Good Samaritan Protection for Construction Volunteers Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we have the opportunity to make significant improvements in our Federal Deposit Insurance system. We do this from a position of strength, as both the insurance fund and the banking industry are extremely healthy. What better time than to fine tune the system and establish a strong footing going forward.

Basic principles of reform: Fairness and Flexibility

The fundamental driving principles of reform were to provide fairness to all insured depository institutions by assessing each based on risk and provide the FDIC with greater flexibility to manage the fund to reflect different economic conditions.

Regarding fairness: The bill provides greater fairness to insured banks in many important ways. First, it authorized the FDIC to revise the risk-based formula to better reflect the risk each institution poses to the insurance fund. In providing this authority, our Committee looked to and relied upon examples provided by the FDIC regarding how the new system might work, including FDIC representations that about 42 percent of all banks would likely remain in the lowest risk category. We know that the very nature of bank loans involves risk. Therefore, we expect the FDIC to form a reasonable system that encourages appropriate risk-taking, consistent with safe and sound banking, and with premiums at a level that protect the best run banks from being overcharged and that don't inadvertently stop lending. In this bill, we make explicit that the size of the financial institution should not bar an institution from being in the lowest risk category. It is risk that matters, not size. We expect the FDIC to time assessments in such a manner that banks are able to plan for such an expense, thereby avoiding unexpected or untimely costs on the bank.

Secondly, the bill recognizes that about 10 percent of institutions have never paid a premium to the FDIC to support its operations.

This has put a burden on those institutions that fully capitalized the insurance funds in the mid-1990s. Thus, this legislation provides that those institutions that capitalized the fund with initial credits--in proportion to each institution's financial contribution to FDIC--that are intended to offset premium assessments for many years to come. Those institutions that have not financially supported the FDIC would not have these credits and would begin to pay premiums to the FDIC. Moreover, should the insurance fund grow to the upper regions of the normal operating range for the FDIC, banks would be entitled to a cash dividend in proportion to their historic financial contributions.

Regarding flexibility: The bill provides FDIC greater flexibility to manage the insurance fund. The law that our bill replaces constrained the FDIC from charging most banks when the reserve ratio remained above a certain level and would force FDIC to charge high premiums, 23 basis points, at times when it made the least sense. Our bill allows the FDIC to manage the fund within a wide range, with the idea that assessments would remain reasonably constant and predictable.

Importantly, this bill is not intended to raise more money than what the FDIC would have collected under the old law. Nor is this bill intended to encourage the FDIC to build the fund to the highest possible level. In fact, we know that each dollar sent to the FDIC means that there are fewer dollars that can support lending in our communities. And as we considered this bill, we heard testimony that suggested that each dollar sent to Washington means that eight dollars of lending is lost. We cannot afford to restrict lending in our communities just to have more money added to the nearly $50 billion already in the insurance fund.

To protect against the fund growing too quickly, the legislation provides an automatic braking system that would return as a dividend 50 percent of any excess when the reserve ratio of the fund is above 1.35 percent. It also caps the fund level, providing a 100 percent dividend when the reserve ratio exceeds the upper limit of the range at 1.50 percent. This assures that money will remain in our communities. And while we provided the FDIC some authority to suspend the 50 percent dividend under extraordinary circumstances where it expects losses over a 1-year timeframe to be significant, our expectation is that this authority be used rarely and be reviewed each year when the new designated reserve ratio is set. The intention of this exception is that it be temporary and not a regular event, and that the FDIC communicates to Congress and the industry its justifications.

Designed for the Future

Not only does the legislation provide fairness and flexibility, it also anticipates needed changes in the coverage levels over time. We know that inflation has cut in half the real value of the current insurance coverage since it was last changed in 1980. We also know that as the baby boomers move into retirement, that the current coverage level was inadequate to protect their life-long savings. Thus, this bill increased to $250,000 the insurance limit on retirement accounts.

The House has repeatedly voted overwhelmingly in favor of legislation that would automatically index coverage levels based on inflation. The other body has only recently passed deposit insurance reform. The indexing language included in the Senate reconciliation bill required the FDIC to ``determine whether'' to increase coverage based on the amount of inflation increase plus a long list of factors. The compromise language we have agreed to calls on the FDIC and NCUA to jointly consider just three narrow factors. Those factors are (1) the overall state of the Deposit Insurance Fund and economic conditions affecting insured depository institutions; (2) potential problems affecting insured depository institutions; and (3) whether the increase will cause the reserve ratio of the fund to fall below 1.15 percent of estimated insured deposits. If the FDIC and NCUA elect not to increase coverage, they must make the case based on these three narrow factors. The key language in the compromise is that the FDIC and NCUA, ``upon determining that an inflation adjustment is appropriate, shall jointly prescribe the amount by which'' coverage ``shall be increased by calculating'' the amount of inflation. This change in language, from ``determine whether'' to ``shall jointly prescribe'' is a clear statement that Congress is establishing a presumption that the agencies will increase coverage if warranted by past inflation.

Stronger than Ever

This legislation will make the insurance fund even stronger than it already is and, in combination with the extensive regulatory and supervisory authorities of the FDIC, ensures that the fund and the banking industry will remain strong for a very long time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Deposit Insurance Reform legislation included in S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

I want to begin by thanking Financial Services Committee Chairman Oxley for his relentless efforts on moving this deposit insurance reform legislation. He has shown tremendous leadership in steering this complex bill through the legislative process, and I am deeply grateful that he gave me the opportunity to work on this landmark piece of legislation. I also want to thank the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Frank, for his support. This was truly a bipartisan effort, and I believe we have a better legislative product because of that. In addition, I want to express my deep appreciation for Senator Shelby's work on increasing coverage for retirement accounts to $250,000.

Deposit insurance reform has been thoroughly discussed and debated over several years. During both the 107th (H.R. 3717) and 108th (H.R. 522) Congress, I introduced comprehensive deposit insurance reform legislation. The legislation was a byproduct of recommendations made by the FDIC in early 2001, a series of hearings held in my Subcommittee on proposed reforms to the Federal deposit insurance system, and broad- based bipartisan cooperation. H.R. 3717 passed the House in the 107th Congress by a vote of 408-18, and H.R. 522 passed the House in the 108th Congress by a vote of 411-11. During this Congress, Congresswoman Hooley and I introduced this same legislation--H.R. 1185--with Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank. On May 4, 2005, H.R. 1185 passed the House by a vote of 413 to 10. The legislation is supported by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) as well as all of the banking and credit union trade associations.

Federal deposit insurance has been a hallmark of our nation's banking system for more than 70 years. The reforms made by this legislation will ensure that this system that has served America's savers and depositors so well for so long will continue to do so for future generations.

What does the legislation do? First, it merges the separate insurance funds that currently apply to deposits held by banks on the one hand and savings associations on the other, creating a stronger and more stable fund that will benefit banks and thrifts alike.

Second, the bill makes a number of changes designed to address the ``pro-cyclical'' bias of the current system, which results in sharply higher premiums being assessed at ``down'' points in the business cycle, when banks can least afford to pay them and when funds are most needed for lending to jumpstart economic growth. By giving the FDIC greater discretion to manage the insurance funds based on industry conditions and

economic trends, the legislation will ease volatility in the banking system and facilitate recovery from economic downturns.

Third, the legislation makes monumental changes to law with regard to deposit insurance coverage levels. The system has gone 25 years without such an adjustment--the longest period in its history--and the increases provided for in the legislation are critical if deposit insurance is to maintain its relevance. The legislation establishes a permanent indexation system to ensure that coverage levels keep pace with inflation by indexing coverage from its current level of $100,000 every five years. The indexation, which begins in 2010, applies to all accounts, including retirement and municipal accounts. Without these changes, deposit insurance will wither on the vine, which is an unacceptable outcome for the millions of Americans who depend upon it to protect their savings.

The legislation also immediately increases deposit insurance coverage available to retirement accounts, including IRAs and 401ks, from its current level of $100,000 to $250,000. Particularly in light of volatility on Wall Street and other developments that have shaken confidence in the markets in recent years, senior citizens and those planning for retirement need a convenient, conservative, and secure place for their retirement savings. With the higher coverage levels provided for in this bill, the American banking system will give seniors that safe haven. That is why the AARP has enthusiastically endorsed the coverage increases in this bill.

All of us have heard from community bankers in our districts about the challenges they face in competing for deposits with large money- center banks that are perceived by the market--rightly or wrongly--as being ``too big to fail.'' By strengthening the deposit insurance system, the conference report will help small, neighborhood-based financial institutions across the country, particularly in rural America, continue to play an important role in financing economic development. The deposits that community banks are able to attract through the Federal deposit insurance guarantee are cycled back into local communities in the form of consumer and small business loans, community development projects, and home mortgages. If this source of funding dries up, it will have devastating consequences for the economic vitality of small-town America.

I want to again commend Chairman Oxley for the tremendous leadership he has shown in steering this complex bill through the legislative process. I also want to thank Ranking Member Frank, Congresswoman Hooley, Senator Shelby, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Enzi, Senator Crapo, Senator Enzi, and Senator Johnson for all of their work on this legislation.

Let me also take this opportunity to thank the staff members on the House Financial Services Committee who worked on this legislation. Both Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank are to be commended for assembling such a talented group of staff to work on Deposit Insurance Reform legislation. On the majority side, I would like to thank Bob Foster, Carter McDowell, Peggy Peterson, Tom Duncan, Peter Barrett and Dina Ellis who serves as my designee on the Committee. I want to give a special thanks to Jim Clinger who recently left the Committee to work at the Department of Justice. Without Jim's hard work, dedication and knowledge we would not be here today, and I am grateful for all of his efforts. I would also like to thank Larry Lavender, Warren Tryon and Kim Olive of my staff for their work on this issue. On the minority staff, I would like to thank the following staff members: Jeanne Roslanowick, Jaime Lizarraga, Erika Jeffers, Ken Swab and Matt Schumaker of Congresswoman Hooley's staff.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this legislation will promote the stability and soundness of the banking system. It will also provide assurance to working families, retirees, and others who place their hard-earned savings in U.S. banks, thrifts, and credit unions that their FDIC-insured deposits are safe and secure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

I think I have answered the gentleman's question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman help us define what inappropriate is? Does the gentlewoman think that the film ``Saving Private Ryan,'' which depicted the incredible sacrifice by American troops on D-Day, is inappropriate and should have been kept off of ABC?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, but this bill leads to self-censorship. Small stations who are fined a half a million dollars are going to be very cautious. ``Saving Private Ryan'' was kept off of dozens of ABC affiliates because they were afraid of a fine.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule and opposition to the underlying legislation.

As someone who voted in favor of similar legislation last year, I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill today.

This censorship is being done by the corporate owners of our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media; but it is also significantly being done by the government, and that is what this bill is about today. What we are seeing is an increasing and insidious chill on free expression in the airwaves.

There are a lot of people in Congress on that side of the aisle, my conservative friends, who talk about freedom and freedom and freedom; but apparently they really do not believe that the American people should have the freedom to make the choices themselves about what programs they see on television or on the radio.

There are a lot of people in Congress, including Conservatives, who talk about the intrusive role of government regulators; but today they want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. I disagree with that.

A vote for this bill today will make America a less free society. Mr. Speaker, I am not a Conservative. I am a proud Progressive. But on this issue, I agree with some important conservative thinkers. Let me tell my colleagues what Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the director of telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute, extremely conservative think tank, says, and he has it right: ``Those of us who are parents understand that raising a child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task at times, but that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of the public without children. Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I take great offense at the notion that government officials must do this job for me and every other American family. Censorship on an individual parental level is a fundamental part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government level is an entirely different matter because it means a small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole Nation is permitted to see, hear, or think.''

That is and that should be the Conservative position. That should be the position of people who say get the government off our backs; we do not want government regulations.

Mr. Speaker, increasingly in this country we are seeing censorship on the airwaves. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org, and on and on it goes.

Let us vote ``no.'' Let us vote against this bill and support freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that we do not want our children exposed to obscenity on the public airwaves. That goes without saying.

As someone who last year voted in favor of similar legislation, I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill today. This censorship is being conducted by the corporate owners of our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media. And it is being done by the government. This result is an insidious chill on free expression on our airwaves.

There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about freedom, freedom and freedom but, apparently, they do not really believe that the American people should have the ``freedom'' to make the choice about what they listen to on radio or watch on TV. There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about the intrusive role of ``government regulators,'' but today they want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. I disagree with that. A vote for this bill today will make America a less free society.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a conservative. But on this issue I find myself in strong agreement with Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute--a very conservative think tank. And here is the very common sense, pro-freedom position that he brings forth:

Those of use who are parents understand that raising a

child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task

at times. But

that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in

to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of

the public without children.

Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in

mind, I take great offense at the notion that government

officials must do this job for me and every other American

family.

Censorship on an individual/parental level is a fundamental

part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government

level is an entirely different matter because it means a

small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole

nation is permitted to see, hear or think.

I've always been particularly troubled by the fact that so

many conservatives, who rightly preach the gospel of personal

and parental responsibility about most economic issues,

seemingly give up on this notion when it comes to cultural

issues.

Mr. Speaker, the specter of censorship is growing in America today, and we have got to stand firmly in opposition to it. What America is about is not necessarily liking what you have to say or agreeing with you, but it is your right to say it. Today, it is Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or Howard Stern's vulgarity. What will it be tomorrow?

Let me give just a couple of examples of increased censorship on the airwaves. In January 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush's role in cheating the Federal deficit. Last November, 66 ABC affiliates refused to air the brilliant World War II movie ``Saving Private Ryan,'' starring Tom Hanks, for fear that they would be fined for airing programming containing profanity and graphic violence, even though ABC had aired the uncut movie in previous years. This ironically was a movie that showed the unbelievable sacrifices that American soldiers made on D-Day fighting for freedom against Hitler, but ABC affiliates around the country didn't feel free to show it. Last November, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome to their Church. The networks felt that it was ``too controversial'' to air. And just last month, many PBS stations refused to air an episode of Postcards with Buster, a children's show, because Education Secretary Spellings objected to the show's content, which included Buster, an 8-year old bunny-rabbit, learning how to make maple syrup from a family with two mothers in Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, each of these examples represent a different aspect of the culture of censorship that is growing in America today. My fear is that the legislation we have before us today will only compound this problem and make a bad situation worse.

This legislation would impose vastly higher fines on broadcasters for so-called indecent material. But this legislation does not provide any relief from the vague standard of indecency that can be arbitrarily applied by the FCC. That means broadcasters, particularly small broadcasters, will have no choice but to engage in a very dangerous cycle of self-censorship to avoid a fine that could drive some of them into bankruptcy. Broadcasters are already doing it now. Imagine what will happen when a violation can bring a $500,000 fine. If this legislation is enacted, the real victim will be free expression and Americans' First Amendment rights.

In the past week I have sought out the views of broadcasters in my own State of Vermont and I have heard from many of them. Without exception they are extremely concerned about the effect this legislation will have on programming decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I am enclosing a copy of a statement by Mr. John King, President and CEO of Vermont Public Television.

Statement of Mr. John King, President and CEO of Vermont Public

Television on H.R. 310

Vermont Public Television, like other local broadcasters,

does its best to serve the needs and interests of its local

community. It's a great privilege and a great responsibility

to have a broadcast license. While we acknowledge that there

must be sanctions for broadcasters who misuse the public

airwaves, we believe the sanctions proposed in H.R. 310 are

extreme.

The FCC's proposals for increased fines for obscenity,

indecency and profanity have already had a chilling effect on

broadcasters nationally and locally, including Vermont Public

Television. The legislation also makes lodging a complaint

easier and puts the burden of proof on the station. Codifying

these proposals into law will make the situation worse.

While many people might assume the new sanctions are aimed

at commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters are feeling

the effects every day. Public television's educational

programming for children has always provided a safe haven.

The same public television stations that take such care of

their young viewers also respect the intelligence and

discretion of their adult viewers to make the best viewing

choices for themselves.

Vermont Public Television has always operated

responsibility in our programming for adults. At times, our

programs included adult language and situations appropriate

to the informational or artistic purpose of a program. While

there have always been prohibitions against gratuitous

indecency, the FCC always took context into account. Now, it

seems that context is no longer considered.

Much as we might like to invoke our First Amendment rights,

we dare not risk the large fine that could come with a single

violation. The $500,000 maximum fine could put a small

station like VPT out of business.

Last year, when the FCC proposed increased fines and told

broadcasters there was one word that would never be

appropriate on the air, PBS and its member stations,

including Vermont Public Television, began to make content

choices so as not to run afoul of the new FCC restrictions.

PBS programmers began making edits to national programs

being distributed to stations. An ``American Experience''

documentary on Emma Goldman was scrutinized for what might

possibly look like a bare breast and edited, just be to sure.

On ``Antiques Roadshow,'' a nude poster was edited. This

month, most PBS stations will air a drama from HBO called

``Dirty War.'' In the story, a woman showers to remove

radiation. When the program airs on PBS, that shower scene

will be edited.

Our programming director, and no doubt most local

programmers, have become very cautious. Once the FCC starts

telling broadcasters they must not use certain words or

situations, programmers tend to avoid producing and airing

programs with words and situations that might even come close

to content that could be subject to fines.

At VPT, we produce many live local programs with panelists

representing many points of view. We take calls from viewers

live on the air. There has never been a problem with

language, but the legislation's reference to using a ``time

delay blocking mechanism'' makes us worry. We don't use a

time delay. Are we subject to a fine if a panelist or a

caller uses a word considered obscene, indecent or profane?

Our programming director says the FCC proposals have

already made us rule out airing independent films on our

``Reel Independent'' program. Films by Vermont filmmakers

that we would have aired in past years are not being accepted

for broadcast now.

We cannot support H.R. 310 as it is written.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Bishops' Conference is deeply disappointed that the

final budget reconciliation conference agreement coming once

again before the House of Representatives includes provisions

in these areas which we believe could prove harmful to many

low-income children, families, elderly and people with

disabilities who are least able to provide for themselves.

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

reconciliation conference agreement.

Bishops' President Urges House To Reject Budget Agreement

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

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

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

president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

in a January 24 letter to the House of Representatives.

Bishop Skylstad said the greatest concerns were over:

increased Medicaid cost-sharing burdens; cuts to child

support enforcement; changes in Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families programs which underfund work programs and

childcare; and cuts to agriculture conservation programs.

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

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

Bishop Skylstad said.

The text of the entire letter follows.

January 24, 2006.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: In December, as President of the

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I wrote to you

expressing serious concerns about provisions in the budget

reconciliation bill. The proposed changes in Medicaid, child

support enforcement funding, Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF), and agriculture conservation programs, in

particular, could have a negative impact upon the most

vulnerable in our nation.

Our Bishops' Conference is deeply disappointed that the

final budget reconciliation conference agreement coming once

again before the House of Representatives includes provisions

in these areas which we believe could prove harmful to many

low-income children, families, elderly and people with

disabilities who are least able to provide for themselves.

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

reconciliation conference agreement.

Among the areas of most concern to us are:

Increased Medicaid cost-sharing burdens and eroding federal

benefit standards which can result in low-income children,

families, pregnant women, elderly and those with disabilities

not getting the care they need.

Cuts to child support enforcement, which will mean

collecting billions less in child support for children and

families than under current law.

TANF-related provisions, including:

Immediate and significant changes in state TANF work rules

(although additional proposals to increase hours worked per

week were wisely abandoned) without providing sufficient

additional funding needed to run work programs and provide

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

cutting child care for low-income working families, reducing

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

assistance for needy families; policies that could have the

effect of disadvantaging two-parent families and married

couples; and failure to restore TANF benefit eligibility to

recently-arrived legal immigrants. Cuts to

key agriculture conservation programs, which will undermine

efforts to promote soil conservation, improve water quality,

protect wildlife, and maintain biodiversity.

We recognize that the bill also includes positive elements,

such as additional funding for victims of Hurricane Katrina

and a program to promote marriage and healthy families. We

are also grateful that cuts to the Food Stamps program were

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

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

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

reject the conference agreement and work for policies that

put poor children and families first.

There are many challenges and much tumult in Washington

that demand the attention of our leaders. However, an

essential priority of government is to provide for the

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

us.''

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