[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.


                          ____________________