[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3140-H3148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PEACE, JUSTICE, AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, no discussion is more important than the one
that is now under way here in Washington concerning the budget and all
matters related to fiscal appropriations policies. The discussion that
we have just heard is a very vital one. It relates to one small facet
of the total budget and one small portion of the Contract With America.
The question of school lunches and whether they have been cut or not
has been thoroughly discussed and we will have some more discussion on
it. It is very important because in the process of trying to save money
on school lunches, there has been some trickery. We are moving under
the cover of a block grant and we are talking about giving additional
money to take care of inflation. We are not discussing the fact that an
entitlement is being taken away, an entitlement.
Every hungry child who has a certain income level is entitled now to
a free lunch, which means that no matter how large that number
increases and how great it becomes, the free lunch will always be there
for the hungry child. In the block grant process, there is a finite
number of children who can be fed. The Federal Government has only
provided a finite amount of money. There is no supplementary budget at
the Federal level that you can fall back on. You cannot go to the
treasury of the Federal Government. They have washed their hands of the
process once they give the block grant. So it is up to the States. It
is up to the local government to pick up at that point and that is a
part of the discussion. We can talk more and more about that but it is
only a small part of the total picture.
Let us not talk so much about what has been cut so far, although that
is important, the fact that school lunches are on the block and they
are being squeezed in devious ways to save money. The fact that the
summer youth employment programs, one of the most basic, practical, and
concrete programs ever devised by the Federal Government where
teenagers are employed during the summer, that also is on the chopping
block.
In the rescission process, they have put zero in the budget for the
remainder of this year, reached into the current budget, money that has
already been authorized, programs that have already been authorized,
money that has already been appropriated is now being taken out of the
current budget for the year which ends on September 30, 1995. That is
called a rescission process. It is a cruel process of having people who
anticipate that they are going to get certain kinds of programs and
funding suddenly wake up and discover that it has been snatched away in
this budget year, before we get to the process of the next budget year,
1996 budget year, which begins October 1, 1995.
So we are cutting programs which have relatively small amounts of
money attached to them when you look at the total budget and benefit
large numbers of people, programs that have been demonstrated to be
workable, programs which go straight to the heart of the matter and
serve the poorest people in the country. We are cutting them, and one
of the questions is, why are we cutting these programs and not cutting
other programs? And I will get to that later.
I think it is important to understand that the
budget-making process is a vital part of a bigger process whereby we
are defining our vision for America as we see it, as we go forward the
year 2000 and beyond.
{time} 2130
What happens this year will determine what is going to be happening
in the next 10 to 20 years. This is a pivotal year. It is a pivotal
year because the majority in the Congress that has just taken over has
made it a pivotal year, and we should not back away from the challenge
of making a lot of very basic decisions which will set the course of
America for the next 10 to 20 years. We will not back away from it. Let
us just understand that everything that is being done; those things
that have dollars attached to them, and many of them that do not have
dollars attached to them, are a part of a process to prepare America
for a future that is going to be a future basically to serve a small
elite group of people or a future America that belongs to everybody. I
say it is a conflict, a battle, between the oppressive elite minority
and the caring majority. I think there is definitely a cleavage here,
unlike any we have seen before.
There is a group, which I call the oppressive elite minority, who
have a great deal of education, a great deal of understanding about now
to use power. They have a great knowledge of how to use information.
They know how to control and make very good use of
[[Page H3141]] media. But the oppressive elite minority is lacking in
compassion. The oppressive elite minority has a distorted vision of
what America should be all about. This oppressive elite minority, in
charge of Congress now, has a vision which seeks to throw certain
groups of people overboard. It has a mentality of triage. It is
basically saying that there are some things that are not in the
American dream for all people. In fact only a small group should
benefit.
This kind of philosophy is a distortion, in my opinion, of where we
ought to go. It is the wrong vision. They are clear on where they want
to go. They are forceful about where they want to go. But I say that
they are very wrong. it is a mean-spirited approach.
In fact, you can go further and say it is a dangerous and deadly
approach because of its basic assumption that we cannot build an
America that serves all people, we cannot have an America which
provides freedom, peace, justice, and opportunity for everybody. The
patterns that they are laying out is a pattern which says we can only
do it for an elite oppressive minority.
The budget cuts are the center of this whole process of redefining
what America is all about. The budget cuts are at the center of the
vision that is being laid out by both groups. I think we should accept
the challenge that is being laid down by the majority party in the
House of Representatives.
A challenge that they are laying down is that they have a vision for
the new world order, they have a vision as to where America should be
going, and we would like to offer an alternative vision. I am the
chairman of a Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget committee,
and we are going to accept the challenge of offering an alternative
budget, and that budget will be very much a vision of where we think
America should be going between now and the year 2000 or 2002.
Certain rules are being made about how this budget is going to be
handled. The rumor is that we cannot bring any alternative or
substitute budget to the floor of the House unless that budget shows
where we are going to balance the budget by the year 2002. If we cannot
balance the budget by the year 2002, we will not be allowed to put it
on the floor is the rumor. It has not been finalized yet.
Well, we accept that challenge. If we have to prepare a balanced
budget by the year 2002, that is the only way we can present the
Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative, then we will bring to
the floor a budget which will be balanced by the year 2002, but in the
process of balancing the budget we are going to demonstrate what the
vision of a caring majority is. We are going to show how a budget can
be balanced by making cuts of programs that are really not in the best
interests of the great majority of Americans. The budget that we will
bring forward will have the support of the great majority of the
American people because there is a caring majority.
The people who came out to vote on November 8 do not represent a
mandate, did not offer a mandate, they do not represent a body on which
a revolution can be based. We had about 38 to 39 percent of the people
who were eligible to vote in America who came out, and half of those
people voted for the party that won the majority. The half of 39
percent, 38 percent, is certainly not a majority of Americans. The
Americans who did not come out to vote, in a large number who came out
to vote and did not vote for the winners, they constitute the caring
majority.
The caring majority is made up of people who are not wise enough to
come out to vote and who did not protect their own interests in the
proper way, but the caring majority also includes a lot of enlightened
people who do vote and who do not identify with the policies of the
elite oppressive minority who won the majority of the seats in the
House. The caring majority is made up with people who are not
necessarily homeless or do not even have the problem in getting shelter
or buying homes, but they recognize that there are homeless people in
America, and they want to see the America which provides the
opportunity for everybody to have a decent home. They may not want to
live next to homeless people, and that should not be the test of their
compassion. The test of their compassion and their membership in the
caring majority is do they believe that every American ought to have a
decent home, an opportunity to have a decent home? A caring majority is
made up of people who are not hungry, people who have plenty to eat and
have good jobs, but the caring majority includes people who have good
jobs, plenty to eat, who are willing to look at people who do not have
jobs and do not have enough to eat, and they are willing to support
public policies which are going to provide employment for all people.
They are willing to support public policies which will allow everybody
to earn an income and be able to provide the basic necessities of food,
clothing, and shelter. The caring majority is made up of people like
that who are voting and who will be on the side of those who are in
need and who are being affected by the safety nets which are being
removed by this oppressive elite minority.
We have a vision of America that is very different from the vision of
the oppressive elite minority. We are not afraid to offer that vision.
On the other hand, we recognize that shortcomings of a vision of the
elite minority, it is a vision of America for the few. It is a vision
of America for the privileged. It is a vision of America for a new
computer class. The cutoff is whether you can own a computer or not, I
suppose from the kinds of language used by this oppressive elite
minority. Traditional working class people are not included in the
vision of this elite minority as to who America should exist for.
They do not include construction workers, for example, who always are
a part of the middle class.
They made good salaries in the past, and they have been supported in
the past by both parties. In fact, most construction workers a few
years ago we would say would definitely fall in the Republican Party.
They had that kind of outlook on life. They were part of the
establishment, making very good salaries, and we are surprised and
shocked that the new oppressive elite minority in control of this
Congress is moving rapidly to take away basic benefits from
construction workers. The repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act is high on the
list, high on the agenda, of the oppressive elite minority/majority now
in control of Congress. They do not want to see construction workers
paid decent wages. They want to take out the Davis-Bacon Act which
controls the situation which can easily be exploited if it is not
there. They do not want to have much to do with organized labor in
general.
Our great middle class, the greatest portion of the American middle
class, have been working people traditionally. We created a phenomenon
that never existed in the history of the world when we began to pay
millions of workers decent wages. We created the great American market,
the great American consumer market, which sustained this country and
built our capitalism into the strongest system of democratic capitalism
in the world. Everybody wanted to get into the American consumer
market, and we have allowed in many cases too generously--we have been
too generous in allowing the Japanese to get into the American consumer
market, the Germans to get into the American consumer market, everybody
comes along with products, rushers to the great American consumer
market to sell products and to benefit greatly. Japanese riches have
been built on that openness of our consumer market.
That consumer market would not exist if we had not had the American
labor movement, if we had not had a situation where the forces combine,
the workers themselves, and enlightened Government starting with FDR,
and an acceptance by the Republican Party, acceptance by the
corporations, that it was good to have labor peace, it was good to pay
decent wages, and we went forward all together under that system.
But, no, we want to turn the clock back and stop that in this present
Congress controlled by the oppressive elite minority. The oppressive
elite minority's leadership right away took the Education and Labor
Committee and changed the name. They wanted to immediately insult labor
by taking labor out of the name of a major committee on Congress so we
no longer have any committee of Congress that has the word ``labor'' in
it. They proceeded to
[[Page H3142]] move to repeal certain portions of the National Labor
Relations Act. All kinds of things are moving forward to oppress and to
squeeze the traditional middle class of working Americans, working
Americans who do belong to the middle class. They want to redefine the
middle class and push down those who before, who heretofore, have
belonged to the great middle class.
Public education is now under attack by this oppressive elite
minority. The leadership of this Congress, majority of this Congress,
the leadership now wants to eliminate the Department of Education. They
have gone after education programs with a large number of rescissions
already before we get into the process of making the budget for next
year. They want to pull back funds for large numbers of programs in
this year. They propose first to cut Head Start, and then when they
were forced to back away from that, they have cut title I programs. The
most basic Federal aid to education is funneled through title I,
formerly called chapter 1 programs. Public education is under attack,
and after many years under Ronald
Reagan and under President Bush, after years of recognizing that
America had a problem with education, and after every President
starting with President Reagan, attempted to move forward in some way
to establish a Federal presence in education. We are now ready to
recklessly retreat, recklessly eradicate all the work that has been
done by Reagan, Bush, and Clinton and tear down the Federal involvement
in education, just wipe out the Department of Education. We will be the
only industrialized nation which does not have a centralized Department
of Education to provide some guidance and some direction for the
education function. We will rapidly begin to decline in our ability to
compete once the Department of Education is gone.
But the oppressive elite minority is blinded by their own ideological
biases, and they want to wipe out the effectiveness of public
education. They are going to look to other ways to provide education,
those that they think should be educated. The rest they will throw
overboard, the billions of dollars. The riches of America will not be
used for one of the most fundamental functions of society, the
education of the populace. Nothing is more important to our national
security than the education of the populace. The education of the
American people will keep them competitive. The education of the
American people will maintain civility and lessen friction, lessen
crime, lessen disorder. The education of the American people is the
most important function of Government as we go toward the new world
order. Far more important in our national defense and our national
security is education than new weapon systems.
But we define what we are all about, as I said before, by the steps
we take in our policies and especially in our fiscal policies, budget
policies, and other monetary policies. The steps that are being taken
now are clearly defining what I call a high tech, a group of high
technology barbarians, well educated people who understand how to use
information, but who lack compassion, and in the final analysis,
because they lack compassion, they lack the vision necessary to carry
us forward and build on the greatness that already exists in America.
The vision of a caring majority is very different from the vision of
the oppressive elite minority.
{time} 2145
The vision of the caring majority sees the possibility of peace,
justice and opportunity for all of the people. We do not see America
going bankrupt. We do not want to preach scarcity. We are not
Bangladesh. We have the resources necessary to provide for a society
and an economy that can support peace, justice and opportunity for all
of the people.
We can provide health care for all of the people. We can provide
housing for all of the people. We can provide employment for all of the
people. The resources are there.
The caring majority is there. And given the opportunity, we are going
to find a rejection of the kind of policies and programs being put
forward by this elite, oppressive elite minority.
Democratic capitalism allows us to do the kinds of things that are
needed to produce a society with opportunity for all and with justice
and peace. Democratic capitalism is a good umbrella, an umbrella under
which we may construct the most successful social order ever created.
The skeleton of Democratic capitalism has the ability. It is able to
adapt.
The system is responsive to innovations. We are not stuck in a
situation where we can look forward to going to a bankrupt treasury in
the year 2000, because Social Security is there, if we do not take
radical steps now to end spending for programs that benefit people.
The responsiveness is there. We can do a great deal of things under
our present setup. We are the greatest system that has yet been devised
by man. And we must use it with imagination and creativity. And most of
all, we must have the compassion to understand that we do not need to
throw any group of people overboard.
This is the first and the most vital step. Make the assumption that
the richest Nation in the history of the world can create, it can
generate a society which provides peace, justice and opportunity for
all.
Now, am I running away from the hard job of discussing the budget? I
have not mentioned very many numbers at this point. Let's talk about
numbers, the problem of funding. The problem of money, of taxes, is a
monumental problem today. It will be a monumental problem in the
future. It is a permanent challenge. We will always have to struggle to
produce the revenues necessary to finance the activities and the
functions of government and society that we deem are necessary. It is
an ongoing problem. We will have to rise to the occasion.
We will always have to raise revenue. We will have to eliminate
waste. We have to set the right priorities. We will always have to be
improving efficiency and increasing effectiveness.
Any organization or any activity that has ever been devised by human
kind has a problem with efficiency and effectiveness. It has a problem
with waste. The species Homo sapiens, human kind, is not an
administering animal. We are not naturally good administrators.
Administration and management is something that human beings have to
work at all of the time. It is a permanent, ongoing activity.
I am not going to say that there is not waste in the welfare program.
I am not going to say there is no waste in the school lunch program. I
am not going to say there is no waste in any function that is operated
by government, just as there is tremendous amount of waste in the
private sector. In fact, the private sector has shown us it can be the
most wasteful and the most inefficient and the most corrupt sector of
our society.
The savings and loans collapse, the savings and loan swindle, showed
us how monumental waste and corruption and inefficiency can exist
within the private sector. So mankind, homo sapiens, are no more
effective in the private sector in administration and management than
they are in the public sector. It is a problem that we have to
confront.
Let us go forward and deal with new ways and deal with the problem of
money. First, budget cuts. Am I afraid to talk about budget cuts? Do I
think we should not cut the budget? There is no room in the budget for
a downsizing and a decrease in expenditures? No, I would not take that
position. There is a tremendous amount of waste in the budget. But we
define ourselves and we show where our souls are when we make the
choices as to what to cut.
Why are we going on and on, day in and day out, about the cutting of
the school lunch program and there is no discussion of some cuts of the
CIA and the intelligence budget? The CIA and the intelligence agencies
have a secret budget. They will not even tell the American people what
the budget is, yet estimates by all sources have placed it at no less
than $28 billion. The intelligence budget is no less than $28 billion;
probably more.
At a time like this in our history when there is no evil empire
anymore and the Soviet Union is struggling just to exist, it cannot be
an aggressor or threaten us in any way, why do we need a CIA budget of
$28 billion?
If the people who want to downsize government and want to streamline
government, if they want to do it in order to give a tax cut, if they
want to
[[Page H3143]] do it in order to make sure that our children and our
grandchildren do not have to pay all of these bills in the future, if
they want to seriously and sincerely deal with those problems, then why
are they not discussing a cut in the CIA and the intelligence budget?
Why not cut it just in half?
You put zero in the budget for the summer youth employment program.
That is bold and daring. They consider that bold and daring. I think it
is an act of cowardice to cut the summer youth program for teenagers
overnight, pull out the money and say it is zero this year and next
year it will also be zero. I do not think that is an act of courage.
It would be an act of courage to say let's gut the CIA budget and the
intelligence budget in half to $14 billion. We will have 14 billion to
distribute for these other programs or to go to the deficit or to give
a contribution toward the tax cut.
CIA, who don't we cut it? Why are we discussing the school lunch
program and not discussing the CIA and the intelligence agency?
Why are we discussing the school lunch program endlessly and not the
Seawolf submarine; 2.1 plus billion dollars, $2.1 billion to build a
submarine that everybody admits we don't need at all? We don't need it
to fight a war. It is only there to maintain the profits for the
manufacturer at a certain level; to provide some jobs.
And if you want to take $2.1 billion, you could provide twice as many
jobs if the object is just to provide jobs. The object is to provide
profits also for people who certainly do not need to be milking the
American taxpayers for more profits.
So why not cut the Seawolf submarine? We are talking some heavy
dollars when you talk about the CIA and the Seawolf submarine.
Why not cut the cheap electricity that that the people in the
Northwest and the Midwest have from dams that are built by all of the
taxpayers with all the taxpayers' money? There are some people who are
paying one-half the price for electricity as my constituents are paying
in New York. Do they deserve the bargain of one half the cost for their
electricity? They are Americans just like everybody else. Why not
market rates for everybody?
If you raise the payments of the people who are getting the bargain
in electric use and raise it to market rates, and let the Federal
Government take back that money that it invested in the dams and the
water projects and distribute throughout all America and let us all
benefit from it, let's all get a benefit of the efforts of our Federal
Government. Why are we not discussing a cut or a retrieving of the
bounty that the people of the Northwest and the Midwest have enjoyed
all these years? People say they want government off of their backs and
yet they are the beneficiaries of some of our biggest government
programs for the longest number of years.
And how about the Department of Agriculture? We are not discussing
the biggest welfare program in America. The longest-running and the
most lucrative welfare program in America is the farm price supports.
The Department of Agriculture handed out $16 billion plus just for
farm price supports last year. Sixteen billion is about the same size
as the program that feeds millions of children on welfare. But in our
population, gentlewomen and gentlemen, we only have a farm family
population of 2 percent. Only 2 percent of the total American
population is still in the classification of farmers.
Most of the billions of dollars that we are handing to the farmers or
to the agribusinesses goes to corporate agricultural business. Most of
it goes to rich farmers. Tremendous amounts of money could be saved if
we would take the rich farmers off of welfare.
In the State of Kansas, for example, in most of the rural counties,
according to the New York Times, farm families that are there and
farmers who are part of the program have averaged between $20,000 and
$40,000 a year that is being handed to them every year for doing
nothing. A $20,000 to $40,000 check that comes on top of all of the
other money that they make.
And there is no means test. When you are trying
to get aid for dependent children on welfare, you have to meet a
means test. You have to show you do not own anything and you have no
bank account. In the Department of Agriculture programs and the farm
price support programs and the Farmer's Home Loan mortgages and all of
these benefits that have been heaped on our agriculture sector for the
last hundred years, you do not have to show any means test.
Now, I do not want to be misunderstood. I think that the American
agricultural industry is the greatest industry in America. I think it
is probably one of the most effective industries in the world. There is
no other nation that begins to come close to the American farmers, the
American agricultural industry, in feeding its population, the
population of America.
It probably could feed a large sector of the total world if the
economics were different. We have the capacity. Our Department of
Agriculture has done a magnificent job. And the Department of
Agriculture, the whole agriculture program in America, is a sterling
example of what can be done by government. Government operated from one
end of the spectrum to the other.
Government funded the land-grant universities. Government funded the
experimental stations for agriculture. Government funded the county
agents that took the results of the experimental stations to the
farmers in the field; very effective use of science and technology and
for that reason, it is a hugely successful industry.
Now that agriculture is such a huge and successful industry, why are
we continuing to have government play such a major role in agriculture?
Why not have the government step out? They talk about abolishing the
Department of Education. Why do we not downsize and streamline the
Department of Agriculture? Do you know that the Department of
Agriculture is the second largest bureaucracy in the Federal
Government? It is second only to the Pentagon in term of the number of
employees.
The Department of Agriculture, they have done a great job. It is a
marvelous success story. Private industry can now take over. We could
downsize the Department of Agriculture, set a means testing procedure
so that it provides aid and assistance only to the farmers who are the
poorest farmers. We could privatize part of the Department of
Agriculture. There are a whole set of experimental programs, there are
research grants, private industry could take that research and
development function at this point and do a job just as well.
So, instead of continuing to discuss on and on the school lunch
program, why do we not discuss the downsizing and the streamlining of
the Department of Agriculture? Why do we not discuss the elimination of
$16 billion in farm price support payments; welfare for the farmers?
Why do we not deal with the farmers on the dole?
Why do we not deal with cuts of the F-22 fighter plane? Why do we
need an F-22 fighter plane which was originally projected to cost the
American people $72 billion. The F-22 fighter plane is manufactured in
Marietta, Georgia. The F-22 fighter plane was originally projected to
cost $72 billion. We have paid out about 12 billion already for planes
and we are projecting over the next six years about $17 billion more in
expenditures for F-22 fighters.
If you want to keep America from going bankrupt, if you want to keep
our grandchildren from having to pay the debt, then cut items like the
F-22 fighter.
{time} 2200
If you need an F-22 fighter plane, it is the most sophisticated thing
ever developed in fighter planes. But do we need it? No. The second
most sophisticated fighter plane we already have. We own the second
most sophisticated fighter plane. We do not need to have another one
more sophisticated, because we are not our own enemy. The Soviet Union
is not developing any more fighter planes. They are not developing
fighter planes that would even contest the one that exists already. Why
keep manufacturing a brandnew one called the F-22?
So let us save over the next 6 years $17 billion that could be
applied then to fund the Summer Youth Employment Program, to make
certain there is no
[[Page H3144]] shortfall in the School Lunch Program, to make certain
we do not kick people out of nursing homes, to guarantee that we do not
remove home care from people in great need. Let us go forward and
examine all of these expenditures if we really are sincerely interested
in the most effective and efficient budget.
Mr. Speaker, this is a simple discussion, and I hope the American
people are listening closely. Listen to the numbers. In addition to
philosophy, it is very important that we understand the numbers. The
numbers that are being poured into the defense budget are huge numbers:
$17 billion more for F-22 fighters, $2.1 billion for another Seawolf
submarine; $28 billion for the CIA; B-2 bombers. We could go on. The
majority in this House want to spend another $50 billion for defense.
The majority in this House want to spend another $50 billion for
defense, while they are telling us they must trim school lunches and
they must make more efficient programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Finally, we have new revenue options. Our vision, the caring majority
vision versus the vision of the oppressive elite majority. Their vision
is we are in a situation where America is on the verge of bankruptcy.
To hear the elite, the oppressive elite minority Members talk, we are
almost at the stage of Bangladesh. We cannot exist much longer if we
continue to try to build a society which is there for everybody. We
have to start dumping people overboard. We have to rein in the safety
net. Even Ronald Reagan acknowledged that there is a safety net that is
needed, that we are now about to dump. The high technology barbarians
who are in charge now have no compassion for those people.
Yet, every day there are new developments which show that far from
being bankrupt and far from having our resources exhausted, America,
the Democratic capitalistic society, America has all kinds of new
potential for producing revenues.
We have just realized $9 billion by selling invisible frequency bands
in the sky. Spectrums in the sky which you cannot even see have been
sold to the tune of $9 billion, and that process has not ended. By just
selling the air over ourselves, we have made money. And in the future,
of course, we can always tax the income that is made off of those
operations as normally the profits are going to be taxed, any profits
made. So we have generated out of nothing. It shows you do not need
land. You can take the air and sell it. If you are a nation, the power
of nationhood is that you own the air.
They used to own the land, and we have given away a lot of the land.
That is a chapter in American history which was very successful. You
gave away land, you produced free enterprise, and you made great
millionaires and produced a middle class. We have
done a lot of great things in the past. We have given away too much in
some cases. We have given away property that had minerals on it, up
until very recently. We are still giving away property that has gold on
it and we do not require that the people who mine the gold pay us a
royalty and give us back some of the benefits of the lands that the
Government and the people own. The people have to assert themselves,
and the people are going to have to insist there can be no more
nonsense on giving away public lands and not demanding that the public
have some percentage of the profits realized from the minerals that we
get from those public lands.
We could also gain more revenue if we would stop giving away the
fruits of Federal and government research. Military research has
spawned a whole host of hundreds of new products. We have not reached
out and placed the royalty on those products to come back to the public
Treasury. We have just given it away.
Many of you know, everybody knows of a few products. Television was
really perfected by our government research, not just the famous
product super glue, which everybody knows was developed by the space
program. There are hundreds of products that were produced as a result
of government research, and we, the people, who paid the bill to do the
research, we get no benefit from those products. That is a source of
revenue. We could reach out, and instead of worrying about going
bankrupt and putting the elderly on the streets, out of nursing homes,
cutting back on Medicaid and Medicare, cutting back on school lunch
programs, let us be more creative about claiming what belongs to the
people.
I am not in favor of new taxes on income. I am not in favor of new
personal taxes. But there are ways to get revenue that we ought to
closely examine, which have nothing to do with personal income taxes.
There are all kinds of loopholes. At a later date we are going to list
those loopholes. The Congressional Black Caucus' alternative budget, we
intend to close the loopholes that corporations live by in order to
maximize their profits and escape paying a just share of the taxes.
Corporate taxes, the share of the overall revenue burden borne by
corporate taxes, has dropped drastically in the last 20 years. We need
to get back to having the corporate world carry their share of the
taxes.
I am going to yield in a few minutes to a colleague of mine, but I
want to make it clear that we are talking about the overall program of
the new majority in Congress. We are talking about the fact that the
budget process, the rescissions that are now being made right now, the
budget that is going to be brought to the floor in May, all of that is
part of an overall grand design that is a design, of course, a
distorted vision of America, being driven by high-tech barbarians who
have no compassion and are really on the wrong track when they conclude
we cannot have an America which is for everybody. Contrasted with their
position, the position of the oppressive elite minority is a position
of the caring majority. We are going to produce a budget, the
Congressional Black Caucus is going to produce a budget, which reflects
a vision of the caring majority.
To talk more about budgets and the rescissions that are now at our
doorstep, heartless, cruel decisions that are being made through this
rescission process, is my colleague from Texas. I yield to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Let me thank my colleague from New York, Major
Owens, and thank him for a very reasoned, if you will, detailed
presentation, and
almost a journey, if you will, taking us through very evenly how we
have wound up to be here on the House floor, and poised, if you will,
to vote for a rescissions bill that is larger than any I have ever seen
and I think this House has ever seen.
Congressman, you know the last rescissions bill was in 1981. It is
interesting, as you have been speaking about the cuts, and I just
simply had to join you because as I have reviewed this legislation, the
fact that it hits at the very most vulnerable in our society gives me a
great deal of discomfort.
Interestingly enough, we are at 5.4 percent in unemployment. The
economy is going well. You made a very good point about tax cuts and
whether or not those who would be classified as Democrats are against
improving the economy or looking at tax cuts.
We are looking at, are concerned about being fair. I took time for a
moment to just find out what the word ``rescission'' means in Webster's
dictionary. It is an act of rescinding, to take away, to take back,
annul, cancel, to make void by action of the enacting authority or the
superior authority.
That is what we have. We have a negative. We have a taking away of
something already authorized. We have a taking back. We have an
annulling. We have a canceling, and we have a superior attitude against
the children of this country, against the elderly of this country,
against those who need affordable housing.
We seem to want to pull back from the States of this country after, I
remember, a very extensive debate about unfunded mandates, and many
were called upon to support this legislation as innovative and
positive. But yet this legislation will clearly put on the cities and
States the great needs of its people, and that is the need to in fact
serve those who are most vulnerable.
If I might just simply say that the rescissions bill, as it is
politely known, will cut to the bone many of the programs that you have
just spoken about. Across the country, throughout my home State and
right in my hometown of Houston, millions of children,
[[Page H3145]] elderly and poor citizens will be devastated and forced
to endure government-sanctioned hardships in order to provide extensive
tax cuts.
Well, what does this boil down to? As though the unsettling dynamics
and displacement of our rapidly changing global economy were not
already bad enough when it comes to driving the widening wedge between
America's economic haves and have-nots, now the have-nots have to worry
about Uncle Sam cutting them off at the knees. I do not know what we
are going to do, but I will simply share with my Republican colleagues
who are constantly explaining that what they are doing is helping
America.
Just read the headlines in the hometown papers like the Houston
Chronicle that says ``Do Not Short-Change Texas Children.'' These are
not political activists who are seeking publicity. These are children
advocates who realize that Texas alone has some 7.3 percent of the U.S.
child population. It has a large number of the individuals that are
infants, I think some 5 million or so children.
We have headlines from local papers saying ``Do Not Play Politics
with Hungry Children,'' from the El Paso Times. These are local people
that are speaking. The GOP social agenda is flawed at best. Local
people again.
We have got ``The Republican Tax Cut Plan May Not Add Up.'' We know
that it does not add up, because clearly it tends to take from those
who can least afford it. That is why we are in trouble with school
lunches and breakfasts, but more important, that is why we are in
trouble with school-to-work programs and no summer jobs.
Here is one right out the mouths of Republican Congresspersons, ``GOP
Haste Laying Waste to Legislative Good Intentions.'' This is not the
Democrats speaking, this is the Republicans. One Republican stated, ``I
have always been a little concerned about arbitrary deadlines. I do not
think it contributes to sound legislating.''
Well, it really has not, because it is helping those who need help
the most.
So I think that we are moving toward hurting our children, and we are
moving toward not even ensuring that children and workers and those who
are in need can be best served.
But if we fancy ourselves a moral Nation, ought we not first look for
efficiencies and cuts in programs and policies that generally serve the
fortunate who have been blessed, and from whom a small sacrifice for
the good of the whole would not be an undue burden?
Let me share with you the words of the late Hubert Humphrey, who was
fond of reminding us of the moral litmus test.
Those who are in the dawn of life, the children, those who
are in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those who are
in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy, and the
handicapped.
Mr. Speaker and my colleague, I wonder if anyone from the other side
of the aisle can in good conscience claim that this rescission package,
taking back, canceling, does anyone any good.
This package cuts $17 billion, and it is a package. These cuts are
not to the mohair growers subsidy or tax break on vacation home
mortgages. But they simply get at the crux of those who are in need.
Let me just simply tell you where they are coming from. Where do the
GOP cuts come from? My colleague ably detailed for us. Here it is in
graphic design, if you will. Sixty-three percent comes from low-income
cuts, individuals who are in need, and then 37 percent from other cuts.
It gets to the people who most are in need.
Where is the justice in this rescission plan when 69 percent of the
so-called savings will go to pay for tax cuts at a time when the
deficits are already too high?
We wonder about the tax-and-spend liberals. That is what folks have
been calling those who are not listening. What about the borrow-and-
spend Republican administrations that have quadrupled our debt?
It is important to recognize that we have a job to do here in the
United States Congress, and, therefore, it is a shame that we are
canceling out housing, 42 percent, work experience and job training, 14
percent, health, 10 percent, education, 9 percent, and 25 percent in
other cuts. People who are simply looking for the opportunity that we
say in this country we are giving them.
Then I might add, as we begin to look elsewhere, we find that we have
got some 69 percent tax cuts. That is where the money is going, and
then of course it is going to the FEMA relief. I am not speaking about
those States that are in great need, and need this kind of aid.
We know that California has been in some severe bad weather at this
time, but we would simply say, what about those who are in need for
hunger and housing? What about those who are trying to make a better
life? Do we not need to be of assistance to them?
Mr. OWENS. Would the gentlewoman yield for a minute?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Yes, sir.
Mr. OWENS. I would like to underscore what the gentlewoman has just
said. I wonder if the American people realize the tremendous amount of
money they have given to take care of natural disasters over the past 3
or 4 years. For the hurricane in Florida, between $6 billion and $7
billion of taxpayers' money from all over America went to help the
victims of the hurricane in Florida. The earthquake in California,
floods, mud slides, we are talking about close to $7 billion or $8
billion just directed to California various natural disasters. The
Midwest flood that took place a couple of years ago, $6 billion of
people from all over the country's money went to help take care of
those disasters.
We recognize people who are the victims of natural disasters are in
need and therefore we come to their aid, and it is altogether fitting
and proper for government to do this. But the people in our big cities
who are the victims of a mismanaged economy which does not provide any
jobs also have great needs and we ought to also look upon them in the
same way and provide some kind of assistance on an ongoing basis
without having to have these frequent reviews and without belittling
people who are the victims of the economy and victims of the
mismanagement of the economy.
We are all one people, and there is no reason why one kind of
disaster and one kind of victimization should be treated in a different
way from the other people who are also victims.
I hope we will take not of that. It is an involuntary stimulus.
California did not make the earthquake happen but once the earthquake
happened, they got an involuntary economic stimulus. Money was poured
in to take care of that need. It also made the economy go again. That
is just the way it happens. But we also have disasters of a different
kind in our big cities, whether they are Houston, New York, or Newark,
New Jersey. I just wanted to underscore that point.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. The gentleman could not be more right, and he has
made a very eloquent point. I wonder as the American people go about
their business and some have said that this debate has caused a great
deal of distortion. I think the American people are smarter than what
we would give credit for, and, that is, appreciating the fact, again,
that the government went into these places like Florida and California,
and, by the way, they went into my State, the State of Texas, and in
fact there are people in my community right now who are still in great
need because of a very severe flood we had in early fall, and I am
working to ensure that they can be made whole.
But if you can appreciate that kind of assistance from the Federal
Government, then why do we hear from the Republicans how easy it is to
cut now some $17 billion from the devastation that occurs in people's
lives, especially that they have been challenged to pick yourself up,
get off welfare, become independent, and I can assure you, just like I
am sure in your community, that I have met with welfare mothers.
We sat down at the table and broke bread together and talked about
their life. There was not a one that either got pregnant because they
were getting a welfare check, there was a one that wanted to be on
welfare. They talked about self-esteem, they talked about getting a
job, they talked about trying to be independent. That is lives that are
devastated, people responsible for children, and they need the help of
the Federal Government.
If I could just share with you for one moment to tell you how much we
are hurting in Texas.
[[Page H3146]] Mr. OWENS. If the gentlewoman would yield for a
moment, I want to inquire of the Chair how much time we have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lucas). The gentleman has 8 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OWENS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas and I will
take the last 4 minutes. I just wanted to close out with a note and I
neglected to put in before.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. See how good it is to be able to have time and it is
also good to be able to share with those who are in need, and that is
the problem we have here in the State of Texas.
This is a gentleman who has no ax to grind. He is our State
comptroller, and he has already assessed that we lose about a billion
dollars in this rescission package for the State of Texas. We lose some
$763.7 million in Medicaid. Therefore, those who are trying to get off
welfare would not have health care, the elderly, the severely
handicapped, 69 percent. Family nutrition programs, we are losing
$170.6 million, 15.5 percent, for our State.
Then there is AFDC, there is training, emergency assistance, 10
percent, we are losing $118.6 million. Then school nutrition in
particular, dealing with our school lunches and school breakfasts. By
the way, I met with leaders of the local school community and they are
just up in arms about the children who will come to their doors who are
hungry, particularly the districts that serve at-risk children. We are
talking about the national impact, but I know what it means. It is
going to hurt the people in the State of Texas, people in the State of
New York, people all over this country. The American people understand
this. This rescissions package should go nowhere.
As I conclude, let me talk about, and you have worked so hard on the
summer programs, summer job perhaps that I have been actively involved
in in my community. We are getting ready to lose in FY 1995 and 1996,
$66.6 million in 1995 and $66.9 million, 43,000 jobs each year, and in
Houston, each year, 1995 and 1996, 6,000 jobs. It was already not
enough just last summer, 8,000 youngsters showed up on the first day to
sign up, with stories of pain and excitement at the same time,
excitement of trying to get a job, and pain for the need of the money
during the summer months, for rent for their families, for clothing for
their families, to take care of younger brothers and sisters.
This is serious. I worked extensively with anti-gang measures in
Houston, where there are some 3,000 gang members, drive-by shootings.
This is what gets our children off the street. This is what prepares
young adults for the 21st century, the opportunity to work. This
changes their mind set.
So when we begin to talk about where we are today and your detailing
of what we should be looking at with an alternative budget and fairly
we can look at possibly tax cuts, possibly downsizing different
agencies, we do not reject that, I do not reject it. But I do reject
taking from the most vulnerable and undermining a State that is trying
so very hard to improve itself and to serve the people in that
community. We must be the better one, the Federal Government, to be
able to stand up with the moral fiber and fight for those who are in
need.
I thank the gentleman from New York but I think that we must cancel
out this rescissions package and ensure that we stand up against this
kind of intrusion into the lives of American citizens.
Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. I would like to
underscore your last point. The defunding, the placing of zero in the
budget for the summer youth employment project is probably one of the
most cruel and dangerous and deadliest acts of this oppressive elite
minority in control of the Congress now. It shows no vision. It betrays
the very vital segment of our population that needs help the most.
They follow through on that, that zeroing the budget for the summer
youth employment program with a $210 million rescission of the National
Service Program. The National Service Program is for a different set of
youth but it is basically program-oriented toward young people.
The National Service Program is not a program of Bill Clinton, it is
not a program that the Democrats fabricated 2 years ago and the
Republicans stood on the sideline. I have been in Congress for almost
13 years and we have discussed a National Service Program for 10 of
those 13 years. Both parties have come forward with proposals, both
parties have worked together. Why do we all of a sudden have to throw
overboard and destroy a program which it took 10 years of deliberation
and planning to develop?
The National Service Program would receive rescissions of $210
million out of the $571 million that they have available for this
fiscal year. That is taking $210 million and leaving only $365 million,
crippling the program to such an extent that it would hardly be able to
operate because it is just getting off the ground now.
And then there are bigger cuts coming in the budget that begins
October 1 because the oppressive minority has made it quite clear that
they want to destroy the National Service Program.
The American people have a right to know why. Why? We should
challenge the high-technology barbarians and say, You cannot do
reckless things like this, you cannot make reckless decisions, you
cannot just disregard all reason without explaining to the American
people why.
A rescission of this magnitude for the National Service Program would
renege on the bipartisan congressional commitment of Americans who have
already committed to serving their communities. Middle-class families
who work hard and play by the rules would be especially hard hit
because many of the members of the AmeriCorps are middle class. We
designed it so it would not just be a program
where young people who are poor were involved. It cuts
across all classes.
A year and a half ago, Congress mandated a 3-year phase-in for
funding 100,000 AmeriCorps members. It called for 20,000 members to
begin a year of service in 1994 and 33,000 in fiscal year 1995.
This rescission, this heartless rescission, would require the
corporation to scale back existing programs already in place, cutting
approximately 2,000 AmeriCorps members from the current level of 20,000
and 15,000 from the phase-in level which has already been authorized by
Congress. The majority of those reductions would occur in those States
with the most AmeriCorps members: New York, California, Texas,
Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Middle-class families with college-age members willing to serve their
communities full-time for a full year who are counting on AmeriCorps to
help them afford college educations would be especially hard hit if the
congressional commitment is not kept.
We close with National Service, as just one more example. School
lunch programs, summer youth employment programs, National Service
programs, programs that would benefit all of America a great deal are
being very hard hit by these heartless cuts.
On the other hand, the F-22 fighter plane is not touched, and neither
is the Seawolf submarine and a huge number of other programs in the
military budget.
I want to thank the gentlewoman for joining me, and I hope that
Americans are listening. There is a vision offered by the oppressive
elite minority and there is a vision offered by the caring majority. We
will talk more about those visions in the future.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak
unequivocally against the misguided, shortsighted, and unconscionable
spending cuts proposed in H.R. 1158--the Republican rescissions bill--
to be considered on the House floor on Wednesday and Thursday of this
week.
This rescissions bill, as it is politely known, will cut to the bone
many programs that manage to maintain a minimal standard of living and
health care for America's most vulnerable citizens.
Across the country, throughout my home State of Texas, and right in
my hometown of Houston, millions of children, elderly, and poor
citizens will be devastated and forced to endure Government-sanctioned
hardships in order to provide extensive tax cuts.
That's what it boils down to, Mr. Speaker.
As though the unsettling dynamics and displacement of our rapidly
changing, highly competitive global economy were not already bad enough
when it comes to driving the widening wedge between America's economic
haves and have-nots.
[[Page H3147]] Now, the have-nots have to worry about Uncle Sam
cutting them off at the knees.
What in the world have we come to?
How can those Americans, who enjoy some of the highest living
standards in human history, possibly begin to justify their demand for
tax cuts when fellow citizens, through no fault of their own, are
relegated to lives of bare subsistence and, in many cases, much less
than that?
How can Republicans rationalize rescissions, while at the same time
proposing to reduce spending on the hugely successful, bipartisan WIC
Program that for better than two decades has been providing basic,
healthful nutrition for poor women, infants, and children?
While economists and sociologists of all political stripes are
telling us that, to succeed in the information age of the 21st century,
American workers must be better trained and educated than the once-
celebrated production-line workers of the 20th century, how can
Republicans tell us--with a straight face--that we ought to be slashing
job training and education programs that serve both children and
adults?
How will the Republican leadership explain to senior citizens living
in our colder climates that the Low-Income-Heating Assistance Program
[LIHEAP] that has helped them pay their heating bills in the winter is
being cut?
Though it's not politically popular to do so these days, I might
remind this body that American tax burdens--for all income brackets--
have been and remain among the very lowest of the industrialized,
Western democracies.
Should American government at all levels continue to improve
efficiency, cut spending for outmoded programs, and work very hard to
keep taxes as low as possible? . . . Absolutely.
But, if we fancy ourselves a moral nation, ought we not first look
for efficiencies and cuts in programs and policies that generally serve
the fortunate who have been blessed and from whom a small sacrifice for
the good of the whole would not be an undue burden?
The late Hubert Humphrey was fond of reminding us that the moral test
of any government was in the way it treated ``those who are in the dawn
of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the
elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy,
and the handicapped.''
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if anyone from the other side of the aisle can
in good conscience claim that their rescission proposals pass such
moral muster.
I don't know how they could, Mr. Speaker, when their cold-hearted
proposals call for more than $17 billion of cuts.
And these cuts are not to mohair grower subsidies or tax breaks on
vacation home mortgages.
No, Mr. Speaker, these cuts to the bone come from programs like child
nutrition, public housing, basic health care, education, transportation
and community development--all programs that the most needy among us
depend on for a brighter future.
Who takes the hit from these Republican spending cuts?
The answer is clear.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a whopping
63 percent of the GOP cuts--nearly $11 billion in fiscal year 1995--
will impact low-income Americans.
And where does the money go?
Well, Mr. Speaker, 31 percent does go to help citizens who have lost
their homes and communities due to natural disasters like earthquakes
and hurricanes, and few would argue that the Government should not
assist these victims.
But what about the victims of our man-made disasters like inadequate
urban and rural schools; like job flight from our inner cities; like
employment, housing and banking discrimination?
Are we not similarly obligated, Mr. Speaker, to assist these
citizens, as well?
Where is the justice in this rescission plan when 69 percent of the
so-called savings will go to pay for tax cuts at a time when deficits
are already too high?
But it is disingenuous for GOP leadership to blame ``tax-and-spend-
liberals'' for all America's financial woes when in fact it was during
12 years of ``borrow-and-spend'' Republican administrations that our
national debt quadrupled.
Mr. Speaker, both parties and both the President and Congress can
share equally in the blame for our sorry status quo.
But we're not going to get anywhere, much less rebuild a solid
foundation for America's future by polarizing and dividing its
citizens.
To blame poor people for all our problems just to curry political
favor is shortsighted, immoral, and potentially catastrophic.
How will we pay for the additional medical care that will be needed
by children made sick due to lack of nutrition?
How will we provide for families made homeless due to cuts in public
housing? Almost 25,000 families remain on waiting lists in my city--
Houston, TX.
How will we protect ourselves from those who may turn to crime when
denied educational opportunities and a real chance in the mainstream
economy?
My colleagues from the other side are fond of their ``dynamic budget
scoring'' that tries to predict future Government revenues based on the
boost they think their tax cuts will give to the economy.
Well, what's good for the goose, Mr. Speaker * * *
Ought not my Republican colleagues be prepared to score their
spending cuts in the same fashion?
Shouldn't we think intelligently about the medium- and long-term
effects these rescissions will have on future budgets and on
the very moral fiber of our American society?
So as not to be accused of undue hyperbole or attempting to govern by
anecdote, I'd like to share with my colleagues and the American people
some clinical analysis of the GOP rescission plan.
I represent the people of Houston in the 18th Congressional District
of Texas.
So in addition to looking at national figures for these rescission
cuts, I'd like to start with this story from last Wednesday's Houston
Chronicle.
``Funding Cuts Could Cost Texas Billions, Comptroller Warns'' ...
That's the headline of the story which goes on to quote Texas State
Comptroller John Sharp.
Sharp foresees up to $1.1 billion in cuts in four critical categories
in the next 2 years that would devastate needy people in Houston and
throughout the State.
Let us examine some of the specific programs that would be cut under
this bill.
One program that is critically important to young people is the Youth
Summer Jobs Program. This program, which began 30 years ago, has worked
very well and has always received bipartisan support.
Nevertheless, this rescission bill completely eliminates funding in
fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 for the Summer Jobs Program to
the tune of $1.6 billion nationwide.
During this 2-year period, more than 1.2 million kids in 650
communities will be left without summer jobs.
And without question, these jobs are extremely important to young
people. In many instances, these jobs give them their first job
opportunity and help them develop a good working ethic.
In addition, many young people use the money earned from these jobs
to buy clothes and supplies for school.
Let us be clear about the effectiveness of this program ... the
Summer Jobs Program consists of real jobs, not ``make-work'' jobs.
In many cities and towns, no other jobs are available for young
people. As I travel around my congressional district and around the
country, teenage unemployment remains high--particularly in African-
American and Latino communities.
We need the Summer Jobs Program now more than ever.
Let's look at how the elimination of this program will affect Texas
and Houston. The State of Texas will lose $66 million in fiscal year
1995 and nearly $67 million in fiscal year 1996.
This translates into 43,000 summer jobs that will be lost in Texas in
each of the 2 years.
During this period, the city of Houston will lose $9.1 million in
1995 and 1996 and will lose 12,000 jobs over this 2-year period.
I urge my colleagues to preserve this program and continue providing
adequate funding.
Another program that will experience a major reduction in spending
under this bill is housing.
This bill makes a frontal assault on the poor and our Nation's
cities. One program, the Community Development Block Grant Program,
will suffer a spending reduction of $350 million nationwide.
The CDBG Program is one of the largest sources of Federal
assistance to States and local governments.
Most of this money is channeled directly to the local level,
particularly metropolitan areas with large pockets of poverty and
substandard housing stock.
These funds have been used to acquire and rehabilitate property,
preserve historic structures, provide relocation assistance and enforce
housing code violations.
For example, the State of Texas will lose $19.9 million in community
development block grant funds and the city of Houston will lose $2.4
million.
Under this bill, public housing programs have also been targeted for
major reductions. Funds for public housing modernization will be cut by
$36 million in Texas and $3.8 million in Houston.
[[Page H3148]] The State of Texas will also lose $14.2 million in
public housing operating subsidies while the city of Houston will lost
$1.9 million.
Decent and affordable housing for all Americans--families and
individuals--is a basic building block for communities and our society
at large.
We can no longer delay making housing a national and moral priority.
Health care for the poor is another area that will suffer greatly
under this bill.
In addition to the unthinkable cuts to Medicaid--more than $760
million in 2 years for Texas alone--I am most concerned by cuts to the
National Health Service Corps.
This program is designed to award scholarships to students in the
health professions in exchange for their agreement to spend 2 to 3
years in medically underserved areas.
Over the last 25 years, this program has helped meet the health care
needs of millions of low-income Americans.
This GOP rescissions bill proposes a $12.5 million cut in this
program.
Through this program, the Community Health Center in Houston, known
as Central Houston Action, and several projects at the Harris County
Hospital District will be endangered.
There are currently 62 physicians in Texas who are participating in
the National Health Service Corps . . . and it seems to me we ought to
be looking to expand this program, not cut it.
Members of the last Congress chose not to undertake constructive
health care reform . . . it remains to be seen whether or not this
Congress will muster the political courage to try.
In the meantime, however, how can we possibly consider making cuts to
one small program that we know works in bringing affordable, basic
health services to millions of Americans in under-served regions?
Mr. Speaker, in many cases, the lives of these needy Americans
literally hang in the balance.
I could go on all night citing other programs marked for cuts that
have similarly critical impacts on millions of American lives and
livelihoods.
And I could complain about the closed nature of debate my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle have employed with this bill and others
thus far in this 104th Congress.
I could complain in detail about the amendments we Democrats sought
to offer in an effort to protect vulnerable Americans, only to have
them blocked out-of-hand by the Republican majority.
But I'll simply conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a final, heartfelt plea
to all my colleagues with a conscience and a greater sense of
obligation to America's future than that evidenced by the cuts in H.R.
1158.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this pernicious piece of
legislation.
____________________