to be 
40,000 children who are going to be impacted if we cut that school 
lunch program. Now, I am sorry to say, but there are a lot of people in 
my congressional district that the only meal that these kids get, the 
only decent, warm meal they get is the one that they get when they go 
to school with the school lunch program. These cuts would have 
devastating consequences on ordinary Americans, people that elect us to 
come here to protect and defend them and to give them a helping hand.
  This is not a helping hand. This is a slap in the face to all 
Americans. And I know from my own constituents, it is going to have 
devastating consequences.
  But there is something that I really want to talk to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) about because I am not sure that I 
understand, so maybe I am wrong. As you know I have got the fastest-
growing senior population in the United States. We have been told, not 
threatened by the doctors, but we have been told by doctors because of 
the decline in Medicare payments for treating older Americans, senior 
citizens, that many of the doctors are not going to be able to treat 
Medicare patients. So that means that I have a whole lot of senior 
citizens, 65 years and above, that depend on Medicare so that they can 
go see their doctor.
  Now, if I have got doctors and we have got doctors across this 
country telling us, telling us they can no longer afford to treat 
Medicare patients. So the other body acted responsibly and they put the 
requisite amount of money that they needed in order to help the doctors 
so that the doctors can continue treating older Americans, treating our 
senior citizens and helping with their health care needs. This body, 
the Republican leadership here does not include this in our budget 
reconciliation because they want to get to that $50 billion magic 
number for whatever reason and they are going to do that on the backs 
of the doctors and the senior citizens in this country.
  But here is the rub: my husband is a doctor. He is a nephrologist. He 
treats a lot of older Americans. He just received an alert from the 
American Medical Association saying that we need this desperately. We 
need the Medicare reimbursement fund so we can continue treating our 
senior patients, but the Republican leadership in the House says that 
they are not going to put this in the reconciliation bill. But do not 
worry, doctors, we are going to go ahead and we will put it in Labor 
HHS.
  If I am not mistaken, we already passed Labor HHS and there is no 
reimbursement for our doctors for care for senior citizens. So I do not 
understand where they think this money is going to be magically coming 
from.
  The reality is it is going to cost $10.8 billion in order to get the 
doctors to where they need to be to treat senior citizens. We are doing 
the smoke-and-mirror thing. If we are doing a budget reconciliation 
thing here but we are still winking at the doctors and saying, oh, do 
not worry, docs, we will take care of you down the road, how are we 
going to do that? Where are we going to find the money? Does it not 
come from the same pot? $10 billion is $10 billion, whether it is in 
budget reconciliation, which would be the more honest place to put it, 
or whether it is down the road in a piece of legislation that we have 
already passed.

  This is not at all fiscal responsibility. I have heard Republican 
after Republican come down here and talk about how they will put money 
in Americans' pockets and they need to cut the Federal Government's 
budget. That is nonsense. They are not doing that at all. What they are 
doing is deferring it. They would like to have this $50 billion pot of 
money so they can go back during the election and brag that they are 
actually saving taxpayers money.
  They are not saving taxpayers. They are hurting taxpayers. They are 
hurting the people that we represent, and this is not fiscal 
responsibility. This is fantasy.
  Am I wrong in this? Do I have my facts wrong?
  Mr. SPRATT. The gentlewoman is not only right. She is forcefully 
correct. She is absolutely right, no question about it.
  Ms. BERKLEY. So what should we do about this? Is this not a bit 
dishonest for the Republican leadership?
  Mr. SPRATT. That is what we are doing now is alerting everyone to the 
contents of this reconciliation bill which is hanging in the wings, 
pretending under the name of ``deficit reduction'' to be about fiscal 
responsibility when it is anything but that.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Well, I find it absolutely fascinating, and I know being 
married to a doctor that doctors are about the worst politicians in the 
world. They do not understand this political process. But they have 
gravitated over to the Republican side of the aisle when they were 
talking about tort reform, although it is my opinion as a doctor's 
wife, the other side never had any intentions of passing meaningful 
tort reform for the doctors. They just kept them hanging on a string.
  This, which is the AMA's number one priority, to make sure that the 
doctors are getting appropriately reimbursed for treating Medicare 
patients, senior patients, this is so much worse for the doctors. And 
they are still playing games with the doctors, playing games with the 
seniors, playing games with the American public by saying wink, wink, 
we will take care of you later.
  Let us take care of the docs and the senior citizens now when we 
should, in front of full view, in the daytime, in the light of day; and 
let us stop this nonsense of trying to sneak money in through the back 
door. It is disgusting and shameful.
  Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Mr. Speaker, I 
now yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
appreciate the opportunity to speak out on this poorly named 
reconciliation bill which will expand the Federal deficit and does 
enormous damage to people in this country. When 8.2 million children in 
America do not have health insurance, cutting Medicaid is wrong. When 
millions of children in America are abused and neglected, cutting child 
protection is wrong. When millions of children do not have access to 
early childhood programs, cutting child care is wrong.

[[Page H10000]]

  Let us go back over these areas. Medicaid, the House bill would allow 
States to charge low-income working families substantial new premiums 
and co-payments in order for their children to participate in the 
Medicaid program, access health care services, or obtain prescription 
drugs. While the House bill would permit States to impose costly new 
fees on nearly all Medicaid beneficiaries, those most likely to face 
significantly higher premiums and co-payments are the 6 million 
children who receive their health care through the Medicaid program and 
whose families have income just above the poverty line or above 133 
percent of the poverty line for children under six. Most families with 
incomes just above the poverty line are working families struggling to 
get by.
  Let us turn to child support and faster care. CBO projects that the 
cuts in Federal Child Support Enforcement funding will mean that an 
additional $24 billion in child support will go uncollected. In this 
Congress we have been so proud in the past that we have finally been 
able to create a system in this country so that deadbeat dads will be 
forced to pay the child support that the courts have ordered them to 
pay. Now, in this Republican budget, they have decided that they are 
going to reduce dramatically the support for child support funding.
  In addition, the House budget reconciliation bill would reduce 
Federal supports for children in foster care and for grandparents and 
other relatives who are taking care of these children. This cut comes 
at a time when the overall child welfare system is struggling to 
address the needs of over 800,000 children in need.
  When you look at this package, it is beyond belief. Their food stamp 
cuts, reductions in food stamps, that will mean 225,000 individuals, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office, most of whom live in low-
income working families, will be cut off the food stamp program. 
Basically, when you take this whole package together, you have a 
reconciliation bill described as a deficit reduction bill which 
increases the deficit. But what we are really talking about here is 
sacrifice.
  We have been saying for years that if you do trillions of dollars of 
tax cuts mostly for the wealthiest people in this country, when you 
spend a billion and a half dollars a week in Iraq, the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan are simply borrowed money, finally, the Republicans say we 
have to sacrifice. And the people at the head of the line to sacrifice 
are our children, the disabled, people from low-income families, that 
is who the Republicans want to sacrifice to pay for the tax cuts to pay 
for Iraq and to pay for Katrina.

                              {time}  1430

  There is no more immoral set of priorities in this country than what 
we see in this bill today and what we see in the Republican agenda in 
the House.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I now yield to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) leading this discussion of what is wrong with the 
Republican reconciliation bill, and I agree there is devastating harm 
from the cuts to Medicaid, student loans, and food stamps. Cutting 
these programs that assist low-income and middle-income families to 
help pay for the tax cuts for the very wealthiest is simply 
unconscionable. These are all good reasons to vote ``no'' for this 
bill.
  I want to talk about something else that is contained in this bill 
that has not gotten as much attention. That is the Republican proposal 
to allow new offshore oil drilling around large parts of the country, 
the so-called OCS provisions that have come out of the Resources 
Committee.
  I want to direct my remarks to my Republican colleagues from coastal 
States. I do so because coastal-State Republicans will either stop this 
provision or allow it to become law.
  Let us be frank. Democrats are not going to vote for this bill, and 
that means that coastal Republicans will decide whether or not we have 
new drilling off our coasts. These are Republicans in Florida, Georgia, 
South and North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New 
York, Connecticut and New Hampshire on the East Coast. On the West 
Coast, Republicans from California, Oregon and Washington all need to 
stand up for their coastal communities.
  All we need are 15 or 20 of them to tell their leadership that they 
are going to vote ``no'' on the bill unless the oil drilling provisions 
are removed. These provisions are not included in this Senate bill, and 
if they are taken out of the House bill, then we will not see them in 
the final conference report. It is really that simple.
  I know that some Members are tempted to buy the argument made by 
proponents of lifting this ban. Governor Jeb Bush and others are saying 
that this gives States control over their coasts and that new drilling 
everywhere is inevitable, but those arguments just do not hold water. 
Here is the straight story.
  Among its many provisions, the bill ends the annual congressional 
moratorium immediately, including the one we just passed and was so 
recently signed into law.
  Section 6515 of the bill states: ``All provisions of existing Federal 
law prohibiting the spending of appropriated funds to conduct oil and 
natural gas leasing and preleasing activity for any area of the OCS 
shall have no force or effect.''
  This provision permanently removes Congress from any future decisions 
about offshore oil drilling. Theoretically, the bill leaves the 
Presidential moratorium in place until 2012, but this President or 
whoever follows him could end that whenever he or she wants.
  Section 6509 of the bill specifically gives the President the 
authority to partially or completely revoke the existing Presidential 
moratorium before 2012. I am not a betting person, but I would wager 
that if Congress ends this moratorium, President Bush would quickly 
follow suit. That would mean the immediate end to the ban now in place 
on new offshore drilling off Florida, New Jersey, and all the other 
coastal States.
  In addition, after expiration or revocation of the Presidential 
moratorium, States lose all control over drilling conducted beyond 125 
miles offshore. That is 75 miles closer than current law. To be fair, 
it does allow the States that support drilling to have some control, 
but this at the expense of their neighbor. For example, the bill 
completely rewrites the Coastal Zone Management Act's Federal 
consistency review authority.
  Section 6503 of the bill replaces the definition of ``affected 
State'' under the OCS Lands Act with a new, weaker definition for 
adjacent States. That means if Virginia wants new oil drilling off its 
coast, North Carolina, Maryland or Delaware would have no say in the 
matter, even though drilling off Virginia would clearly affect those 
States. The same holds true if Alabama or Georgia wants to drill and 
Florida does not.
  Supporters of the bill say that the bill helps States that oppose new 
drilling as well, but that is just wrong. If President Bush repeals the 
moratorium, a State can supposedly petition to extend the moratorium 
off its shores for 5 years, but that requires repeated action and 
complex steps. Even if a State makes the request, the Federal 
Government could simply say ``no'' and drilling would begin off Florida 
or New Jersey or any other of these States.
  Under the current administration, I do not think it is hard to 
imagine that that would happen.
  Even if the Feds grant the extension, the protection would only be 
temporary for 5 years, with one-time renewal. After that, no more 
moratorium on new drilling anywhere.
  Under this bill, we would literally see the push for new drilling on 
the entire United States coastline almost immediately upon enactment.
  So this is what we are left with if Republicans allow this bill to 
become law: No congressional moratorium on new drilling; a Presidential 
moratorium that can and would likely be withdrawn immediately; no 
limits on drilling in neighboring States that might want to drill; and 
a cumbersome process for States that do not want new drilling and one 
that could simply be ignored by the Federal Government. It does not 
sound like protection for coastal States to me.
  Coastal State Republicans can stop this. I urge them to stand up for 
their

[[Page H10001]]

communities and tell their leadership to take these OCS provisions out; 
and if the new drilling provisions are included in the bill, I urge 
them, along with us, to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement, 
and I now yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn this fiscally irresponsible and 
morally offensive budget proposal which violates every principle of 
responsible government.
  This budget reconciliation bill, as presented by the majority 
leadership, is a pathetic attempt to disguise their real intentions to 
pass another bloated windfall for the wealthiest Americans at the 
expense of millions who are already suffering great hardships.
  It is shameful that the same leaders who spend much of their time 
talking about morality and family values would attempt to finance 
another tax cut for millionaires by cutting food stamps for the hungry 
and slashing $12 billion from Medicaid.
  At the State level, hundreds of thousands of hard-working Americans 
are already losing their Medicaid benefits. In Missouri alone, in my 
State, the Republican legislature and governor have managed to knock 
90,000 Medicaid recipients off of the rolls and another 30,000-
something children off of CHIPs. We are pushing these people into the 
army of the uninsured, which now numbers more than 45 million in this 
country.
  On top of this travesty, the majority leadership is trying to reward 
big oil and big gas companies with a get-into-ANWR-free card as part of 
the budget reconciliation. These same companies made $27 billion in 
profits during the last 90 days, and they still want more?
  I appeal to my Republican colleagues to rediscover their humanity and 
to return to fiscal sanity. The courageous communities along the gulf 
coast who survived the hurricanes and people of goodwill across this 
country are counting on Congress to do the right thing. The very last 
thing we should do is to punch more holes in a safety net that is 
already badly damaged.
  Mr. Speaker, poverty and food insecurity in the United States are on 
the rise and Hurricane Katrina just made things worse. The number of 
Americans in poverty is rising steadily, from 32 million in 2000 to 37 
million in 2004. More than one in six U.S. children lives in poverty. 
Food insecurity in the United States increased in 2004 for the fifth 
straight year, affecting 38.2 million people or 11.9 percent of our 
households. Children fared even worse; 19 percent of them were food 
insecure in 2004, meaning their families did not have enough money to 
provide sufficient food.
  The combination of stagnant wages and sharply rising costs for 
essentials such as health care and energy has forced more struggling 
families to skimp on food in order to pay their bills. This year, 
Hurricane Katrina left hundreds of thousands of families with no homes 
and no jobs. This reconciliation bill cuts $7 billion from programs 
serving working families and vulnerable individuals. Over 5 years, the 
House bill cuts child support by $4.9 billion; cuts food stamps by $844 
million; cuts foster care assistance by $577 million; and cuts 
Supplemental Security Income to the elderly and disabled by $732 
million.
  These cuts are likely to generate more poverty and economic 
insecurity among families and individuals struggling to get by. We must 
defeat this resolution and then renew our bipartisan commitment to 
restoring balance, fairness and common sense to the budget process.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement, and 
I now yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to strenuously object to tucking the Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families Act reauthorization into this budget 
reconciliation bill.
  What this does is masquerade the Draconian policy changes of TANF 
that impinge on what we claim to be our priority, to help working 
families, particularly women, get back into the workforce. How can we 
do that, create productive workers in view of slashing the work 
supports so desperately needed by these marginal families?
  How can we cut $11 billion from the Medicaid program and say we want 
these women to go to work? How can we cut $4.9 billion from child 
support enforcement and say that we want you to go to work? How can we 
not even provide an inflationary increase in child care funding, while 
we increase those work requirements and say with a straight face that 
we are trying to help people reach self-sufficiency? How can we claim 
to try to raise women up and families up from their conditions, when we 
slash educational opportunity, reduce educational opportunity into 
oblivion?
  Well, Mr. Speaker, there are people who are prepared to tell me that 
we are increasing TANF benefits by almost $1 billion, but when you look 
at what we are doing, the $926 million over 5 years, scored by CBO, 
because they must include extensions of supplemental grants, which they 
are excluded by law from not projecting, if you look at that, and 
adjusting for this scoring factor, what we are actually seeing is a 
TANF spending reduction of $239 million. Yes, I said it, $239 million 
reduction in TANF services.
  This basic block grant is frozen. It increases work requirements, but 
it does do one thing that I approve of. It eliminates two performance 
bonus programs, saving us $1.1 billion, but it plows that money, $349 
million, back into marriage promotion programs.
  Do we have any concern about the kind of domestic violence that this 
may spawn, or another $409 million for, quote, unquote, ``new research 
projects,'' researching and studying the poor, rather than providing 
the poor with the needed services like Medicaid, like child care, like 
educational opportunity? Instead, we are continuing to make this a 
windfall for what we call poverty entrepreneurs.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement, 
and I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me 
and for his hard work and energy, his effort and commitment to the 
people of this Nation.
  I consider it a privilege to serve on the House Budget Committee, 
helping to lay out a fiscal blueprint for the Nation to work toward 
crafting a document that reflects the values and the priorities of the 
American people.
  Budgets are just not numbers on a page, Mr. Speaker. They live and 
they breathe. They are about human beings and what is happening in 
their lives. As this House prepares to consider $54.2 billion in a 
budget package, I find it hard to believe that the American people's 
priorities would include denying food stamps to 300,000 Americans and 
40,000 children. I find it hard to believe their values tell them that 
we should respond to the skyrocketing health care costs by charging 
children from poor families for doctors' visits; that their answer to 
unaffordable child care costs would be denying child care assistance to 
another 270,000 children of working parents, cutting food stamps, 
charging poor families for visits to the pediatrician, denying child 
care to a quarter million working parents.
  Those are not the values or the priorities of the American people; 
but it is becoming increasingly clear that they are the priorities of 
the Republican Party, the Republican House leadership, the Republican 
administration, and the party that controls all three branches of 
government right now.
  Let us take a look. What other priorities do the Republicans bring to 
bear with this reconciliation package?
  One, let us make it harder for people to attend college. If you 
attended college in the last 50 years, you received financial aid from 
the Federal Government. Following World War II, you had the benefit of 
the GI Bill. Eight million veterans were given education vouchers at 
the same time it doubled the number of homeowners.
  Thirty-five years ago, Congress passed the Higher Education Act and 
said that the Federal Government was going to open the doors of 
colleges, regardless of family wealth; that, in fact, education was the 
great equalizer in

[[Page H10002]]

this country, that because of your God-given talent you could succeed. 
Federal student aid has helped millions of people go to college who 
otherwise might never have had that opportunity.
  This bill turns its back on that commitment. It leaves the typical 
student borrower, and I say to young people and their families today, 
understand this, you are already saddled with $17,500 in debt and you 
are going to pay an additional $5,800 in interest and taxes over the 
life of your loan if this bill is passed.
  At a time when our Nation faces unprecedented competition from the 
likes of China and India, this majority puts up financial barriers that 
prevent 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year 
public college over the next decade; 123,000 students in my State of 
Connecticut alone will not be able to attend college. This when the 
United States is projected to face a shortage of up to 12 million 
college-educated workers by the year 2020.
  Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation impacts children and families. 
It also strips protections which would guarantee more than 5 million 
children who receive the medical services they need no longer receive 
them: medical health services, optical care, hearing aids, cuts to 
child support enforcement by 40 percent, eliminating the federally 
funded foster care benefits for grandparents and relatives of abused 
and neglected children. This bill goes out of its way to make the lives 
of Americans already living on the margins even more difficult.
  A final point. Food stamps, a program which goes straight to the 
heart of the government's responsibility, a moral responsibility to 
people, 25 million people in this Nation rely on food stamps. It is a 
program of efficiency and competence. The cuts result in 300,000 food 
stamp recipients losing eligibility. That includes 40,000 children. 
When you cut food stamps, which is the direct measure for eligibility 
for the school lunch program, that means 40,000 kids will no longer be 
eligible for a school breakfast program or a school lunch program.
  Why? Why are we doing this? Let us lay it on the table. It is about 
tax cuts, tax cuts for those who need them least. Fifty-three percent 
of the tax cuts go to the upper 1 or 2 percent of the public making 
over $1 million a year. $70 billion of tax cuts, capital gains, and 
dividend tax cuts go to Americans who are living lives of comfort and 
lives of leisure. And paying for these tax cuts will be 40,000 kids 
going hungry.
  The majority is effectively saying, so much for morality, so much for 
values, so much for the common good. These are Republican priorities. 
They are not mine. They are not my constituents. I think we will all 
learn over the course of the next year they are not the American 
people's. This Nation must understand what is potentially going to 
befall them if this bill is passed. I urge you to stand tall and say 
``no'' to these cuts which will do nothing but ravage the good people 
of this Nation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me and allowing all of us to come to the floor today to 
talk about what is really meaningful in the budget. There is no one in 
this House that knows every paragraph and every decimal point in this 
budget reconciliation bill better than the gentleman from South 
Carolina, and no one who knows better, too, the pain and the suffering 
that you can read between the lines.
  Besides the U.S. Constitution, there is no document more defining of 
our priorities and our values and our morality than budgets. Yes, 
budgets. Even though we have pages of numbers, it is a moral document. 
I want to read from an article written by the religion writer for the 
Chicago Sun-Times paper last Friday. This is what Cathleen Falsani had 
to say.
  She wrote: ``This week, as Republican leaders try to force a 
monstrous $50 billion budget cut designed allegedly to offset the 
mounting costs of hurricane-related aid through Congress, it is clear 
that the Bush administration's moral compass has been lost.
  ``The proposed budget cuts, part of the so-called budget 
reconciliation, would have devastating effects on the poorest, most 
vulnerable Americans, while allowing tax relief for the rich.
  ``The massive budget reductions would include billions of dollars 
from pension protection and student loan programs.'' She goes on to 
list them.
  Then she says: ``Maybe Republican leaders should consider proposing 
an open season on the homeless, or the resurrection of debtors' prisons 
while they're at it. Is this the kind of leadership the majority of 
voters who, according to pollsters at the time, cast their ballots in 
the 2004 based on moral values? Is this what they had in mind?'', she 
asks.
  ``Is this what faith-based compassionate conservatism looks like? Is 
our Nation more moral, more secure, or spiritually healthy than it was 
a year ago? And, to address my fellow Christian voters specifically,'' 
she asks, ``has the Good News been advanced in any way? No, absolutely 
not,'' she says.

  She goes on to describe ``all 65 bishops at the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church in America have signed a letter to Members of Congress 
vehemently opposing the proposed budget cuts, saying in part `The 
biblical record is clear. The scriptural witness on which our faith 
tradition stands speaks dramatically to God's concern for and 
solidarity with the poor and oppressed communities while speaking 
firmly in opposition to governments whose policies place narrow 
economic interests driven by greed above the common good.' ''
  That is what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America said. She 
goes on to say: ``The Evangelical Christian theologian and leader, Jim 
Wallis, founder of Sojourners, a national network of progressive 
Christian peace and justice activists, led an ecumenical gathering of 
religious leaders in a protest at the Capitol building last Thursday, 
calling the proposed cuts `a moral travesty.' '' This is quoting Jim 
Wallis: ``Instead of wearing bracelets that ask, `what would Jesus do,' 
perhaps some Republican should ponder, `what would Jesus cut?' ''
  The author writes: ``The immorality, by any religious tradition's 
measure, of the proposed $50 billion budget reconciliation package, is 
brazen. If enacted, it would prove only to increase the suffering of 
the already struggling poor, including tens of thousands who lost 
everything along the gulf coast. Maybe immoral isn't the appropriate 
word,'' Kathleen Falsani says. ``Maybe immoral isn't the appropriate 
word. Downright evil is a better description.''
  I thank my colleague for allowing me to read this article. I think it 
is instructive to all Members of Congress and all people of faith as 
well.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
presentation, and I yield now to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the budget reconciliation 
process has been used since 1974 as a vehicle to set priorities, enact 
fiscal discipline, and reduce deficits. The last three budget 
reconciliation packages, which were passed in 1990, 1993, and 1997, 
each attempted to reduce the deficit by an average of $367 billion over 
5 years.
  However, this year, the Republican majority has decided to split the 
budget reconciliation package into two parts. The first, which will 
come before this Chamber this week, likely on Thursday, will make deep 
cuts to vital government initiatives that directly improve the lives of 
millions of average Americans. The second, which may not come to the 
floor until after Thanksgiving, would further extend tax cuts to 
corporations and to individuals in the very highest income brackets.
  When taken together, the Republican reconciliation package will add 
$35 billion to the Federal deficit over the next 5 years, a fact that 
should disprove the other side's claim that this is an attempt to enact 
fiscal discipline or restore our budget to balance. It does not.
  The fact that we are handling this process in piecemeal does not hide 
the majority party's preference for providing tax cuts that benefit 
only a limited number of people and corporations rather than making the 
investments in our future that will enable hard-working families and 
our communities to meet their obligations.
  For example: instead of repairing tomorrow's workforce by helping 
more Americans, including tens of thousands of young people striving to 
be prepared for jobs of the future to obtain college

[[Page H10003]]

degrees, the Republicans are slashing $9 billion from government-
sponsored student loans.
  Instead of working to expand access to health care, even in the face 
of a major flu epidemic, the Republicans are working to restrict access 
and to limit eligibility for Medicaid, the very program that ensures 
that mothers and children and working people with special health needs 
get the care that they require.
  And the third example: instead of fully equipping our public safety 
officers, our police officers, firefighters, and transit personnel with 
the needed communication equipment, the Republicans would continue to 
underfund important homeland security initiatives.
  The Republicans, through the reconciliation process, have made clear 
that they prioritize tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and to very 
few large corporations at the expense of creating opportunities for 
hard-working Americans and helping Americans meet their 
responsibilities. Moreover, they have chosen political rhetoric over 
honest budgeting by failing to consider both aspects of their 
proposals, the spending cuts and the tax breaks, at the same time in 
the same bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to urge Members on both sides of the aisle who 
believe in fiscal responsibility, who believe in sound budgetary 
principles to oppose this reconciliation measure that we will be 
considering in the coming days and weeks.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement, 
and I yield now to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and I 
would remind the gentleman that we have about 6 minutes left. Is that 
correct, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania). The 
gentleman is correct.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for allocating this time to me.
  We began this session with an idea and a plan that would privatize 
Social Security. I thought that was the worst idea that we would 
encounter. But now that that argument is at last behind us, now we can 
see the reality of the President's budget process. This proposal that 
we are about to entertain on Thursday is a fiscal disaster. It not only 
forces painful cuts to programs that serve regular people; it awards 
large new tax cuts to people who already are the most privileged in our 
society.
  When President Clinton left office, the country was running a $236 
billion surplus. We were on track to have a $5.6 trillion surplus over 
the next 10 years. Now, let me tell you what that would have done. That 
would have allowed us to fix Social Security, to fix Medicare, to pay 
down the debt, and to provide modest tax cuts for middle-income 
Americans. Instead, we have cut taxes five times while we are fighting 
two wars.
  And what is the result? Well, a month and a half ago to 2 months ago, 
the Humvees just arrived in Iraq. The body armor has just begun to 
arrive in Iraq. For those men and women who serve us honorably every 
single day in the American military, the equipment is just starting to 
arrive.

                              {time}  1500

  But what do we have time to do here? Let us cut Medicare. Let us chop 
Medicaid. Let us go after student loans. Let us cut back on home 
heating oil for the most vulnerable among us in the Northeast; and, 
with a straight face, let us cut taxes by $70 billion over the next 
couple of weeks.
  Think of this Congress, what it did with the Clinton surplus: $5.6 
trillion of surplus projected over 10 years, and this Congress cuts 
taxes and yanks $1.3 trillion out of the budget and then declares 
Social Security has a problem after they have taken that money away.
  You hear from the Members of this body on the other side of the aisle 
about supply-side economics. I do not know any primary supply-side 
economists left who are accepted in the academy. Nobody buys that 
argument any more based upon the budget deficits the Nation is running.
  We were on a sterling course of fiscal responsibility in this body. 
Just when people said it could not be done, we got it done. We balanced 
the budget, projected large-term surpluses, and we had this grand 
opportunity to take on some of the issues we would all like to address. 
But what has happened now? Is there anybody here who believes that we 
are not going to need a lot more money for Iraq? A lot more money for 
Afghanistan? Those dollars are going to be necessary. The same 
institution that voted to send us there, this Congress, I hope will not 
dare to cut back on what these men and women need. But I can tell you 
this: the budget they have put in front of us takes us precisely there. 
You cannot have it both ways, and we have learned that the hard way. 
But I will say this about the majority in this body, they will keep 
going.
  Most conventional political figures see a stop sign and they stop. 
Not here, they will keep going. Cut programs for the neediest and cut 
taxes for the strongest. I am reminded of Matthew when he said it is 
our goal and our job to clothe the naked and to feed the poor; and the 
Republicans here would add, and to take care of the wealthy and to take 
care of the strong.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina.
  In our pledge every day, we pledge one Nation under God with liberty 
and justice for all.
  Mr. Speaker, with this reconciliation package, this is not one 
Nation, one liberty and justice for all. If you look at those students, 
this is not liberty and justice for all. For students today, only 10 
percent of children from working-class families graduate from college 
by the age of 24 as compared to 58 percent of upper-middle-class and 
wealthy families. This is not liberty and justice for all.
  If you are disabled, mentally retarded, poor, hungry or a foster 
family, this is not liberty and justice for all. This reconciliation 
package slams the door on those with disabilities trying to gain a 
foothold in society. It cuts the Medicaid program, taking away 
opportunity from those with intellectual difficulties. It takes food 
out of the mouths of the poorest children in our society. And it goes 
after those that are trying to make an opportunity for themselves in 
this society by getting an education when an education is more 
important than at any other time in American history.
  Today, our economy is about an economy of ideas. If we do not provide 
education for every single American, we are consigning those without an 
education to second-class status. This reconciliation bill consigns 
millions of Americans to second-class status by cutting aid to 
education that opens up the doors of opportunity for millions of 
Americans.
  Franklin Roosevelt said the test of our progress is not whether we 
add more to the abundance to those who have much; it is whether we 
provide enough to those who have too little. This reconciliation 
package fails that test as well.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for his leadership on this issue.
  After 5 years of record debts and deficits, the other side of the 
aisle is demanding cuts to the programs that help Americans most in 
need. We showed in the 1990s that this government can be fiscally 
disciplined and compassionate to our neighbors most in need at the same 
time. The cuts before us now will not restore fiscal sanity; and they 
certainly are not compassionate, not even to the people who are 
suffering now from the recent hurricanes.
  After five years of record debt and deficits, the other side of the 
aisle is demanding cuts to the programs that help Americans most in 
need.
  We showed in the 1990s that this government can be fiscally 
disciplined and compassionate to our neighbors most in need at the same 
time.
  The cuts before us now will not magically restore fiscal sanity, and 
they certainly are not compassionate, not even to the people devastated 
by recent hurricanes.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle may be selling these cuts 
as a matter of budget principle, but the fact remains that their

[[Page H10004]]

budget will still increase the deficit by more than 100 billion.
  Even more outrageous is that these cuts would make our government--
which is meant to be of the people and for the people--less responsive 
to the people who need its help most.
  Fewer food stamps. Reduced student loans. Less aid for foster care. 
Reduced Medicaid access.
  And we all saw how Katrina disproportionately devastated low-income 
Americans.
  Those Americans already lost their homes and their livelihoods, now 
they are in line to lose the federal aid that could help them the most.
  It isn't surprising--this same Congress that gives no-strings aid to 
Iraq also demands that residents of the Gulf Coast repay emergency 
disaster assistance.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the budget reconciliation--
it's an uncompassionate and misguided bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina, Mr. Spratt, for yielding and for his superb leadership in 
presenting the case against the spending cuts contained in the first 
half of this misguided budget reconciliation package.
  When the final budget resolution passed by a margin of only three 
votes back in April, who would have guessed that the Republican 
leadership would want to re-visit this legislation by actually making 
deeper cuts to health care, student loans, and food stamps--
particularly in a time of national crisis?
  And given that Congress has not enacted budget reconciliation since 
1997, you would have thought that the Republican leadership could have 
put forward a more fair and balanced set of spending adjustments after 
preparing for eight years between reconciliations.
  When you think about it, budget reconciliation is not much different 
than balancing a checkbook, unless, of course, you are referring to the 
way Congress balances its books.
  On one side of the ledger, we have spending cuts--ostensibly to pay 
for rebuilding the Gulf Coast, but in reality to pay for the tax cuts 
that this leadership insists on passing despite three consecutive years 
of record-breaking deficits and $3 trillion in new debt.
  Still, this reconciliation package doesn't even pay for the tax cuts. 
The net result is actually an increase in the deficit of at least $50 
billion.
  And in the other column, even after the tax cuts are in place, there 
won't be a dime left over to pay for reconstruction in the wake of 
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita or Wilma.
  Like the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--and like the class action, 
bankruptcy and needless tort reform on the Republican agenda--this 
Administration's failed economic policies and misplaced priorities are 
on display again this week in the form of the ``Reconciliation Spending 
Cuts Act of 2005.''
  Championing the values and priorities of the wealthiest at the 
expense of the middle class--and by punching holes in the safety net--
are hallmarks of this Administration but not the solution we need today 
to alleviate the misery in the Gulf Coast or ease the squeeze on the 
middle class.
  As we build new universities in Baghdad, schools across the United 
States are falling apart. How can we in good conscious cut student 
loans after the College Board recently reported tuition continues to 
rise faster than the rate of inflation?
  To illustrate this point, consider that under this legislation, 
someone earning over $1 million stands to gain a tax break of $19,000--
on top of the average $103,000 tax cut they already receive--whereas 
the typical student borrower, already saddled with $17,500 in debt, 
would face new fees and higher interest charges that could cost up to 
an additional $5,800.
  And yet, no one in this Administration has suggested putting Iraqi 
reconstruction money on the table. We simply cannot afford the 
continuing sacrifices and investments there at the expense of our 
priorities here at home. Nor has there been any hint that the tax cuts 
should be suspended for those earning more than $400,000 or that we 
should scale back the estate tax cut, which has no impact on nearly 98 
percent of American families.
  None of this is on the table, even though federal spending has grown 
by a third and record surpluses became record deficits since President 
Bush took office. With the most expensive tax cuts not yet fully 
phased-in, these policies threaten to expand the deficit beyond what we 
and future generations of Americans can afford.
  Common sense tells us that when you're in a hole, stop digging. But 
not only are we still digging, we are falling deeper into new fiscal 
depths with this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina was a tragic reminder that too many 
American families are struggling in today's economy. Squeezing them 
harder, as this reconciliation legislation would do, is not the answer. 
It takes our nation in the wrong direction, and I urge my colleagues to 
defeat it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Key Points About 
Reconciliation:
  1. All of these spending cuts will be used to offset tax cuts, not 
the costs of hurricane response or deficit reduction.
  2. Spending cuts threaten vital services, including services for 
hurricane victims.
  3. Even with these spending cuts, the Republican budget resolution 
still increases the deficit by more than $100 billion over five years.
  4. Republicans reveal a double standard in proposing to offset 
hurricane costs but not war costs or tax cuts.
  Summary of Cuts: The $53.9 billion in cuts is $14.8 billion higher 
than the reconciliation cuts that the Senate is considering.
  The $53.9 billion in cuts marks a 56 percent increase from the $34.7 
billion in reconciled spending cuts included in this year's budget 
resolution.
  The budget cuts do not offset spending for hurricane reconstruction--
they go towards offsetting $106 billion in tax cuts.
  Why does republican leadership insist on offsetting the cost of 
rebuilding damage from Katrina, but not the cost rebuilding Iraq?
  The objectionable cuts threaten vital services that people depend on:
  1. Medicaid--The bill cuts Medicaid spending by $11.9 billion.
  a. $8.8 billion will fall upon beneficiaries in the form of increases 
in cost-sharing and premiums.
  b. ``Flexibility'' that will allow states to cut benefit packages for 
certain individuals.
  c. Provisions that will make it harder for some seniors to access 
needed long-term care.
  2. Student Loans--The bill cuts spending on student loan programs by 
$14.3 billion over five years.
  a. Primarily through increases in the interest rates and fees that 
students pay as well as some reductions in subsidies to lenders.
  b. At a time when college costs are rising faster than inflation, the 
Committee is making the largest cut in the history of the student loan 
programs.
  3. Food Stamps--The legislation imposes cuts to food stamps of $844 
million over five years (2006-2010).
  a. Savings are achieved by adopting the President's proposal to limit 
categorical eligibility for food stamps to TANF recipients and 
increasing the in-country waiting period for legal immigrants to seven 
years. Under current law, 44 percent of those eligible for food stamps 
do not participate in the program. Changes such as these may mean even 
fewer vulnerable children and working families who qualify for 
nutrition benefits will actually receive them.
  4. Children--
  a. The legislation cuts $4.9 billion from child support programs over 
five years.
  i. This cut will reduce states' capacity to establish and enforce 
child support orders. Custodial parents will receive $7.1 billion less 
child support over five years and $21.3 billion less over ten years.
  b. The Committee cut $397 million from foster care over five years by 
limiting children's eligibility for federally funded foster care 
payments.
  i. The committee saved another $180 million by limiting circumstances 
under which states can receive federal funding for services provided to 
children.

                          ____________________