[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 31 (Thursday, March 11, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1045-H1051]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    HIGHLIGHTING UNSTEADY BUSH BUDGET POLICIES RELATING TO AFRICAN 
                               AMERICANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the unsteady 
budget

[[Page H1046]]

policies of President Bush in regards to allocating Federal resources 
to African Americans and many working American families.
  Yesterday, I was joined by the House minority leader, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), and my colleagues in the Congressional 
Black Caucus to issue a report that paints an accurate picture of how 
the Bush 2005 fiscal year budget will impact not just African American 
families but the majority of middle- and lower-income families. Our 
findings and those of others in the advocacy community reveal that the 
Bush budget ignores the very urgent challenges facing Americans across 
this great Nation. In fact, in the face of historic unemployment, 
President Bush seeks to cut, if not completely eliminate, critical 
education, health care, housing, and small business development 
programs that help families and employers survive during difficult 
economic times. Last Friday, the United States Department of Labor 
reported that not one, not one single private sector job was created 
during the month of February, and that the national unemployment rate 
remains at a staggering 5.6 percent.
  This terrible news is particularly frightening for the African 
American community. The African American unemployment rate for February 
was 9.8 percent, almost double the national average. What is worse, 
since President Bush took office, the number of African Americans 
without jobs has increased by 20 percent. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the 
outlook for the Bush 2005 budget is just as dismal as the Bush track 
record on job creation.
  President Bush touts steady leadership, but his actions say 
otherwise. He once said that he would be a uniter, but his budget 
proposes to divide Americans by rewarding the wealthiest 1 percent of 
our population while leaving the rest of the American people behind. 
The Bush budget is bad news for the 8 million African American children 
enrolled in our national elementary and secondary schools. It is no 
secret that schools with high concentrations of low-income minority 
students spend significantly less per pupil than schools with fewer 
low-income students.
  Instead of rising to the challenge, the President's budget underfunds 
his own No Child Left Behind legislation by over $9 billion. 
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the Bush budget cuts in half the funding for 
after-school programs that enable parents to educate their children and 
hold down jobs. If this Congress is truly committed to family values, 
we must support all families from birth through the golden years.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to another member of the Congressional 
Black Caucus as we come together to highlight the budget of President 
Bush and how it affects African Americans, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his 
leadership on the budget issues.
  Mr. Speaker, before we discuss what we cannot fund, we have to 
discuss a little bit about where we are in the budget. One cannot 
discuss these numbers without charts, because we hear rhetoric, and it 
is confusing. But when we see the numbers on the chart, we get an idea 
of where we are and how deep a hole we are in.
  This is the on-budget deficit for years beginning with the Johnson 
administration through Nixon and Ford and Carter, Reagan and Bush, 
larger deficits; the green is the Clinton administration where we 
passed a budget in 1993 without a single Republican vote in the House, 
without a single Republican vote in the Senate, and were able to 
exercise fiscal responsibility, digging ourselves out of the deep hole 
and into a surplus. And this is an on-budget surplus, so that the 
Social Security and Medicare are temporary surpluses and are in a 
lockbox to be used for Social Security and Medicare in the future. We 
had a surplus.
  When the Republicans came in after the 1994 elections, they passed 
significant tax cuts that President Clinton vetoed. They threatened to 
close down the government, as my colleagues will remember; and he 
vetoed them again. They closed down the government, and he still 
refused to sign those massive tax cuts because they were fiscally 
irresponsible. When President Bush came in after the 2000 elections, 
they passed those same tax cuts again, and we see how much damage has 
been done to the budget. Now, this is a net surplus in the budget, 
going down to almost $700 billion, a total swing of approximately $750 
billion deterioration in our budget situation.
  Let us put that into context: the entire revenue from the individual 
income tax, everybody's individual income tax, less than $800 billion. 
We have seen a deterioration in the deficit, $750 billion.
  Now, this chart shows it another way: the percentage of the budget 
paid for with borrowed money. You see, this is World War II, you come 
through the years. The Clinton years, we went into significant surplus; 
and when this President Bush came in, we started spending, paying for 
more and more of our budget with borrowed money.

                              {time}  1430

  We are up now to over 30 percent, well over 30 percent of the budget, 
the Federal budget is paid for with borrowed money. And you will notice 
that that is a level we have not seen since World War II.
  Now, we got there with tax cuts. It is interesting to know who got 
the tax cuts. This chart shows what the upper 20 percent, the next 20 
percent, the middle 20 percent and the other 20 percentiles, how much 
of the tax cut they got. If you look at the top 20 percent and just 
look at the top 1 percent, about half of the tax cuts have gone to the 
upper 1 percent of the taxpayers. To put it another way, you can look 
and see approximately what you got if you made more than a $1 million 
on average you get about $89,000 tax cuts. $500,000 to $1 million, you 
got about $13,000. And on average as you get down to $50,000 to 
$75,000, you are getting about $132. And below $50,000 you hardly need 
any ink to draw the bar. Off the chart for millionaires, do not need 
ink to draw the bar for ordinary Americans.
  Now, we were told we had to do that to create jobs. Let us see how 
many jobs have been created because we went so far in debt. We were 
willing to go so far in debt and give tax cuts to the wealthy, how many 
jobs were created? Well, we have lost, have not gained, we have lost 
almost 3 million jobs during this administration.
  Now, we hear the great excuse: ``9/11.'' Everything that goes wrong 
is because of 9/11. Because of 9/11 we lost jobs. But wait. Every 4 
years back to Harry Truman, everybody has been gaining jobs, everybody 
has been able to end their term of office with more jobs than they came 
in with. President Eisenhower, in his second administration he lost 
about 200,000 jobs but he gained 1,900,000 in his first term to his net 
plus 1,700,000 jobs. Everybody else, every 4 years gained jobs.
  If you want to blame 9/11, you ought to notice that this chart 
includes not just 9/11, but it also includes the Korean War and the 
Vietnam War, hostages in Iran, the Persian Gulf War from 12 years ago, 
the Cold War, Kosovo, Grenada, everything else, everybody is gaining 
jobs until the result of this fiscal irresponsibility has actually cost 
us jobs.
  Now, when you run up this kind of debt, you have to pay interest on 
the national debt. This chart shows the interest on the national debt 
we expected to pay after President Clinton left office going down to 
zero because we were on target to paying off the entire national debt.
  This red line is the interest on the national debt we are going to 
end up having to pay because of our fiscal irresponsibility. By 2009, 
the difference is almost $300 billion. Now, let us put $300 billion 
into perspective. At $30,000 a piece, you can hire 10 million people 
with $300 billion. 10 million. And it gets wider and wider as you go 
out.
  This is an opportunity that we are going to lose because we are going 
to be $300 billion less than we thought we were going to have when 
President Clinton left office.
  We also have to recognize that the Social Security program will be a 
challenge. These red bars represent the fact that we are bringing in 
more Social Security funds than we are paying out. That is because we 
recognize that when the baby boomers retire, we will be paying out more 
than we are bringing in. And we need to build up the trust fund so that 
hopefully we can pay this as much as we can.

[[Page H1047]]

  2017 it goes into deficit. We are now spending all of this Social 
Security surplus on the present budget. We are in deficit even after we 
have spent the Social Security and Medicare. The Medicare chart looks 
similar to this. We are spending the Social Security surplus.
  Now, when you cross the 300 line, 2025, somewhere in there, when you 
cross the 300 line that is $1,000 for every man, woman, and child 
including those on Social Security. Every man, woman, and child $1,000. 
When you cross the 600 line, that is $2,000 for every man, woman, and 
child just to make this, just to pay the Social Security shortfall.
  Now, you may look at this and decide, well that is too challenging, 
we never could have paid it. It is just too much of a problem. But when 
you look back at this chart, we have been told that if you just look at 
what this administration wants to give to the top 1 percent, top 1 
percent, that would have been enough to pay Social Security benefits 
without reducing benefits, without increasing the age for 75 years, or 
you can give the top 1 percent a tax cut.
  Now, Mr. Greenspan told us that if you extend the tax cuts like it 
looks like this administration will propose, it has proposed, if we 
extend the tax cuts we should cut Social Security. Now, I think he used 
the word ``adjust'' Social Security. He is talking about increasing the 
age, reducing the COLA. I think most people, including the Republican 
officials, have categorized that as a cut. And I think most people 
would view that as a cut; they are going to be getting less than they 
would have if you had not made that adjustment. I would certainly call 
that a cut.
  But he said if you extend the tax cuts, you have to cut Social 
Security. The GAO issued a report recently that showed that we are on 
track to disaster. A great political philosopher once said, ``If you do 
not change directions, you may end up where you are headed.''
  Well, the GAO says that we are headed towards a situation in a few 
years, a couple of decades where the Social Security deficit and 
interest on the national debt alone will absorb all of the projected 
Federal revenues for those years. In other words, all of the revenues 
will be insufficient to pay just the Social Security shortfall and 
interest on the national debt. That is without Medicare, and Medicaid, 
and that is without any other Federal spending. Just the Social 
Security shortfall and interest on the national debt will absorb all of 
the Federal revenues.
  Obviously, that is a direction we should not be going in. We need to 
change directions. And the reason we cannot fund many of the things 
that you mentioned that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the 
chairman of the Black Caucus, mentioned is because we are using up the 
money in interest in the national debt.
  We are having trouble funding police officers, 100,000 police 
officers. And we said we could with the $300 billion additional 
interest on the national debt that we will be paying in just a few 
years, we could have hired 10 million people at $30,000 apiece, 5 
million at $60,000 a piece, and we are having trouble trying to find 
funds to hire 100,000 police officers.
  We cannot properly fund veterans benefits, education, health care. 
There are a lot of things we cannot do because it is all being absorbed 
by the interest on the national debt necessitated because we have put 
our budget in unprecedented deficit.
  Now, the idea that we are going to get a promise that the deficit 
will be cut in half in 5 years is really insulting. We should be 
talking about how we get back up into surplus where we were when this 
administration came in. Instead of running up debt, we ought to be 
running up surpluses so we will be prepared to meet the challenges of 
Social Security.
  At this rate, with all this red ink, we will be so far in debt that 
we will not have anything for Social Security. We will not have 
anything for Medicare. We will not have anything for jobs because we 
are paying interest on the red ink that we are running up. That is the 
problem that we have. And the additional problem that we have is that 
the tough choices that created this green ink, were tough choices, 
politically tough choices. And you can not make those tough choices 
until you have at least acknowledged a problem.
  This administration refers to this graph and the deficit as 
``manageable.'' That is why we need a graph to show the people what we 
are talking about. This administration refers to this job graph by 
saying that the tax cuts are working. The tax cuts are not working. We 
have lost 3 million jobs. And so you need the graph to show 
specifically what we are talking about in this budget and how bad it 
is.
  And, so, I would say to the chairman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, I thank him for the opportunity to present the problem so that 
we can, as others participate, can talk about the things that we cannot 
fund because we have this situation where we are so far in the hole 
with a graph such as this. You cannot create a graph like this by 
accident. We are far in the hole, and we need to dig ourselves out so 
that we can make the important investments in education, in health 
care, in veterans benefits and the other important challenges that we 
have before us. And I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) 
for yielding.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
will yield for a second, I want to ask the gentlemen a few questions. 
They call this a jobless recovery. Would my colleague agree that there 
is a recovery?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is the problem with using 
rhetoric without using charts to show what we are talking about. You 
have indicated that some have looked at this chart and said we are in a 
recovery. Others have said the tax cuts are working. One looks at the 
chart, this is a miserable failure. We have lost 3 million jobs. I do 
not call that a recovery.
  Now, if you go back 50 to 75 years, they blame a recession. The 
experts will say that this administration did not inherit a recession. 
The recession began on this administration's watch.
  Whenever it started, it has been over by all accounts since the end 
of 2001. Since then, we have had all of 2002, and 2003 and we are into 
2004. No recession from the beginning of any recession in the last 50 
years, we have always within about 30 months recovered all of the jobs 
that were lost during the recession within about 30 months. Here we are 
almost 40 months after the beginning, whenever they say it started, it 
has been at least 40 months, we have not recovered the jobs yet.
  This is the worst recovery we have had in modern history. That is not 
a recovery.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, there has been a question that has been 
raised over and over again, and, as a matter of fact, I think I just 
heard the President say this within the last few days, that one of the 
problems was 9/11, and that 9/11 caused us to go through some extra 
economic problems. And I was just wondering when my colleague takes a 
look at his charts, is he taking into consideration, when he talks 
about 40 years back, is he taking into consideration the fact that we 
had this very, very unique situation and regretful situation with 9/11?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, when people talk about 9/11, they 
have to take into consideration that this chart goes back to Truman and 
Eisenhower, that includes the Korean War, it includes Kennedy, Johnson, 
Nixon, it included the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the hostages in Iran, 
Grenada, Somalia, Kosovo, the Persian Gulf War. All of those are on 
this chart. Everyone created jobs during their four-year 
administration.

                              {time}  1445

  President Clinton, 10 million jobs the first term, over 10 million 
both the first term and over 10 million jobs over the second term. 
Everyone has had problems. There have been recessions all the way up 
and down here. Everyone has been able to deal with adversity and create 
jobs. Until you get here.
  Now, if the President had offered an economic plan that had been 
rejected, he might say that because you rejected my plan, if you had 
only adopted my plan, things would have been better. We adopted his 
plan. We passed, I did not vote for them, but Congress passed his plan. 
And it resulted in a massive deficit and job loss.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. In other words, when you have the loss of jobs and you

[[Page H1048]]

have, in looking at the very end of your chart there, does that, how 
does that affect the overall economy?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When you lose jobs, there are things that, 
first of all, I do not know how you can spend that kind of money. Right 
after 9/11, we appropriated $40 billion. At $40,000 each you could have 
hired a million people. I do not know how you end up losing jobs; 9/11 
actually should have stimulated jobs, not lost jobs. The problem is 
that this administration does not look at money, financial 
responsibility, with anyone. They decided to do something. It does not 
matter how much it costs.
  Just look at the war in Iraq. The Persian Gulf War 12 years ago cost 
the United States $7.4 billion, 7.4. Now, the 60, 70, $80 billion was 
the total cost; but because we had allies, total cost was $7.4 billion.
  When we appropriated $87 billion a few months ago, we had already 
spent $79 billion on the war. Total $166 billion; 7.4, 166, just to 
implement the my-way-or-the-highway, go-it-alone strategy. Had we 
developed some allies so that someone else could help pay the money and 
absorb some of the causalities, it is not all our money and all our 
causalities, it would have been closer to the 7.4 than the 166.
  Now, we are going, the estimates are about $50 billion. The chairman 
of the Committee on the Budget has estimated about $50 billion will be 
coming next year for Iraq, so that is another 50, 7.4, 166, 50 and who 
knows what after that.
  Let us put the 166 in perspective. That is more money than we spent 
in a year on the Department of Homeland Security for the security of 
the United States; and the Department of Education, the entire 
Department of Education budget. Plus, it is still more than the 
Department of Transportation, all road-building we are supposed to be 
doing. And it is more than the Department of Labor and Department of 
State. Add them all up, combined.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Combined.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Combined. Homeland Security, Education, 
Transportation, Department of Labor, Department of State, add them all 
up, it does not come to $166 billion; 7.4, 166. How much do you have to 
spend before someone suggests that the spending is out of control?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. One of the things that I remember when the President 
was considering going to war, one of the things that was asked of the 
President by the Congressional Black Caucus was exactly how were we 
going to pay for this war and exactly where was this money going to 
come from, because we have a limited situation. But I guess what you 
are saying is that what we are doing is we are overspending. I am 
trying to put it in laymen's terms.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. If you are going to spend $166 billion and we 
would be willing to spend whatever it takes to make the United States 
safe. We are now debating whether we are safer or not as a result of 
spending as a result of spending $166 billion. It looks to me that 
there are a lot of other things you could have done with a $166 billion 
budget that would have made America a lot safer than we are today.
  But look at the red ink. I mean, when you start adding it up, there 
was not a peep mentioned about how we were going to pay it. No 
sacrifice. And, in fact, when you look at some of the things that the 
House passed right after 9/11 with most of the votes coming from the 
Republican side of the aisle, we passed one provision which was a 
repeal of the alternative minimum tax for corporations. That is kind of 
technical, but what we found about 15, 20 years ago was that a lot of 
corporations were paying out dividends year after year after year. They 
were profitable companies; but because they had so many loopholes and 
deductions, they were paying no income tax. And so they passed a 
provision many years ago called the alternative minimum tax for 
corporations. In the alternative for no tax, at least pay a minimum 
tax. And that has been a law right after 
9/11 when everyone was supposed to be sacrificing. The House passed a 
provision to eliminate the alternative minimum tax for corporations.
  They took that opportunity when everyone is supposed to be 
sacrificing to eliminate the alternative minimum tax for corporations. 
And while they were at it, they have made the repeal retroactive for 15 
years. So if you had paid the alternative minimum tax in the last 15 
years, you would get your money back. Several corporations would be 
getting a billion dollars back. Enron would get $250 million.
  Now, if you had a company and you got a billion dollars retroactive 
tax relief, an employee of that corporation would be no more likely to 
have a job the next day than the day before. That is not stimulating 
the economy. There is no more demand for your product. Now the uppity-
ups in the corporation would be more likely to get their bonuses, the 
stockholders more likely to get their dividends. But an employee for 
the company, because there is no more demand for the product, is no 
more likely to have a job the next day than the day before. That is the 
kind of provision that this House passed.
  Thankfully, there was a Democratic majority in the Senate at that 
time and that was defeated in the Senate. But when you talk about 
sacrifice and how do you pay for a $166 billion war, well, you do not 
worry about it; you just let the next generation pay for it. You pay 
for it out of the next generation's Social Security. You borrow the 
money and worry about it later. That is not the fiscally responsible 
thing to do. It is not how you stimulate the economy. It is not how you 
produce jobs, and it is not what you ought to be doing to the next 
generations.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. One last question. I will never forget when the 
President talked about the war in Iraq, when the President talked about 
the war on Iraq. I am sure you will recall one of the things that he 
said was that this war had been brought to us. I shall never forget it. 
I was sitting in this Chamber. And he said to us we need to take this 
responsibility so that our children and our grandchildren would not 
have to address it. And it sounds like what the gentleman is saying is 
that at least in part this war will have to be paid by our children and 
our grandchildren, at least, if not our great grandchildren because of 
the way things are going.
  The other issue is this: one of the things we hear over and over 
again from the President is that he keeps talking about, saying that 
this side of the aisle wants to increase the taxes on Americans. And 
basically what he is saying is that if we do not extend and make these 
tax cuts permanent, that is like increasing taxes on Americans. That is 
a very interesting way to put it.
  I just want to know what you thought.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The idea that if we do nothing, that that is a 
tax increase. The important thing is not to worry about what the label 
is. The important thing is to look at this chart. The policies of this 
administration which have been pretty much adopted in total have 
resulted in a deterioration in the budget almost equivalent to the 
total amount of money that we get from the individual income taxes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. You said that is $800 billion.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The money we get from the individual income 
tax totals less than $800 billion. We have a $750 billion deterioration 
in this budget in just 3 years. And so whatever you call it, whatever 
label you put on it, look at the chart. This is called tax cuts are 
working, deficit is manageable, whatever you want to call it. Look at 
what this administration's policy resulted in.
  Now, you talked about who is paying for it. Part of the war is being 
paid for by veterans benefits. We are debating now as to whether or not 
we are going to at least maintain present services.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. To veterans.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. For veterans.
  The President's budget does not include enough money to maintain just 
the little present benefits for veterans. They want some veterans to 
pay more fees for health services, some not to be eligible, less 
services, while the war is being fought. So the veterans themselves 
will have to come back and pay the interest on the debt on the war that 
they fought in. That is not right.
  We are not able to fund the kind of things like Cops on the Beat. Now 
remember, in just 5 years we will be spending approximately $300 
billion more in interest on the national debt than we should have had 
to pay. You can hire at $30,000 a piece, 10 million

[[Page H1049]]

people for that amount of money or 5 million at $60,000. We are trying 
to find a little money to hire 100,000 police officers, to hire 
teachers, health care workers; and we cannot find the money because it 
is all being used up in interest on the national debt that is run up 
because you have to pay interest on the national debt since you are 
obviously not paying off any debt while you are in the hole. You only 
pay off debt when you are above the line. When you are in the hole, you 
are running up more debt, you have to pay more interest on the national 
debt.
  We cannot pay for our transportation projects. There are so many 
things that we cannot do because we are running up so much interest on 
the national debt. And remember that we have the exploding Social 
Security problem in just a few years. We ought to be preparing for 
that, not wake up in 2014 and wonder why the Social Security surplus is 
no longer there. It is not going to be there after 2014. We are going 
to have to come up with more money. We will not have the gravy train of 
100-some billion dollars or go up to $275 billion in Social Security 
surplus to run through.
  It is a growing deficit, and there is no provision in the President's 
budget or the Committee on the Budget's budget that we are about to, 
that they will probably adopt; there is nothing in there to prepare us 
for the Social Security shortfall and the interest on the national 
debt.
  The GAO just issued a report in the last few days that shows if we 
keep going in the direction we are going, in just a couple of decades 
the Social Security shortfall and interest on the national debt will 
absorb all Federal revenues. That means no Medicaid, no Medicare, no 
Federal spending on anything including defense. You spend all your 
money just in Social Security and interest on the national debt unless 
there is a profound change in direction.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. What change could reverse that?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Well, you need to make tough choices; and, 
fundamentally, the strategy ought to be the green.
  In 1993 when President Clinton came in, we made tough choices. He 
vetoed bills that were inconsistent with his tough choices and we went 
into surplus. These are tough choices. This was the strategy that 
created fiscal responsibility and 20 million jobs in 8 years. Fiscal 
irresponsibility is when you start passing massive tax cuts without 
paying for them, just borrow the money for the tax cuts. Some say we 
are giving you your money back. No, no, no, no, no. We have spent your 
money. We are sending back money we have borrowed from overseas and 
giving it back because we spent your money.

                              {time}  1500

  We spend your money and everybody else's money and Social Security 
and everything else, a deterioration in the budget, $750 billion, 
almost the same as the total amount that we received from the 
individual income tax.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for the explanation and 
for his excellent work on the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the Bush budget eliminates all kinds of programs, as the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) just talked about. There is one 
program that eliminates and that is the Even Start program. A lot of 
times, Mr. Speaker, we look at the numbers in a budget and we look at 
them purely based upon figures; but the impact on human beings and 
citizens and children in our country is phenomenal.
  For example, this Even Start program is meant to uplift children and 
families through a combination of childhood education and adult 
literacy programs. That is very important; and when the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) talked about the whole jobless situation, it is 
one thing to have opportunities at some point in the future, hopefully. 
It is another thing for those parents of those children to be prepared 
to take advantage of those jobs and for them to be able to raise their 
family. It takes money to raise a family.
  Then the Bush budget freezes funding for Head Start, which provides 
education and nutrition service for over 297,000 African American 
children, very, very significant. How do you even put a value on a 
child being able to get a head start in life and in school and to be 
able to go to school ready?
  When we look at health care, the picture gets even worse. The Bush 
budget does absolutely nothing to hold down the costs of prescription 
drugs. It jeopardizes medical benefits for the 4.6 million African 
American children who receive health care through Medicaid, and it 
severely underfunds programs that combat the spread of HIV/AIDS and the 
increase of health disparities among minority communities.
  These are things that go to the essence of life; and I have often 
said as we talk about the budget and other issues that the 
Congressional Black Caucus, as we do that, we are not just speaking for 
African Americans. A lot of people get a little bit confused. They see 
African American Congresspeople stand up, and they assume that in all 
our districts the majority of people are African American. That is just 
simply not true. We represent a wide range of people of all races and 
colors, religions in our caucus, and so over 26 million people in 
total.
  But those costs that I just talked about, those are the costs, I 
guess, like I said, you cannot put a value on making sure that a child 
is well taken care of because it used to be a commercial that said you 
either pay me now or pay me later. If you do not give that child a good 
head start in life, then government, through State government in most 
instances, will pay later on through, unfortunately, juvenile detention 
centers, sometimes prisons, sometimes all kinds of programs, teenage 
pregnancy programs, things of that nature, to help lift people up after 
they have fallen.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget eliminates 
funding for the juvenile justice programs, the prevention programs, the 
early intervention programs, the kinds of things that you can pay now 
and pay less later. He had to cut those out because having spent all 
the money in tax cuts and having gone so far in debt, there is nothing 
left over for those important programs; and you are talking about 
hundreds of millions of dollars. This is hundreds of billions of 
dollars that we are in deficit, and we cannot make the little kinds of 
payments.
  My colleague talked about jobs. The small business program which is 
just less than $100 million, that is one-tenth of $1 billion. Here we 
are almost $700 billion in the hole, one-tenth of $1 billion, and that 
program creates jobs. The only thing the government has to pay out is 
when the loan defaults because it is a loan guarantee program. So just 
for every now and then there is a default we have to pay. For every 2 
or $3,000 we pay out, we are creating a job because tens and hundreds 
of thousands of dollars has been borrowed, guaranteed, paid back. So we 
do not have to pay anything. For every 2 or $3,000 we actually have to 
pay out, we have created a job.
  When you start going in the hole hundreds of billions of dollars and 
have a program that can create jobs for 2 or $3,000 a piece, why did 
that get cut out? Because you just ran so far in debt that you did not 
have any money left over.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  I want to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership on this issue and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  I am joining my colleagues because I see now that the President's 
budget is cutting about 20-plus programs, and those programs are 
critical to our districts. And you are absolutely right, our districts 
do not comprise all African Americans. We are talking about Cambodians, 
Filipinos, Samoans, Vietnamese, Guamanians; and they are all concerned 
about the loss of jobs.
  In L.A. County alone, which is the largest county in California, we 
have lost over 136,000 jobs. In the State of California, we have lost 
over 300,000 jobs. No State, no city, no county can be sustained with 
those types of job losses; and so this budget is absolutely the most 
outrageous budget I have ever had to deal with because it has no 
funding in there for No Child Left Behind to any great degree. We know 
the last budget was $8 billion short. I think now it is $9 billion 
short; and so here

[[Page H1050]]

we are trying to grapple with educating our children, some 53-plus 
million children in this country. California has over 6 million, and we 
do not have the funding to do that.
  I think it has just gone off the chart, and so I thank the gentleman 
for allowing me to come and speak on this because I have never seen a 
budget that is so ill-fated, that has absolutely nothing to speak to 
the American people, when we have 11 million children who are 
uninsured, and over 44 million adults, and this budget does not speak 
to insuring them. It is an atrocity, and so I join you in saying this 
administration's budget is a hoax; it is not for the American people. 
It is everything but for the American people.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her 
statement; and I am just reminded, I think it was just yesterday the 
President went to Ohio. He stood there in front of quite a few people, 
and he said, basically, hold on, hold out; I am the one that gave you 
these tax cuts. Basically what he said, I still believe in this 
trickle-down theory and that things are going to get better.
  The fact is that the President has been saying that over and over 
again. As a matter of fact, a little bit earlier this year, in his 
economic report, he projected that he would be producing some 2.6 
million jobs before the end of the year.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I 
think they have been revising that number back and forth, but whatever 
the projections are, let us look at the results. No President has left 
office in over 50 years with fewer jobs than they started off with 
until this administration. We are down 3 million jobs; and if you are 
interested in jobs, remember that in just a few years we will be 
spending $300 billion on additional interest on the national debt that 
had not been anticipated when President Clinton left office, $300 
billion dollar. At $30,000 each, you can hire 10 million people. There 
are only 9 million people unemployed and receiving unemployment in 
America today. Instead of an unemployment check, you have enough money 
there in additional interest on the national debt that we should not 
have to pay to hire everybody that is drawing an unemployment check.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I sit on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. That bill alone would 
bring the types of jobs for folks that have good wages and good 
benefits, and yet we have asked for over $375 billion for that bill. He 
has now cut that bill down to some $258 billion. How can we get 
Americans back to work if we are not going to put the type of funding 
in programs and on bills to support that?
  So we are just outraged. It is outrageous to even speak of the fact 
that they are going to have so many jobs per month, because that growth 
is not coming.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. On those transportation jobs, is there not 
something unique about those jobs? We keep talking about transferring 
jobs overseas. When you have a transportation-created job, where does 
that work take place?
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. That work takes place right here in America, 
in the heartlands, in the rural, in the urban areas of our cities and 
States; and this is why, if the President is really interested in 
getting jobs to the American people, he would invest in this 
transportation bill that will keep those jobs right here. They are 
great construction jobs. There are other suppliers jobs that come from 
that, and it is a multiplying effect. So if you get those jobs, those 
jobs create other jobs and, therefore, will bring back a lot of those 
jobs; but if he is not willing to invest the $375 billion in a 
transportation bill, then he is not really anxious about getting jobs 
back to Americans.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just say this. 
As my colleagues were talking, I could not help but think about how the 
President talks.
  Could we bring that chart back up, the first one. The President talks 
so much about that. It is the one that talks about the tax cuts, I mean 
how much money people get.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. This?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. You had one with red, that one.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. This is if you are making 50 to $75,000, you 
are on average, the average income group, $132. Below that you hardly 
need any ink to draw the bar. However, if you are making more than $1 
million, you explode way off the chart.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. The reason why I wanted to point that chart out is 
because something interesting is happening here, and we are seeing it 
in all of our States.
  The tuition, for example, in Morgan State University in my district, 
I sit on the Board of Regents, has gone up some 25, 30 percent. The 
average family at Morgan State has an income around about $50,000, 
$55,000. So about how much would they be getting based upon that chart 
in tax cuts?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Fifty to $75,000: $132. Now there are a lot of 
different variations in that, depending on the child tax credit. If you 
have a lot of children, you may get more tax credit. If you are single, 
you may not get anything at all. On average, 50 to $75,000, you are 
getting $132 a year.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Let us take it up to $500. I will give them an extra 
$500 instead of $132. The tuition has gone up almost that much, and 
Pell grants are being leveled off; and we have got a situation where 
like other States we suffered a deficit. The State is not getting as 
much money so, therefore, the State's going through its difficulties. 
So now our colleges are not getting as much money.
  My point is that Americans have to understand that no matter what 
they are going to pay, they are going to pay one way or another. 
Property taxes are going up, but yet and still our President runs 
around talking about how great a tax cut we are getting when, in fact, 
I think Americans are going backwards and services are being less than 
they have to be. It is the only way that you can do all of this and 
still keep institutions open.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the problem is that unless you 
recognize that there is a problem you are not going to come make the 
tough choices to fix it. Most people would glance at this chart and say 
we have a problem. This administration says that this is manageable, 
and on the job chart where he looks like he will be the first one to 
leave office with fewer jobs than he started off with, the tax cuts are 
working. No, the tax cuts are not working. We are losing jobs. If we 
passed the transportation bill, millions of jobs would be created.
  This will go above the line. Pass the transportation bill. There are 
a lot of things we can do to stimulate jobs. Tax cuts to the wealthy 
have not worked. Transportation jobs will work. Tax cuts to those in 
the lower end, who will actually spend it and buy stuff with it, will 
work.
  A millionaire, if he wants a television, he would have already bought 
a television. If he wants a car, he would have already bought a car. 
Someone in the lower brackets, if they get a couple hundred extra 
dollars, they are going to spend the money.
  So there are a lot of things. Repealing the alternative minimum tax 
for corporations, we discussed, will not create any jobs; but that is 
how we were trying to spend the money, and that is why, as a result of 
all that spending, it still ended up no jobs. If you look at the study 
of the Republican-dominated Joint Committee on Taxation, when they 
looked at the 2003 and looked at tax cuts and looked at the taxes that 
were cut, they concluded you might have a little short-term spike in 
jobs. As a direct result of passing that bill, you will have fewer jobs 
in the fullness of time than you started off with, and that is because 
you did it with borrowed money. There was limited stimulus, and because 
you have got to pay interest on it, on the debt that you ran up in the 
fullness of time and just a few years as a direct result of passing the 
bill, you will have fewer jobs than you started off with.
  We should not be surprised because of the taxes we cut that we are 
below the line. Had we used the money for transportation, for targeted 
tax cuts where they would have made a difference to help fund States or 
other programs, where we actually use the money in such a way that 
people will be hired, with all the spending, this thing ought to be off 
the chart. The budget has deteriorated $750 billion, almost the same

[[Page H1051]]

as what we get from the entire individual income tax. With that kind of 
spending, it should have been able to create some jobs.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield once 
again. The other thing that would create the climate for jobs would be 
small businesses. And yet here at the end of last year, the 7(a) loan 
program, which is really the driving force for financing for small 
businesses was absolutely turned out. No money in it. It was 
eliminated. But because we raised so much havoc on it, they have 
brought that back, but with fewer dollars. So we still do not have the 
infusion of money for this powerful engine that drives the economy 
through job creation, which are the small businesses.
  So, again, the President is not operating in the true sense of 
helping Americans to get back to work.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, again, the Congressional Black Caucus 
stands up, as we have over and over again. It is said that we are the 
conscience of the Congress. I claim we are the conscience of the United 
States of America.
  The fact is that President Bush is doing no favors for not only the 
African American community but communities throughout this country; for 
hardworking Americans who got up early this morning, some of whom had a 
job, but for others who are about to lose their job, and still others, 
Mr. Speaker, who do not have to go to work because they have already 
lost their job. I just find it very interesting that the President 
would go to Ohio, a State where there has been phenomenal job loss, and 
tell people who do not have a paycheck to hold on and hold out.

                          ____________________