[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 2, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3711-H3717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ARE YOU BETTER OFF TODAY THAN YOU WERE THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO?
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.
{time} 2230
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to be here
tonight along with my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus as
we begin to look at a very critical issue, and it can be simply titled:
Are you better off today than you were 3 or 4 years ago?
General Leave
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 7 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
subject of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Feeney). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but comment on the comments
that were just made by my Republican colleagues. As I listened to them
very carefully, I was struck by, and I know it is their good intent to
make America better, but one of my colleagues talked about how he had
lost jobs in his district and how he now is trying to figure out ways
to make sure that people who may have lost their jobs will be in a
position to get jobs in the future. I think that is a very noble
objective.
But the one thing we must keep in mind is that there are millions of
people who have lost their jobs since January of 2001, and it is
nothing like being in a position where you have lost your job. No
longer are you able to buy tennis shoes for your children, no longer
are you able, in many instances, to put food on the table. And if you
were in Baltimore, no longer were you able to afford to take a vacation
to Disney World, let alone a faroff distant land.
So when I listened to my colleagues, I could not help but ask myself
the question, What have we done and what have they done to make sure
that this country does not hemorrhage jobs? And then I heard the
astounding argument that I did not think I would be hearing again since
our President made it not long ago, in that there is something right
about outsourcing jobs; that is there is something right about,
according to my colleagues on the other side, about being able to make
a call in Maryland for a Maryland service and possibly ending up with
an operator
[[Page H3712]]
somewhere in India or in some far distant land because jobs have been
outsourced.
I would simply come to this floor, Mr. Speaker, and say that it is
time for us to change the leadership in this country, because the jobs
they talk about having been lost are jobs that did not have to be lost.
Over and over again members of the Congressional Black Caucus have come
to this floor and talked about so many issues with regard to jobs, with
regard to education; and then I hear my colleagues talking about
lifelong learning. And I shall comment in a moment on what this
administration proposes to do, and that basically is to cut back on the
very training that they say that their constituents need after they
lose the jobs; but, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that something is
awfully wrong with the picture that they paint.
Unfortunately, America has suffered and America's people have
suffered tremendously over the course of the last 3\1/2\ years. So we
ask the question tonight as a Nation, Are we better off today than we
were 4 years ago? This question may sound familiar to you. If you will
recall, it is the same question that former President Ronald Reagan
posed to the Nation during his 1980 run for the Presidency. Now, I must
admit that although I probably would not agree with President Reagan on
many things, I definitely agree that Americans must assess whether or
not their government is working for them; and if not, they must figure
out what to do about that.
I would submit that if government is not working, we should have
commonsense solutions. In an employee-employer relationship, if the
employee is not doing the job, he or she is fired. And I would submit
this evening that we need to look at that course for this
administration, and it is our plan to lay out our case tonight.
Mr. Speaker, we should never forget that this is still the people's
government. We are public servants of the American people. It is no
accident that the first line of the Constitution reads ``We the
people.'' And it is no accident that the people's money funds the
operation of our government. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this Congress, led by
Republicans in both bodies, has failed to fully provide for the people
in every single way that matters.
As stewards of the government's purse, my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have run up deficits and debt to the highest levels
ever. At the same time, on issues from education to health care to the
cost of basic goods and services, the average American is worse off
under this administration than they were 4 years ago. And now, Mr.
Speaker, the administration is already making plans for further cuts in
services to the American people for the next fiscal year.
We have often said on this floor that we understand and are
definitely committed to our troops, but we also are committed to having
a balanced approach to the problems of this country and the problems of
the world. There is absolutely no doubt that anyone using common sense
would make sure that you protect yourself from outside forces. I would
agree with that, and I think most of my colleagues, if not all in the
Congressional Black Caucus, would, as would probably all 435 Members of
this Congress. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have to balance
that and make sure that the people in this country are taken care of
too.
In other words, what good does it do to go outside of this country
and defend this country and go to Iraq and go to Afghanistan seeking
out the terrorists while at the same time the very people that we are
supposed to be making sure that they have benefited are falling by the
wayside. In other words, our children. I have often said our children
are the living messages we send to a future we will never see.
But as I listened to my colleagues on the other side a few moments
ago, it is interesting they never talked about the fact that children
are indeed being left behind every day and every moment of the day.
While they talk quite a bit about how great the No Child Left Behind
legislation is, and I would agree with them to a degree that it is good
legislation, and if I recall correctly most Members of this Congress
voted for that legislation. It was pretty much a bipartisan effort. But
the thing they did not mention is that it has been substantially
underfunded.
If you go to any school district throughout this country, you will
talk to teachers and you talk to people who are on the front line, and
they will tell you that this underfunding has caused great grief and
has put them and State and local governments in a very bad position.
I saw a recent Washington Post article revealed a secret White House
budget memorandum which detailed severe cuts in a range of Federal
programs that are essential to the lives of millions of Americans.
Everything from Head Start, again talking about children, and
homeownership programs, to Department of Veterans Affairs, yes, I said
the Department of Veterans Affairs. And if I might just put a footnote
here, here we are with the President just dedicating America's World
War II memorial the other day, yet still the Department of Veterans
Affairs is on the chopping block if this administration is reelected in
November.
It is not about what is said; it is about what is being done. I would
ask the American people to keep their eye on what is being done, not
what is being said. And after celebrating Memorial Day and honoring our
veterans, I cannot imagine how some people in this town could even
propose to cut veterans benefits.
On Memorial Day, when I had an opportunity to talk to so many of the
veterans in my district, one of their number one complaints was that
they are not able to get the kind of medical care now that they need.
They cannot even get the medical care for their spouses. And these are
men and women who have given so much to their country believing that
there would come a time that they would be able to get the type of
benefits that they needed.
But this administration, while making wonderful, wonderful speeches
at the new World War II memorial, at the same time is cutting benefits.
It is unconscionable to think that the men and women who served this
country would have to endure their elected officials turning their
backs on them when they return home and need services.
And so it is, Mr. Speaker, that we have a situation where this
administration has decreased Federal revenues, raised deficits through
poor policy decisions, and is now telling the American people that they
must sacrifice their children's educations or veterans benefits to pay
for it all. Something is glaringly wrong with this picture when we ask
our elderly veterans to take a cut, when we ask our children, now that
it is their chance to get an education through Head Start and other
programs that will support them and allow them to be all that God meant
for them to be, it is simply not right that we would cut those things
that would help our children get to where they have to go and cut the
things that would help our veterans not only survive but thrive and
live meaningful lives.
Mr. Speaker, I think the American people must put all of this in
context of the budget conference that recently passed this House of
Representatives. In order to pay for the President's prized tax cuts
and to get the most political gain, this House agreed to a budget
resolution that only extended out for 1 year. Traditionally, Congress
considers budgets that take into account 10 years' worth of Federal
spending. But knowing that a 10-year estimate would reveal their fiscal
mismanagement, this administration and the Republicans in Congress
chose to pass a 1-year budget that would mask the true cost of the tax
cuts, a poorly crafted Medicare bill, and the war in Iraq.
Over and over again, members of the Congressional Black Caucus have
come to the floor and not asked the American people but begged them to
look at what was happening in this Congress and look at what this White
House is doing and use a very simple commonsense measuring tool, and
that measuring tool would simply be how, if you had a similar
circumstance in your home, how would you handle that.
In other words, if you had an increase in problems in your home, if
you had emergencies in your home, would you then go to your employer
and say cut my pay? Well, basically, that is what has happened here.
Here we have a war in Afghanistan, here we have a war in Iraq, here we
have also a situation where we now have to have something
[[Page H3713]]
called homeland security; and so our costs are increasing to the tune
of $25 billion, the most recent request from the President. But at the
same time, the President makes a decision, and my Republican colleagues
agree, to cut taxes on the richest of the rich. Something is simply
wrong with that picture.
{time} 2245
There are many people that sit and they say to themselves, it is good
that I get my money back, and I can understand that, but one of the
things that we have to realize is that most of the middle class get
very few funds back on this tax cut. The fact is that we have a
situation where in Maryland, for example, those middle-class folks who
got a tax cut of maybe $600, $700, they saw the tuition of their
students at State colleges go up some 30 percent in some instances. In
Baltimore, sewer taxes have gone up, and there are proposed taxes with
regard to property. So taxes are going up. They are also seeing that
their services are lessened because there is not as much money coming
through the State coffers.
So the question is: Is this a shell game or what? Is it a shell game
that on the Federal level you tell me I am getting a tax cut and at the
same time tax cuts are taking place for the richest of the rich? The
fact still remains that services are reduced.
Mr. Speaker, the American people should truly take a look at their
household finances and their general well-being and ask themselves, is
my family better off now than we were 4 years ago? I would submit that
they would have to answer no. Further, will the Nation be better off 4
years from now if we continue on our current course? I would guess that
the average American would answer no to both of these questions.
In 2 days the Department of Labor will release its monthly
unemployment situation report. For the good of the country, I hope the
numbers reflect a positive change in the unemployment situation. But,
regardless, we cannot allow ourselves to forget about the unemployed
people that those numbers represent. I have often said that so often
what we do is we look at statistics, and we get so caught up in numbers
that we forget that there are faces and there are families behind those
statistics.
Although the President and others in this administration are
traveling the country touting job growth, we cannot allow ourselves to
forget that the economy has yet to create a single net job under this
administration, not one, no, not one.
So I ask, Mr. Speaker, what should all of the millions of people who
have lost jobs, the 150,000 workers who are joining the workforce every
month and the college graduates, like the ones I spoke to recently at
Shaw University and Carnegie Mellon University, do to find work in an
economy that has not created a single job since January, 2001? Real
people, Mr. Speaker, are struggling to supply the most basic needs to
their families and continue to pound the pavement every day in
desperate search of a job.
If I were to ask the more than 120,000 unemployed people in my home
State of Maryland if they are better off than they were 4 years ago, I
believe the overwhelming majority would probably say no. Not only are
they without work, but this administration continues to cut the social
services that are supporting their very survival.
Mr. Speaker, if you look closely, you will find that among the 2006
cuts that the administration is secretly planning to make are job
training and small business programs. As I listened to my colleagues a
few minutes ago on the other side talk about retraining people for jobs
when they lose a job, I wonder if they are communicating with this
White House which is, at the same time as they are talking about trying
to train people for jobs, here we have a White House that is submitting
a budget to literally cut the training from underneath those people who
are unfortunate to lose their jobs. It is counterproductive and,
frankly, disingenuous to talk about job creation publicly yet cut every
program that will create jobs when no one is looking.
So, Mr. Speaker, as I conclude, I must say tonight that something is
wrong with this picture. Our President continually talks about being a
compassionate conservative, but, as many people have said, the only
people he seems to show compassion to are conservatives. Everyone else
just simply seems to be out of luck and out in the cold.
Mr. Speaker, the American people cannot afford 4 more years of this
President. For one, our country will be bankrupt and the domestic
programs that are the life-line for tens of millions of Americans, not
just African Americans but all Americans, will be decimated. This is a
risk we simply cannot take. This is a risk we simply cannot afford.
That is why, just as we saw yesterday in South Dakota and all across
this country, Americans are exercising their civic duty to vote. We saw
record numbers of people coming out during the Democratic primaries.
Why? Because they are frustrated, and they want a change. They are the
ones, as they march to the voting booth, who have already answered the
question, am I better off today than I was 3.5 years ago, and they are
saying, no. They are saying, yes, I will vote.
They ask themselves another question as they walk into the voting
booth, and that is, will we be better off if we ask this question 4
years from now than we are today? And I think clearly their answer is
no. I believe that after January 20, 2005, there will be new leadership
in the House of Representatives, the United States Senate and 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. This new leadership will take charge to put
America back on track, will take charge to put America back to work. It
will take charge to make sure that our children, whose gifts are
already wrapped up in them, have an opportunity to display their gifts
and be all that God meant for them to be. They will take charge to make
sure that college students have an opportunity to get an education and
that the Pell Grants that now have level funded, basically, are
expanded so that young people can have their opportunity.
In closing, I am always reminded that we just celebrated the 50th
anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. I will never forget a young
lady named Kayla from the John P. Sousa School when she came before one
of our programs celebrating Brown. She came with some very simple
words, but they were very profound. Here was this little girl standing
on her tiptoes, very frail but very healthy.
She stood up, and she said my name is Kayla. She said I am a student
at the John P. Sousa School here in Washington, D.C. She said 50 years
ago my school was segregated, and she said today my school is
segregated. She said 50 years ago my school was all white, and then she
said, 50 years later, my school is 98 percent African American and 2
percent Hispanic. She said I have seen the pictures of my school, the
John P. Sousa Middle School, from 50 years ago. She said it was a
beautiful place, one of the most beautiful places I have ever seen. She
said now it is much different.
Her words were so piercing and left almost everybody in the room in
tears when she said this. She said, today, when I go to school, I have
no library because the adults tell us we cannot afford a librarian, so
we have no library. She said I have had an opportunity to look at a few
books in the place they call a library, and I noticed that many of them
are the same books which existed on the shelves back in 1951.
She went on to say that so often she comes to school and it is damp
because rain is coming through the roof. She talked about the bathrooms
and how she refused to go so often and waited until she got home to
relieve herself because the bathrooms were in such bad shape.
But then she asked the question which I think we must all confront.
She said, as adults, I just ask you to do this. It is now my chance to
get an education. It is my chance to have a decent childhood. It is
your responsibility to provide me with that so that I can grow up to be
who I want to be.
So it is not just the Kaylas of the world who suffer. It is our
veterans. It is our students. It is all of those people who simply want
an opportunity to get across a bridge that will allow them to turn back
and help others across the bridge of this great society. Mr. Speaker,
we cannot continue to cut the services to them and at the same time cut
the taxes for the richest of the rich.
[[Page H3714]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), who
has worked so hard on these issues and has been constantly at the
forefront of trying to make sure that we do have balance in our
country, trying to make sure that we deal with our economy, that we
deal with our welfare with regard to this country in a balanced
approach, but at the same time one who sits on the Committee on Armed
Services and makes sure that our soldiers are supplied with the kinds
of equipment that they need, that they are given the kinds of uniforms
and the kind of support that they need.
I applaud the gentleman for his many, many efforts. Not only has he
been at the forefront of our domestic issues and certainly those with
regard to war, but he has also been one who has stood up over and over
again with regard to peace and that is trying to bring peace to a
foreign land called Haiti. The gentleman has spent countless hours in
that country meeting with people, trying to make sure that humanitarian
assistance is brought to those 8 million people who suffer.
Recently, the gentleman has spent a phenomenal amount of time trying
to make sure that those flood victims in Haiti get the kinds of
supplies that they need. A true leader and a true friend, I yield to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those
very kind words. It is always an honor to address not only the U.S.
House of Representatives but the American people.
I think it is very important when the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings) was talking about many of the issues happening to Americans
versus for Americans, and I think it is important that we speak from
the position of fact, not fiction.
What we are talking about here is actually fact. This is the
President's budget that he has put forth. This House on the majority
side has passed a budget that in some instances undercut the
President's budget. I thought tonight I would share with the American
people some of the things that have taken place in this budget that is
really jeopardizing our national security.
I think it is very, very important for this time after Attorney
General Ashcroft had his famous press conference last week unveiling
potential terrorist attacks on our country, possibly these terrorists
could be in the continental United States, information that even the
Department of Justice admits that they have known for the last 30 days,
30 days prior to that but failed to share with the American people.
Also at that press conference, I thought it was very interesting, we
have the largest Federal agency in the history of the Republic and the
history of the world called the Department of Homeland Security. I
thought it was something fundamentally wrong. I am looking at this
great announcement taking place, and there was no Secretary Tom Ridge
at the Department of Homeland Security because he did not know that
this press conference was taking place.
I will share with Members that Homeland Security is a very, very
important agency in communicating with local government, giving them
the kinds of direction and intelligence that they need to be able to
fight the fight on the front end. We call it Homeland Security. I would
say front-line security when it comes down to cities and counties and
even all of the way down to the school boards of things that they have
to do to protect the citizenry in their area.
But I can tell Members that the budget as we look at it and look at
the COPS program that the President has cut, words are inadequate to
even describe it.
{time} 2300
The cut in the COPS Program, which is the community policing program
that so many Americans appreciate, so many young lives have been
diverted from a life of crime, so many crimes have been prevented in
local communities and States, all to have enough money to be able to
allow individuals that are making an enormous amount of money to get a
larger tax cut, I think that is unfair. I think it is unfair to our men
and women that are wearing blue; I think it is unfair to firefighters
that are out there where the fire program was cut. We are opening fire
stations in Iraq, but we are closing fire stations in New York City. I
think it is important as we say that we honor our first responders,
that we do not dishonor them by cutting the very funding that they are
looking for.
The Firefighter Grant program was cut by $246 million. That is a lot
of money, Mr. Speaker. It was cut for the sake of making sure that
individuals that are well, well, well off have an opportunity to
receive their tax cut. Then, on top of that, they try to make it
permanent.
Also when you look at local law enforcement, for State and local law
enforcement, also $959 million was slashed from the budget by the
President. As we look at interoperability, when I used to be a State
trooper in Florida, sometimes you would show up on an emergency scene
and you will have a city or county law enforcement officer there. Many
times, because in my particular area we had what we call
interoperability, we were able to talk to one another to be able to
save lives. Now this has been cut out of the budget.
In so many places in America, they do not have that opportunity to be
able to talk to one another. In this time of terrorist threat and
living under this new threat that we have right now of individuals
possibly being on U.S. soil, individuals that wake up and go to bed
every night with the thought in their mind and their heart that they
want to carry out some level of harm to an American, no matter who you
are, if you are a woman or you are a man or you are a minority or you
are not a minority, if you are Native American, as long as you are an
American, there are people that wake up in this world and in the
continental United States saying, how can I carry out terror on these
individuals? How can I disrupt their lives?
So these cuts that are being made, we are not just talking about
school lunch programs. That is important. We are not just talking about
hopefully trying to get a health care plan that the 43 million people
without health care can have health care one day, affordable health
care. That is important. Medicare, being able to make sure that we have
an affordable prescription drug program that works for the individuals
that need it versus for the individuals that are making the drugs. That
is important.
But I will tell you what is very important is to make sure that we do
not see a disruption in the way that we live our lives day in and day
out. And the way this White House, and then the Congress, turned
around, the majority turned around and even made it worse in cutting
the very programs and the very funding that local governments need.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we are clear on this,
because I want to make sure the American people understand what I am
saying. If a terrorist was to carry out or attempt to carry out an act
in your local town, community or city or State, Members of Congress are
not going to run down there and try to take care of things. It is going
to be that first responder. It is going to be that police officer, it
is going to be that firefighter, it is going to be that paramedic, it
is going to be the individuals working in the hospitals, it is going to
be the nurse that you look at every day, the doctors that you look at
every day that will respond to that act.
Guess what? If they do not have the equipment to respond
appropriately, if they do not even have the radio equipment to be able
to communicate with a number of agencies that they must communicate
with, to be able to hopefully contain the situation or prevent it, the
penny will outweigh the pound in that instance.
So one wonders why the law enforcement community has found themselves
running to Senator John Kerry for support or help. They are running
there because they do not see it in the budget. They do not see what we
are saying in the budget reflecting our real purpose here and making
sure that they have what they need.
This hits right here, because I was a State trooper for 5 years; and
I will tell you, equipment is important, to be able to not only make
sure I was able to go home to my family, but to make sure that many
others, from the State I am
[[Page H3715]]
from, Floridians, were able to go home to see their families. If I did
not have what I needed to protect them and prevent crime or accidents
or what have you, then it is for naught.
Now, let us look at this. When we cut the budget here, Mr. Speaker,
it is a trickle-down effect. It is something we call here in Washington
``devolution of taxation.'' We say, well, we will cut your taxes here.
We will send you a $32 check in the mail, and maybe you can go out and
get a Number 2 or Number 3 at Burger King or McDonald's for you and the
kids. But in reality we are passing that down to the State government.
I have shared this on the floor before in the past, but I want to
make sure the American people understand what is happening right now in
real time. It goes down to the State, your local State. The State does
not have the prerogative that we have.
We have the opportunity to take out a credit card, swipe it and just
put it on the Federal debt, which I must say right now, Mr. Speaker, is
the largest debt in the history of the Republic, in the history of this
country.
I am not proud of that debt, and we did not get there by providing
the dollars that we provided, minimum dollars we provided to local and
State law enforcement to say we are putting it out there and we have
given some money here and there and had a couple of check presentations
on your local television station.
But this debt came from the tax cuts for the very wealthy individuals
in this country. This debt came from going into war unplanned, which I
must say you pull out Time magazine and the individuals that are
writing about this and have been following what has been going on in
Iraq, and read about mistake after mistake after mistake that have cost
American lives, that have cost the taxpayers money. We called ourselves
going with the willing. We went with individuals that we helped fund to
make it to Iraq.
For those individuals that have served, rotated in and out of Iraq,
those individuals that are watching us right now missing a limb, have
facial scars from shrapnel, those individuals' families that are
watching that never made it back, we honor and appreciate them every
time we get an opportunity.
But there are some individuals that are in suits and ties that are
making decisions that are not only sending this country into further
debt as it relates to the effort in Iraq, but also because we did it
the way we did it, did not provide the troops with the very things that
they needed, going back to equipment and going back to following up on
our responsibility of making sure that they have the equipment that
they need, the armor that they need, of making sure these Humvees have
armor around the doors, making sure we are able to head off these bombs
that are detonated by cellular phones, we are just catching up.
It was a DOD report that said almost 25-plus percent of the injuries
that took place could have been avoided if they had what they needed.
So when you hear individuals, and I heard the chairman speak when we
started talking about devolution of taxation, and I just wanted to go
there with the troops for a moment so that individuals know this is not
just local government, this is throughout the Federal Government, that
when it goes down to the State, they have to balance the budget.
And how do they balance it? Well, they cut the resources they would
ordinarily give to taxpayers and your local city or town. So when that
happens, that means that the local government, they have to turn to the
family. That is where the buck really stops.
Think about it in your community. How many bond referendums have
taken place recently to be able to raise money to run your schools or
build your schools?
{time} 2310
How many opportunities where someone has said, well, you know, we no
longer have the feeding program for your grandmother or your aunt or
even yourself who is watching right now; we had to cut that because the
funding ran out.
Let me tell my colleagues, there was a lot of money to work with
before the President took office. We were around here, Congress was
around here talking about how are we going to spend, how are we going
to manage and spend appropriately the surplus, of making sure that we
are able to make sure that Social Security was not bankrupt, make sure
that we are able to get a health care plan, where we do not have
individuals that are punching in and punching out every day at work,
working the midnight shift, some working two jobs and still do not have
affordable health care. How do we help small businesses provide that
health care to individuals? How do we help our young people prepare
themselves to be able to be our leaders and Members of Congress and
business owners in the future? How do we do that?
How do we make sure that we raise the education commitment from the
Federal Government to the State government and local governments to
make sure that we have a quality early childhood education program? How
do we make sure that every troop who goes into a theater of war to put
his and her life on the line, every Reservist that goes on active duty,
how do we make sure that they have the equipment that they need to be
able to defend this country; the very freedom that veterans have
provided us right now, the democracy that we live under, the flag that
we stand under? How do we make sure that those individuals are not sent
in? And we are saying we are right behind you and we continue to drop
more and more back as we look at show me the money. Show me the
commitment. Show me that you are going to stand with me.
We have individuals right now, and this is not the Kendrick Meek
report, you can read about it, you can ask a Reservist, you can ask
someone who has gone into theater. Yes, they used to write letters and
asked to be sent cake or sent candy or sent a picture. Now they are
writing letters back home saying, send me a bullet-proof vest. Send me
something for my radio. Send me some duct tape because I am having to
make sure for my uniform. Send me an extra pair of pants. Send me a
cap. Go down to the Army Navy store and buy this canteen for me.
Mr. Speaker, individuals are sleeping right now with sand in their
teeth. The last thing that they should have to do and the last thing
that their loved ones should have to do is to have to worry about
equipment. But, better yet, when the question is asked, who is paying
on some level or experiencing some sacrifice with what these men and
women are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting the war against
terrorism, trying to set forth a democracy in Iraq?
So I think it is important, I say to my colleagues, that we remember
that it is not all about press conferences and talking about how we
support the troops. On this floor, every time something flares up in
Iraq, someone wants to put forth a resolution supporting the troops. We
support the troops. The troops know we support them. We do not have to
every time something flares up, well, let us divert, let us see who is
going to vote to support the troops and who does not support the
troops. Supporting the troops is making sure the troops have what they
need. And as we look at it right now, I say to my colleagues, they do
not, and we are still talking about how we can get more of them there.
So, Mr. Speaker, as I wrap up, I just want to say that what this
administration has done has not been a proper response to a post-9/11
experience. Harvard University had former Senator Sam Nunn, who is an
outstanding patriot and a member of the Committee on Armed Services for
many years in the other body, well-respected from Georgia, and they had
an opportunity to look at nuclear weapons and what is the picture right
now? What has happened in the last 4 years? We secured more nuclear
stockpiles 2 years prior to 9/11 than we did 2 years after 9/11. And
what we are hearing publicly from the CIA, they are more concerned
about a nuclear weapon coming on a freighter or a container that can
shut down the economy in New York or Miami or any of these major port
cities, Los Angeles or one of the 361 ports we have here in this
country, but, better yet, they are more accessible.
So it is important. This is serious business when we start talking
about national security. It is serious business when we start talking
about men and women in a forward area, and it is very serious when it
comes down to the fact
[[Page H3716]]
that we are making tax cuts permanent for individuals that are out
buying Hummers and things of that nature, out with major disposable
income saying that we are hurting and we need another tax cut; better
yet, we need to make it permanent in the light of cutting the Federal
commitment to State government, cutting the Federal commitment to local
government, cutting the Federal commitment to local schools, cutting
the Federal commitment to our troops when it comes down to what they
need.
So someone can get on the floor and they can go and talk for 2 or 3
hours talking about how much they love the troops, but it is not
reflected in the budget, and it is not reflected as it relates to the
equipment that they need on the ground there.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is very appropriate that we share
with the American people every week that this is not a Democrat, a
Republican, or an independent issue. This is an American issue. This is
an issue that Americans are fed up with, this continued lack of
responsibility when it comes down to the Federal commitment to their
local, State and local government.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his excellent
statement. I am going to sum up and just reemphasize some of the things
that he has said.
I think a Thursday, May 27, article by Jonathan Wiseman of the
Washington Post, I just want to quote part of it, and the gentleman may
have a comment on it. But the gentleman started off by talking about
how real, we have to deal with real facts. And the gentleman said that
the fact is that the President does submit a budget, and so we speak
from that budget tonight and its devastating effect on so many
Americans.
I had spoken earlier about the fact that this budget affects so many
of our young people. I just want to quote from Mr. Wiseman's article.
He says, ``The Women, Infants and Children nutrition program was funded
at $4.7 billion for the fiscal year beginning in October, enough to
serve the 7.9 million people expected to be eligible.'' But he goes on
to say, ``In 2006, the program would be cut by $122 million.'' He says,
``Head Start, the early childhood education program for the poor, will
lose $177 million, or 2.5 percent of its budget, in fiscal year 2006.
The $78 million funding increase that Bush has touted for homeownership
programs in 2005 would be nearly reversed in 2006 with a $53 million
cut. The National Institutes of Health spending would be cut 2.1
percent in 2006 to $28 billion after a $764 million increase for
2005.'' That brought the NIH budget to $28.6 billion.
``Finally, a subject that is near and dear to all of us: homeland
security. A centerpiece of the Bush reelection campaign,'' says Mr.
Wiseman, ``would be affected. Funding would slip in 2006 by $1 billion
to $29.6 billion, although that would still be considerably higher than
the $26.6 billion devoted to that field in 2004, according to an
analysis of the computer printout put out by the House Committee on the
Budget Democrats.''
So we have this situation where we are simply talking about balance,
and we have often said, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, let
us deal with the Nation's problems like we would deal with our most
serious family problems.
Basically, what we have called for was common sense, understanding
that whenever we have a family problem, we pause, we analyze the
situation, we are flexible, we come up with solutions that are
appropriate for the problem.
{time} 2320
I seriously question whether or not we are dealing with solutions
appropriate to the problem, because everything seems to be out of
balance. And so it is tonight, the Congressional Black Caucus comes and
simply says that we are looking for balance. Yes, we must address the
issue of terrorism. Every single one of us never wants to see planes
flying into any building. None of us want to see chemical weapons
released out into places where they could do harm. We do not want that.
We want to fight terrorism, but at the same time we fully understand
that we have got to make sure that we take care of the people here in
the United States.
And if I have to say it a million times, I will say it over and over
again, so often when people hear members of the Congressional Black
Caucus or even hear the words ``Congressional Black Caucus'' they
assume that we are only talking about and for African American people.
And, ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you that the people that
we speak for are Americans, no matter what their color may be. We want
to make sure that every American has the opportunity to be all that God
meant for them to be.
One of the things that I often say, as I yield to my friend, is that
when I get up in the morning, after I pray for myself and my family, I
ask God to give us as a Congress, give us the opportunities and the
wisdom and the discernment to increase our constituents' opportunities
to be blessed so that they can live the best lives that they can.
And so that is what this is all about. Not only our constituents, but
as we well know, what we do in this body not only affects the
constituents in our district, the constituents in our country, but, I
would submit, our constituents of the world. It is not just limited to
this country.
Mr. Speaker, I would now yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the
gentleman is 110 percent right. I am so glad you shared the article
with the American people and the Congress.
Today I wore the World War II pin they gave us when we were there at
the dedication. I went with my uncle, King Pitman, and my mother,
Congresswoman Carrie Meek. It was a very proud moment in their
lifetime, the experience of the time of World War II. My uncle is a
Korean veteran and he is a part of the VA. He is injured. He is
disabled. He is in a wheelchair. I could not help but look at the other
patriots that were out there. They asked for all the veterans to stand
up and those that could stand, they stood. Some just put their hand up
because they could not stand. These are the individuals that fought
such a wonderful, wonderful war on behalf of our freedom. There was a
lot going on during that war. There was a lot going on in Congress
during that war.
But I will tell my colleague this, that I could not help but think on
that day we did honor them. And, yes, they were without a place in our
Mall for their service. And now they have a memorial that is
outstanding. And I commend those that put forth the private sector
dollars and also the Members that put forth the legislation to make
that happen.
But I could not help but think the reality on Tuesday morning that if
they went to the VA the line and the wait would have been almost as
long when it comes down to health care as it took for them to be
recognized by this country.
I will tell you this: we say that we love them, we say that we
appreciate them, but when it comes down to being able to provide just
the simple health care that they were promised, they have to wait weeks
and months. VA hospitals are being closed throughout this country. And
we are adding more and more veterans as we fight this effort in the
gulf, as we fight this effort in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Horn of
Africa. More and more veterans are being added to the rolls. I will
tell you if veterans are having it hard now, I will tell you, if this
Congress, if the American people do not do what they need to do in
November to make sure that we have leadership in this House, that we
have leadership in the White House, and that we have leadership in the
other body that is going to set that as a priority, that we need to
make sure that these veterans get what they deserve. And that is
respect, number one, and to make sure that they get the health care
that they were promised when they signed up. They did not sign up to
wait in line, especially every day.
My son, we have an American flag outside of our house in Miami. It
flies. We keep the light on it. We make sure no matter what is going on
in the world that we appreciate and we honor their patriotism and we
honor this country. But it is just a sad commentary that we can go and
say, fine, you are a wealthy individual, and I am not upset with
individuals being wealthy, maybe one day I can maybe in another life.
But when we have veterans that are waiting in the lines and
[[Page H3717]]
not receiving the kind of health care that they deserve and not being
appreciated in the way they should be appreciated, I think we can do
better things with that money to be able to make sure that we honor
them.
I thank my colleague for allowing me to be here tonight. I look
forward to the Congressional Black Caucus continuing to come to the
floor to share with the American people about what is going on under
the dome here in Washington D.C.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again for his
leadership. The gentleman has been here for less than 2 years now, but
has made a tremendous impact on so many of us. We are very proud of his
leadership.
As we close, Mr. Speaker, I assume we have about a minute, let me
just say this, that the gentleman did make a point that I want to
reemphasize. We want to make sure we have a strong military. But young
people, if they are listening to what we are saying and they are
informed, a lot of times young people will go into the military, they
are looking forward, they have a vision of their future, and they want
to serve this country, they want to give it their best; but they also
look beyond their service. They are saying what benefits will come to
me? What benefits will come to my family? So I think probably one of
the best recruiting tools for a strong military is for us to keep our
commitment.
When they see their grandfathers doing what the gentleman just said,
waiting in long lines for their relatives and friends, that does not
say very much for us.
So I think as we are in this war and as we stand up for our soldiers,
we must also stand up for our veterans.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. The gentleman is 110 percent right. Veterans
should not get the voice mail when they call the VA. They should get
the person that is going to treat them the way that they should be
treated and make sure they are scheduled for whatever appointment they
need in a reasonable time and not wait 3 or 4 months just to see an
optometrist.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I think it is very appropriate that we end on that
note, Mr. Speaker, a note about the people we just spent a day saluting
and letting them know how much we love them; but now it is not only
time to salute them and tell them that we love them but it is also time
to make sure that we do for them as they have been promised.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise as Member and First
Vice Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus to warn our great nation.
The current Administration--one that has made promises, one that has
amassed tremendous debt, and one that has gotten us into a war and
subsequent occupation that can be characterized as a financial abyss
has put government agencies on notice this month that if reelected, the
2006 budget may include cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of
domestic programs, including education and homeland security.
In the Administration's ``accidental'' memorandum proposing potential
budget cuts fails to realize that when cuts are made across the board,
vulnerabilities are created in each area, and we then have a homeland
security problem.
A Washington Post article (May 27, 2004, Page A01) entitled ``2006
Cuts in Domestic Spending on Table,'' a budget analyst at the
conservative Heritage Foundation tried to rationalize the
Administration's proposed 2006 cuts in stating, ``I think the public is
ready for spending cuts . . . not only does the public understand [sic]
there's a whole lot of waste in the federal budget. However, the public
is ready to make sacrifices during the war on terror.'' There is
something troubling about that statement, something that is endemic to
the entire Administration. The public's supposed willingness to
sacrifice is obviously in respect of the need to conserve and enhance
our domestic homeland security policy. Why on earth would the public
not want to spend more money on improved homeland security? National
Institutes of Health (NIH) spending would be cut 2.1% in 2006, to $28
billion, after a $764 million increase for 2005 that brought the NIH
budget to $28.6 billion. We won't be worrying about improving our
biodefense programs, apparently.
This is good news, bad news situation. The good news is that
President Bush has hurt his chances of being elected again by letting
people know that, if he is reelected, his budget for 2006 will include
spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic
programs, including education, homeland security and others that the
President backed in his campaign year. That will hurt his chances of
being reelected. The bad news is that if he is reelected, his budget
for 2006 will include spending cuts for virtually all agencies in
charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and
others that the President backed in his campaign year.
J.T. Young, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and
Budget, said in a memo that, ``Agencies have asked for this sort of
direction.'' Maybe that is true, but the rest of us didn't ask for such
a negative policy. We need domestic programs, including education,
homeland security, and others that the President backed in his campaign
year.
The funding levels referred to in the memo would be a tiny slice out
of the federal budget--$2.3 billion, or 0.56 percent, out of the $412.7
billion requested for fiscal 2005 for domestic programs and homeland
security that is subject to Congress's annual discretion. It will not
offset the enormous expense of the war in Iraq, an expense that we
cannot even begin to estimate. But it will hurt the American people. We
depend on these programs.
I am amazed by some of the items on his chopping block: The Education
Department; a nutrition program for women, infants and children; Head
Start; and homeownership, job-training, medical research and science
programs all face cuts in 2006. This is very difficult to understand.
It also bothers me that the administration may have to make cuts in
key government services to pay for the tax cuts that have gone to the
wealthy members of our society. But with the budget deficit exceeding
$400 billion this year, tough and painful cuts are unavoidable, said
Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage
Foundation, and this may be true. As I have said in the area of
immigration law, we need to work together to solve our problems. If we
have to cut expenses, the decision on what should be cut needs to be
made on a bipartisan basis.
Another approach to offsetting our deficit would make more sense to
me. We presently have between 8 and 14 million undocumented aliens
living in the shadows of our society. If we brought them out of the
shadows and made it possible for them to obtain good employment, they
could contribute to our ability to pay off the deficit with the income
taxes that they would pay.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving us time to discuss these important
issues.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________