Relating to Consideration of S. 1932, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

Floor Speech

Relating to Consideration of S. 1932, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, last night, the President charged us to encourage economic progress, fight disease, and spread hope in hopeless lands. Unfortunately, this budget bill ignores the economic wellbeing, health, and hopes of the poor within our own nation. Just the idea of some of these draconian measures is enough to send chills up and down one's spine because we are talking about programs that provide basic assistance to vulnerable, low-income families and individuals. The proposed cuts come almost entirely from healthcare and education. We are talking about cutting programs that provide help to people with disabilities, to people who make use of the earned income tax credit, to people who use Supplemental Security Income programs, to people relying on the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and to the elderly. Although I do not think it is the majority's intention, these cuts effectively target low-income and minority Americans.

I am disappointed and discouraged that education bears one-third--31 percent--of the budget cuts. Education is central to developing economic progress and a successful citizenry. These education cuts impede access to education for hundreds of thousands of low-income and middle-income students. Financial barriers are the key to determining whether most low income, first generation, and minority students will successfully complete college. Indeed, only 54 percent of lowincome students obtain degrees, compared to 77 percent of high-income students. I will soon introduce legislation to help meet the needs of these students, but I fear that it will not cover the ground lost here.

The societal costs of these cuts are great, and my state and district will dramatically feel their effects. In Illinois, residents with a bachelor's degree enjoy almost double the salary of those with only a high school diploma, a 2.5 percent lower unemployment rate, and a dramatically lower likelihood of receiving public assistance. Undermining the ability of individuals to access education affects their long-term ability to be productive citizens. Moreover, 26 percent of Illinois residents have a bachelor's degree, most of whom required student loans to help them attain their degrees. In my district, I have over 40 institutions of higher education, each of which will suffer from this legislation. At the University of Illinois at Chicago alone, almost 10,000 students depend on the Direct Student Loan program to enable them to attend college. The increased fees and interest rates in this bill will burden a dependent undergraduate student at this respected university with an additional $2,500 in debt. It will burden a dental student with an additional $19,000 in debt over the life of their loan.

This bill continues its war on the poor by undermining the adequate health care, with 50 percent of the proposed cuts coming from Medicaid and Medicare. Although health care coverage continues to be an issue of great concern to many Americans, the House leadership and the Bush administration have brought before us a bill that makes drastic cuts in our nation's health care commitments. Over the next 10 years, nearly $50 billion will be squeezed out of Medicare and Medicaid--the very programs that ensure health coverage for our most vulnerable

citizens, low-income seniors, and children. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 65,000 Americans, 60 percent of whom are children, will lose access to Medicaid coverage by 2015. Furthermore, health care costs will increase for an estimated 20 million Americans and 1.6 million will lose vital dental, vision, and mental health services. I can just imagine what this will do to the more than 20 hospitals, health centers, and private physician practices in my district. Imagine the large number of children and poor people who will not be able to access adequate health care. These provisions ignore the needs of our most vulnerable and will have a very real impact in human terms.

Further, these cuts jeopardize the well-being of our most needy--children and families needing temporary assistance. This legislation fails to provide the funding necessary to support low-income families, especially foster care children living with grandparents and other relative providers. One of the most egregious aspects of the bill is that it rewards states for cutting caseloads rather than for successfully moving individuals from welfare to work. This reward system defines success as low-numbers without attention to whether our most vulnerable families are making it. This legislation fails to provide the financial support necessary for families to meet the new requirements, and it sets parents up for failure.

This bill also attacks relative caregivers on multiple fronts. As of 2003, 23 percent of foster children lived with relatives, and, unfortunately, these providers are much more likely than non-kin providers to live in poverty. Rather than support these families, this bill reduces financial support to children living with relatives, encourages non-relative placements, and jeopardizes the ability of states to provide safe and stable placements for children. Given that African-American grandparents serve as kinship care providers at higher rates than other racial/ethnic groups, the elimination of federally funded foster care assistance for thousands of children who live in low-income homes with relatives unfairly discriminate against relative caregivers who are most often African American. These cuts are particularly upsetting to me because I represent a congressional district with the second highest percentage of grandparents caring for their grandchildren.

The estimated ``savings'' from cuts in the welfare provisions are clearly at the expense of the states and families, and the cuts will negatively affect a state's ability to achieve safety, permanency, and well-being for children in the foster care system, in addition to creating a disincentive to care for these children in need. While noteworthy, this is unfortunately not the only place in this bill in which our most vulnerable citizens who hold little sway in Washington are squeezed to reward the connected and the wealthy.

This legislation comes up short in terms of the needs of businesses as well. Small businesses account for 99.7 percent of America's employers, they are the economic engine that drives America because they create three-fourths of all new jobs, employ half our workers, account for half of our gross domestic product and contribute more than 55 percent of innovations. Yet, the Deficit Reduction Act provides no money for the Small Business Administration's flagship 7(a) Loan Program. It is the agency's largest and most important program in terms of number of loans and program level supported. The 7(a) Program provides loan guarantees to eligible small businesses that have been unsuccessful in obtaining private financing on reasonable terms.

One of the worst offenses of this budget bill is that it legitimizes cutting the basic rights of education, safety, and health to support $70 billion in tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. In essence and in reality, we are talking about Robin Hood in reverse; that is, take from the poor and give to the rich. We are allowing a tremendous burden to be put on working class families to cover budget irresponsibility. Ford Motor Company and General Motors announced plans to lay-off 60,000 workers; workers who have families that are already trying to make ends meet in our in our sluggish economy. I am strongly in favor of our government operating on sound fiscal policies. I am in favor of reducing the deficit to the extent prudent and possible. I am in favor of budget reconciliation, but not on the backs of the poor, needy, and most vulnerable sectors of our society.

This bill is bad for Chicago, for Illinois, and for the nation. I can do nothing less than oppose this bill. As a matter of fact, it would be a dereliction of my duty and responsibility if I were to vote for the Deficit Reduction Act that is before us. I will vote prudently and sensibly.

Source